Since retiring from industry I have done some teaching at universities, both engineering and some management. I think young people are as clever as they ever were, and much more focussed on what they want. However, they are let down by basic maths, English etc. As a grammar school boy myself I now value all those bits of chalk thrown at me. If young people see that engineering can lead to well paid, interesting jobs, they will go into it.
Regarding Pontius Navigator's view on updates. horses for courses! Harrier updates have generally been good, although Sea Harrier FRS.2 needed more thrust, but had fantastic integration. But it was an update 'on the cheap' so we lost them early. Current Nimrod programme makes one wonder why they did not just build a new airframe - would have been cheaper. But someone asssumed using tired old bits of ancient, salt corroded airframes would be cheaper. And then digitised one airfame onto CAD and assumed all the others were identical - 1940's tech had 2 inch tolerances on wing fittings, but all the old hands who knew this had been pensioned off, so the CAM built wings only fit one airfame. So cheap became bloody expensive.
"could a 1950s educated school child handle 1980 or 1990s designed kit" - yes, I did. However, I think there is a real lack of mechanical engineering skills, and too much reliance on electronic as partial compensation. Ben Rich's comment about making a house fly with FBW seems to be taught in universities these days - no need for good basic design, FBW will sort it out! It's understanding the interaction of the black boxes with the airframe that matters. Who teaches that? Experience.
"You old duffers really do bang on a bit, don't you?" - I thought that is the point of being an old duffer!