Reproduced with permission from the Editor of The Structural Engineer

Another ‘Rob Rieder reports…’ has appeared in The Structural Engineer more than doubling my previous column inches. This time I reported on a debate organised by the Tuesday Group (currently co-chair) titled ‘The Institution has no relevance to young engineers.’ I scribbled down a tome of notes during the debate but wished I had a dictaphone as my notes were incomplete and often hard to read. It was held in a proper pub.

The report is part of a ‘education and training special’ edition of the magazine. Other interesting articles include Keeping graduates in the profession, Lessons to attract primary school pupils to engineering, Educating future engineers, and Recruitment: fighting the war for talent.

What follows is my final draft of the report although I suspect there are minor edits compared to the published edition. As with the first report I did for this magazine I had substantial help from the editor.

Rob Rieder reports on the recent debate of the Western Counties Branch’s young members group, the Tuesday Group: ‘The Institution has no relevance to young engineers’

Held in a ‘proper’ Bath pub, the debate was organised to voice some members concerns about the relevance of the Institution to young engineers. Many issues, often interrelated, were discussed by the panel and the audience.
The debate boasted an impressive collection of engineers in attendance: Michael Dickson (CBE, Past President, IStructE) as chair; Tom Newby (Buro Happold) and Mark Lovell (Mark Lovell Design Eingeers) who spoke for the motion and Alice Ward (Chair, Young Members’ Panel) and Phil Williams (Director, Communications and Practice) who spoke against the motion. The audience included Prof. Blockley (Past President), Prof. Barnes, Richard Cheek and Martin Ashmead.
Tom Newby said that the Institution concentrates on gaining chartered status and has no visibility to young engineers (with a few regional exceptions). It does not address issues of pay, recognition, or protection of the term ‘engineer’. It has, he said, failed to represent engineers effectively at government level. He was critical of the lack of profile given to young engineers, pointing out that the ‘Young Members Panel’ web pages have not been updated since May 2003. He acknowledged, however, that many of his criticisms would apply equally well to other institutions.
Alice Ward’s starting point against the motion was: ‘What if there was no IStructE?’ She stressed the importance of chartered status to clients; the high standards set by the Institution; its accreditation of university courses, dictating the core subjects we learn; free membership to students including the Journal; career advice and support. She added that the IStructE organises competitions and offers travel scholarships, concluding: ‘Young members are important, they are the future’.
Mark Lovell, replying for the motion, said that all institutions have falling numbers, and declining recognition in society. The pace of change is accelerating and the Institution has a communication problem. Students need to feel they are progressing into something that is recognised – status is important. He said that senior engineers need to get into society and politics. And students must want change – they should get involved and tell the Institution what they want. The issue of pay is important: pay structures are stronger in America and Germany than in the UK. He said that the Institution must become commercially aware, so that government would take more notice of them – as it does of doctors.
Phil Williams, replying against the motion, said the Institution is the members, and that they were its future. The Institution offered a whole package of useful things: IPD; CPD; professional support; a rigorous qualifying process which is recognised worldwide; high standards. He stressed that the Institution is a learned society, and as a charity is restricted in what it can do. For example IStructE cannot directly affect fees or it would be in trouble with The Office of Fair Trading. He told the meeting that the Institution has recently carried out a Members’ Survey, the first for a long time, which will help it to understand what members want. We can expect improvements to the Journal, the website and in IStructE’s role in maintaining standards. The survey showed that 97% of respondents are proud to be a member and that 96% value IStructE qualifications. Mr Williams pointed out that, unlike most other engineering institution’s, IStructE’s membership is growing. Finally he said the Institution is employing a communications specialist to assist with future strategy, that he welcomed change and wanted the IStructE to be fit for the next 100 years.
In the ensuing debate, Tom Newby pointed out that charities can set up special units, for example to lobby government, noting that not all structures require a chartered structural engineer to sign them off.
By way of explaining the lack of political involvement by engineers, Phil Williams suggested that many politicians were doctors or lawyers and thus responded to their own professional interests. Engineers have never had trade unions but this will change.
Michael Dickson explained that there is a group of engineering institutions (the G15 Group) which meets monthly and influences government through a parliamentary advisor.
From the floor the first question asked was: ‘What does the Institution offer to make graduates choose IStructE membership over ICE (Institution of Civil Engineers), when the pass rate for ICE is 80% whereas that of IStructE is 35% (to the amusement of all!).
Alice Ward suggested that you value more that which is harder to achieve, and that it is a personal decision which institution you join. She said she is taking both qualifying exams but calls herself a structural engineer. She then asked in return ‘What does the ICE provide for you?’
