Mr K. G. Armstrong: One topic not mentioned by the authors is that of examinations. I can remember two goals while studying civil engineering: to learn the subject and to pass the degree examination. Working for these goals pulled one in opposite directions. Learning the subject required slow, quiet consideration of the material presented. Passing the exams required learning the subject very quickly. I decided that this tension could be dealt with only by forgetting the learning and concentrating on passing the exams. The exam would be set by the lecturers concerned, based on the material they had presented. Learn their material, follow their procedures (‘parrot fashion’, if necessary, i.e. usually), and the questions could be answered.
S. B. Tietz & Partners is a medium-sized firm of consulting engineers, with 70% of its work in structural engineering and the rest in civil engineering and traffic. Three Partners and three Associates are responsible for the firm’s management, helped by a partnership administrator and a strong information unit. The firm is 50 or so strong and is almost wholly based on one office.
For several years, the Institution has appeared to be reluctant to accept that there is a wind of change sweeping through the professions, including the engineering profession. In the past the Institution has been content-or determined-to maintain a low profiie compared to, say, the RIBA. Whether this was due to an unjustified complacency that continuation of the status quo was an acceptable policy or to a belief that any changes contemplated in the structure of the Institution were nobody’s business but its own, the impression given to the membership has been one of almost total inertia. What I find even more depressing, however, is that, having recently broken this shield of silence and gone public, in a big way, about the future intentions of the Institution, these should be so wholly regressive in nature. Anthony F. Gee