Advice to BSEE juniors and seniors...
in [Design]
|
Prev: History of communications
Next: Women + Laptop + Coffee cup + Kids + Ball + Hairdryer = Bad situation =D
From: mpm on 19 Apr 2010 17:33 On Apr 19, 4:17 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On-My- Web-Site.com> wrote: > On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:51:13 -0700, "Joel Koltner" > > <zapwireDASHgro...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote in > >messagenews:s7gps5l9fl8ornafs62qdov5m8fvc8j2cu(a)4ax.com... > >> Around 1970, I couldn't find a technician to hire. Offered to teach a > >> course for free at Scottsdale Community College. Declined. Even > >> though I already had my MSEE, I had no teaching certification :-( > > >Very dumb on their part. > > >I wonder how many newly-minted BSEEs today would pass muster as the kind of > >tech you were looking for 40 years ago?:-) > > Very damn few, from what I see... even coming out of MIT :-( Zombies > exhibit more enthusiasm and creativity :-) > > ...Jim Thompson > -- > | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | > | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | > | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | > | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | > | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | > | E-mail Icon athttp://www.analog-innovations.com| 1962 | > > The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy An MIT-grad friend of mine told me the other day that MIT doesn't even have a straight EE program anymore. You must specialize in communications, or software, or whatever.
From: mpm on 19 Apr 2010 17:36 On Apr 19, 1:05 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > To say it in teen-speak, that's sooo last week. The rage today is > "i-something". Got to have it, or you may be considered a geezer. I guess i is the new e. iPad, iPhone, i[blank] eMail, eTrade, eHarmony Maybe we should trademark all the other vowels now, sit back, and wait for future royalty checks?
From: D Yuniskis on 19 Apr 2010 18:20 mpm wrote: > An MIT-grad friend of mine told me the other day that MIT doesn't even > have a straight EE program anymore. > You must specialize in communications, or software, or whatever. It's been that way for quite some time. I.e., 6.1 was "classic EE", 6.3 was "CS", 6.2 was something like "bioelectronic" (?) However, the core curriculum shared by all "course 6" ensures that a 6.1 grad can still write code and a 6.3 grad can design an amplifier...
From: krw on 19 Apr 2010 18:55 On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 22:08:12 -0700 (PDT), chris w <chris(a)smartjack.com> wrote: >On Apr 18, 5:40�pm, brent <buleg...(a)columbus.rr.com> wrote: > >> Personally, I would not be so concerned with how to use a particular >> software package but would make sure of three things: > >Agreed, but it seems most of the candidates we talked to couldn't >layout a PCB. The ability to read a schematic, understand a BOM, >navigate Mouser/Digikey/Newark/* to select parts, layout a simple pcb, >and assemble prototype boards all seem like things someone with a BSEE >should be able to do. I've been in the business for >35 years (though probably half that working with PCB sorts of things) and have never done layout and will likely never do it. Not that I couldn't learn or that I don't want to, just never any reason to. There's always someone else (cheaper) to do it. >> 1. Did they have proper exposure to theoretical courses in college? > >In general, I would rather hear how they used what they learned in >classes to build things to know they took a DSP class, or two digital >design classes. I'll take for granted they took the theory-- now tell >me if you tried to apply it to anything. Agreed. Where's the beef? >> 2. �Can they think. This is hard to quantify, but ultimately , it is >> the most important thing. >> >> 3. �Do they Building things - figuring out how things work. >> Everything from their car to how an appliance works. �They must have >> the "I'll be dipped if I would pay someone a dime to do something I >> can figure out myself" attitude. > >Great points. I've too often worked with that certain someone who had >to be shown every step. I want to be a team player too, and if I'm >really stuck, it's great to have someone to bounce your problems off >of, but sometimes you just want to say, "I've barely got time to do my >job, let alone yours too". With a rookie this is often the problem, though. It's also the reason they pay experienced engineers more. IMO, if you don't have time to hand-hold you shouldn't be hiring a rookie. >With an entry level engineer, I think it's usually pretty easy to tell >how good they are at problem solving by asking the probing questions >about their projects. I haven't resorted to any sort of "test" >questions. Agree here too. The ones who really want to do the work enjoy talking about what they did and how they got there. The good ones can defend the choices, too.
From: krw on 19 Apr 2010 19:08
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:06:17 -0700, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >"mpm" <mpmillard(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:11c6a47c-5162-49bf-8fc0-5fc1ebe50b40(a)z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... >On Apr 18, 5:32 pm, chris w <ch...(a)smartjack.com> wrote: >> Well, maybe if you specialize in the right niche, or perhaps, venture >> out with your own consulting firm. > >Yes, analog and RF are your friends here. > >And there's actually plenty of demand for *good* digital/embedded software >guys, it's just that there are so darned many out there, and the *average* >quality is so low, that many companies just start outsourcing, contracting, >etc. > >> Put simply: Electrical Engineering has become project based. >> Companies bring on a team of engineers, and dump the whole lot of them >> when the project is over. > >Not universally true, by any means, although it'd be interesting to find some >statistics on what percentage of U.S. EEs are "serial contractors" vs. regular >employees. > >I suspect that it's the large companies that go for serial employment more >than the little ones. I think you'll find it's the other way around. >I used to live in Corvallis, Oregon where the largest >private employer is HP, and a very large chunk of the employees were temps... >they did this dance where they could only work for something like 10 months >and then had to be off for 2 months or somesuch to maintain their "temporary" >status. Some of the temps (especially the younger ones) actually liked this >arrangement, but the older ones/those with kids/etc. were constantly vying for >the limited number of permanent positions that would come up each cycle. A lot of large companies don't hire contractors for this reason. If they do, they hire the hiring out to a meat market to make *sure* they aren't tagged with the contractors being regular employees. I know the few times we hired a contractor we had to pay another 20%, or so, on top of all the taxes, just so we would never pay the contractor directly. We even put the contractor and "employer" together and only funneled money through one to the other. >HP also had some interesting ideas about "continuing education" -- in school >(Oregon State University), there were a lot of HP employees who were taking >classes to "advance" their careers, yet seemingly HP sometimes only cared >about people getting a degree and not what they were actually learning -- I >had a project partner in an antennas class (we built a classic Kraus-style >helical antenna) who was a marketing manager for ink, and I'm pretty sure she >would have been just as happy learning about the mating cycles of honey bees >with their exploding testicles and all as she was about array factors and >elemental dipoles... but she was motivated by the promise of a raise when she >finished the degree. IBM paid for advanced degrees and usually gave time off for engineers to take classes but there was no promise of a raise or promotion upon completion of a degree. There rarely was either for engineers. Tecnicians would often be promoted to engineer upon receiving a BSEE, though. |