Picking up on this, Darren Byrne (Manager, Membership & Qualifications at HQ) made clear that IStructE is flexible with regard to Initial Professional Development (IPD) towards chartered status, accepting ICE IPD and retrospective IPD. On the low pass rate he said IStructE is not about ‘bums on seats but is about standards’.
A second year Bath undergraduate said that there needs to be more interaction between the membership and undergraduates. While on placement she had met engineers and could now see herself in their role in years to come. She asked why the Institution does not get involved with schools: her friends do not know what civil engineering is and many students choose to read civil engineering merely based on the A-level subjects they like.
Mr Williams agreed that IStructE is not involved enough with schools but pointed out recent activities, for example the schools’ design competition at the Emirates Stadium (see The Structural Engineer 5 December 2006 p5, 8). A graduate engineer suggested that starting new schemes in schools would only run out of momentum as people move on, and said what is needed is support for existing schemes and clubs in schools. Prof. Barnes agreed.
Mr Lovell said that people took up Institution membership as they do health insurance, or passing a driving test, and step back once they are chartered. This is not right, he believed. Being chartered ‘is a way of life and getting chartered at 25 is too young,’ adding that ‘you get out what you put in.’
While this was true for Mr Williams he thought that not enough of the membership is engaged.
Prof. Blockley, having thus far sat quietly in the audience, said there were two threads to these arguments – engineering in general, and the IStructE specifically. It was necessary to differentiate IStructE from the other engineering institutions, but at the moment there is a lack of communication across the profession, and having been technically trained we are too often not socially or politically aware. He echoed the sentiment ‘you get out what you put in.’ He added that it was by explaining the value engineers bring to the public that we can charge higher fees.
Mr Newby insisted that the Institution has failed to communicate with the membership. He called the Institution website ‘hugely uninspiring.’ Mr Williams quickly said that following the Membership Survey a substantial sum would be spent on improving the website.
A final year Bath undergraduate said it was as if there was a curtain around the IStructE as he has hardly heard of the Institution during his studies.
Picking up on the needs for networking, inspiration, and information about the Institution, I asked: ‘What should universities be doing – for example handing out membership forms to first years on day one? How many graduates go into the profession?
Mr Williams agreed that universities could do more and recalled a lecturer who set an exam with questions on one of five local branch meeting topics to encourage undergraduates to attend all five! He thought it sad that students would only do such things if their grades were involved.
Martin Ashmead said that the membership shared a desire to belong and contribute, suggesting a change of name could help – The Institution of Chartered Structural Engineers (ICStructE). Many other (younger) institutions have included ‘chartered’ in their names. He thought that such a name change would improve status, public perceptions, and reaffirm that the Institution is competency based.
A graduate engineer added that the journal needs an inspiring image on the front; after all it is structural engineers who significantly contribute to the impressive structures in our cities. Mr Williams acknowledged this but said the front cover, being sold, is an important source of revenue.
Mr Dickson thanked Mr Williams for boosting the Institution’s annual Structural Awards for projects, which was bringing thought provoking structures to a wide audience. Mr Newby thought more could be done to raise the profile of the Institution, citing the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) as ‘an advertising institute if ever there was one, for example including public votes in their competitions,’ and added that ‘copyright law states that structural engineers are authors of buildings,’ just as architects are, and more should be made of this. A graduate concurred saying that he finds The Architects Journal inspirational, but not the IStructE’s Journal. However a senior engineer questioned whether the Institution can be commercial and yet a learned society.
Prof. Blockley recalled a debate, perhaps 40 years ago, that covered more or less the very same issues!
Mr Newby asked Mrs Ward what is the mandate of the Young Members Panel to which she replied ‘to represent young engineers from all areas, to spread the word, get higher visibility, encourage young members’ input into the Journal, and to have a say about website content’. Regarding visibility she mentioned annual trips to universities which Mr Newby thought would not be effective in isolation.
Mr Dickson drew a close to the debate adding that he thought the ongoing improvements in communications within the Institution will lead to change. He asked the speakers for a final closing remark. Mr Lovell said the key issue is recognition citing Mr Dickson as one of the very few engineers awarded a CBE. Tom Newby said the Institution needs to get political and improve communications. Alice Ward said it is up to us what the Institution is: ‘we need to get involved’. Phil Williams said it was great to see the life and vigour of the Tuesday Group and those attending the meeting and just wanted to say ‘thank you’ to those who attended.
Mr Dickson asked the audience to vote on the motion, the results were:
• For – about 8,
• Against – about 25,
• Abstaining – about 10.

He thanked the speakers and audience, and said that the evening would add to the value of the Members’ Survey, and that the Institution is changing for the better.
All in all the debate was interesting and well attended. At times it seemed that members of the panel were arguing for the other side – I think a sign of their passion and shared opinions! Afterwards many stayed behind for socialising and Pieminster pies.