[zb]
anorak:
Tomdhu:
…
Sure, I aim to make more contributions in future - particularly to the question of why Leyland failed but suffice to say I joined aged 18 as a student apprentice. 12 students and 12 graduates were taken on each year after 1964 when the Road Industry Training Board linked with manufacturers and transport operators to provide properly structured training. Most of the students were sons of prominent hauliers, bus operators or dealers. I was one with no transport connections whatsoever.
We all lived in an uncomfortable old Victorian mansion called Wellington House. This was replaced by a modern facility called Stokes Hall. There was an in-house garage/workshop there, where, in our spare time we repaired and renovated our vehicles. I had a Tiger Cub. I seem to recall, one chap was rebuilding an Alvis Silver Eagle from chassis up.
We students did “thin sandwich” courses in mechanical engineering ie 6 months in college and 6 months in management/technical training. I went to Harris College Preston whilst a few ( brighter ones) went to Cranwell…
Welcome to the madhouse, Tomdhu. I note that the academic part of the training was done at (what I assume were) technical colleges, rather than “ordinary” universities. The redbricks/London/Oxbridge all offered mechanical engineering degree courses plus, I guess, legal and commercial education.
In addition to that, the students seem to have been selected on the basis that their parents were potential customers. The training seems to be highly desirable- the facilities and career prospects sound great. You would hope that such privileges were distributed on merit, for the good of all.
Am I getting close to the answer to the question in the original post?
I think it is appropriate here to understand tertiary education in the early sixties. Then only about 15% of school-leavers went to university, whereas today around 50% go to so–called universities. Getting a university place then, as we original baby-boomers found, was much more difficult. There were some pretty bright students there. One had 4x"A" and 10x"O" levels but couldn’t get in to Uni.
Later many technical colleges (eg Harris College, Preston), where we went, were converted into todays universities as part of Labour’s promise to give 50% of school leavers a university place.
The mix of formal study and practical education provided by the “thin-sandwich” education then was a good way of developing versatile and competent management with an engineering background.
The elite university graduate intake, which was run alongside the student intake, was intended to provide the future senior management. They had graduated in a wide variety of disciplines and went into areas such as finance, design, project management etc. etc. One name that springs to mind is Keith Hemmings who designed the Leyland National monocoque bus body. The graduate intake started in 1964 but arguably should have been launched many years earlier.
Had it been started earlier, Leyland would have had better financial management. This was only rectified when John Barber came on board and brought in several accounting staff from Ford who provided more comprehensive management accounting capability.
Most of the student intake departed the company soon after graduating, having developed away from their father’s business. Some of their parents were dealer principals, major bus/truck operators and even other motor manufacturers. Some left because they were snatched up by competitors and other manufacturing companies. They were not all from transport- one was the son of the founder of a major aircraft company. Another was son of a director of BRS. There were some additional students who were the relatives of the overseas elite e.g. sons of maharajahs, politicians fleet operators etc etc
I do believe this paid off in business terms over the years. We had contacts all round the world in these days.
I had no such privileged background and so I joined Leyland with a view to developing an entire career there- which I did until the company collapsed in 1993. I know of only one or two my peers who did likewise.
Apart from the technical educational aspects, it was also about networking, building up skills and relationships in industry and establishing brand loyalty. I believe this was common practice in industry at that time.
.
It is embarrasing
