A-level choices: engineering-----architecture

[istherelifeafter40]

DS has to choose 4 A-levels in November. He is not decided on what he wants to do as a career, but is leaning towards engineering - or architecture (quite a spread!) There seem to be myriads of different kinds of engineering - from mechanical, aerospace, electronic, civil, to biochemical. I don't know much about any of them. (Humanities person here).
I think he might also change his mind and decide to do natural sciences, for instance... I love the idea of natsoc at Cambridge - start wide and narrow down. I am generally against early specialisation...

Currently, he has 8 in maths and all sciences, but also in eng and photography that he loves. He also likes chemistry very much and says that physics is very easy. BUT he dislikes maths, although he does well in it and is in set 2 our of 6 in a selective school.

Our current choice is Maths, Chemistry, Physics and Photography (which would open architecture if he goes this way, but is a course-based work-intensive subject). He accepts that he "has to do maths" (not my doing)

or Maths, Chemistry, Physics and Biology (he dislikes biology, but I think it might be quite a different subject at A-level?).

The school also insists on EPQ, and he will be able to drop 1 A level but can continue with 4.

He is set very much against further maths, which as I understand rules out some of the best mechanical engineering courses or general engineering at cambridge, but can still be ok for the other unis. Imperial has dozens of kinds of engineering and they all require different A levels (and different grades, from A, A, A to AAA). How do you decide at 15?

Any advice? I am worried that doing 3 sciences and an artistic course-based work will be too heavy (+epq)! I wonder if it is too much science work and pressure in case he decides to do architecture (many courses don't specify A levels whatsoever).
He doesn't want to do any humanities' subjects though, or something like economics or politics...

Any advice or just a chat would be great

I also think the term “engineer” is used loosely in this country. Unlike Germany where its known to describe a professional person with high level qualifications. So we think an engineer mends the dishwasher. Or repairs a car. We don’t differentiate between engineers with no higher education and those who have attained Chartered status which has taken a masters level qualification and years of CPD. It’s never acceptable for a paralegal to be called a barrister but engineer isn’t a protected title and anyone can use it. Therefore everyone is confused! My least young people who don’t realise what higher qualifications mean and what you need to do to get them.

It’s not remotely helpful either for posters to always refer to Imperial and Cambridge snd general engineering. All of these are for a tiny minority of students. The former very bright students with Further Maths in many cases. This totally ignores all the other excellent courses for engineers, many of which are at former polys! These grads are very employable and are more likely to apply for engineering jobs as opposed to city ones. We need these grads. We also need to educate the public about engineering and the professional status of the role. We need to be far less snobby about degrees. Cambridge and Imperial are not attainable by the vast majority. But it doesn’t matter!!! Any engineering grad will get a decent education more or less anywhere and, if they really understand the subject, will be employable. Posters mostly don’t employ anyone and have limited knowledge of employing grad engineers. Most are not employed by the big household name consultancies. Ditto architects. That doesn’t mean they cannot earn well and have a great job. Employers are far more concerned about what you can do, not whether Cambridge or Imperial was your Alma mater.

We also need to pay engineers and value their work a lot more in the UK.

DH and I both quit engineering because of long hours and low pay (and we were both MSc qualified and chartered).

DH has his own consultancy and that was very lucrative. Not so much now! You have to go that way to make money. Clients now want a lot more for less fees and its important to offer what they want or you simply do not get the work. You have to be commercial to make money.

Pay is not terribly low for engineers in terms of what others get but progress can be slow up the food chain. That is why grads don't stay in engineering. However, clients are always trying to cut costs and engineers do not get work if they over inflate prices. In fact plenty do work where they will not make much money. However salaries have to be competitive or you lose staff - as you have said. There is a big gap between North and South. Northern salaries go a lot further as house prices are less though.

DH never expected long hours. Always prefered people to be bright and well rested. Occasionally it is all hands to the pump but not all the time.

We were northern. DH immediately doubled his base salary by going back into his first degree field, and was then earning more than the principal engineer with 20+ years in charge of the department. At the time my SIL, as a pensions advisor with a handful of O-levels to her name, was earning double that again.

And yes, it can be very long hours as an engineer on site, often during winter weather, plus lots of pressure if you're dealing with overnight road or lane closures / line closures etc. I spent 6 months on one project working 400 miles away from home, not exactly easy to make it home for a weekend.

dh used to work long hours and a lot of working away from,, all over the world, this was when he was in semiconductors and then moved to marine industry. However he moved to "big pharma" and took a bit o step backwards, gets more money, bonuses and is now home by 5 or 6 at the latest after many years of lucky if he was home by 9!

DH did the hours as a young grad engineer but got excellent pay. We saved a house deposit in 6 months back then. Was CEng MICE at 24. After the scheme finished he moved on and became a partner in his firm at 27. Got MIStructE at 28. Never worked all hours or long hours and little unsocial hours site work really after that. However as the firm grew the rewards were high. But not everyone runs their own company or would wish to. Not everyone gets the opportunity. However it’s not always necessary to work on site for long periods away from home either. None of DHs engineers have ever done that.

I'd echo what @PresentingPercy said about people thinking only degrees from Cambridge or Imperial type universities are worth having.
When I did my degree at what was Coventry Poly in the long distant past, it was understood that red brick universities were much more focused on 'book learning' whereas polys were more practical. For example, we did practical surveying every week for the whole course and any of us could have walked into a surveying job after graduating. Allegedly, the red bricks had one afternoon of surveying during the whole degree course.

(Off to design some wing walls now...)

I'm an architect. I did Maths, Physics and Art A levels. My DH is also an architect and he did Maths , Physics and Economics. Those that didn't take art were expected to put together a portfolio of their own art work for interview. I assume that is still the case.

It is still the case that students without an art qualification can put together a portfolio (friend’s DC had to do this) - for instance, Queen’s Belfast has this advice on putting together a portfolio:

www.qub.ac.uk/schools/NBE/About/Files/Filetoupload,790469,en.pdf

My husband is head of something financial and he says he advises students to engineering that over economics now so if he changed his mind and wanted to go into finance that opens another career path up to him.