PhD s from Convolution Integral Thread
in [DSP]
|
Prev: Inverting bits
Next: ifft after modifying a signal
From: Fred Marshall on 2 Jan 2010 15:43 It got too long and I just couldn't spend the time to read all the posts. So, if this is redundant then .. OK: 1) Folks with common sense and experience are invaluable. 2) Folks with an ability to focus on the real issue are invaluable. 3) Folks who can figure something out quickly and put what they know to use are invaluable. So, if in the process of earning a degree a person becomes a "quick study" (thus the search / research part) and are able to convey the crux of what they know or have quickly learned to everyone else (thus the thesis and defense) then they might be really good to have around - as long as they meet (1) and (2) at the same time. I have known folks who weren't really great at (1) and (2) or even (3) who had advanced degrees. They were still helpful when we needed a strong technical basis for pondering a thorny issue. But, in general, I didn't find these latter guys in industry - more in academia or government labs. There's nothing wrong with this, it's partly an environmental emphasis. What's the difference between a plant manager and a consultant? If something goes wrong in the plant, the manager may know what to do about it but maybe not why it happened or why the solution works. The consultant may not know what to do about it but may know why the solution works. Working together they may come up with a lasting solution.... Fred
From: Eric Jacobsen on 2 Jan 2010 17:15 On 1/2/2010 1:43 PM, Fred Marshall wrote: > It got too long and I just couldn't spend the time to read all the > posts. So, if this is redundant then .. OK: > > 1) Folks with common sense and experience are invaluable. > 2) Folks with an ability to focus on the real issue are invaluable. > 3) Folks who can figure something out quickly and put what they know to > use are invaluable. > > So, if in the process of earning a degree a person becomes a "quick > study" (thus the search / research part) and are able to convey the crux > of what they know or have quickly learned to everyone else (thus the > thesis and defense) then they might be really good to have around - as > long as they meet (1) and (2) at the same time. > > I have known folks who weren't really great at (1) and (2) or even (3) > who had advanced degrees. They were still helpful when we needed a > strong technical basis for pondering a thorny issue. But, in general, I > didn't find these latter guys in industry - more in academia or > government labs. There's nothing wrong with this, it's partly an > environmental emphasis. > > What's the difference between a plant manager and a consultant? > > If something goes wrong in the plant, the manager may know what to do > about it but maybe not why it happened or why the solution works. The > consultant may not know what to do about it but may know why the > solution works. Working together they may come up with a lasting > solution.... > > Fred I agree with what you've written here. I think the thing I've found the most annoying in my career was when there was a culture in place (or just a management point of view) that somebody with a PhD was more authoritative than somebody with your listed 1-3 skillset, for no other reason than they had a PhD. Likewise, somebody with a long history of skills 1-3 often struggle for career advancement against a far less skilled PhD, for no other reason than the degree status. It doesn't always happen, but it does with enough frequency to give a lot of people disdain for those conditions. I've seen a lot of projects steered wrong because of that, too. Sometimes the result is ultimate failure of the project (e.g., IMHO, UWB), sometimes the result is just a big increase in the project schedule compared to what it could have been. -- Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms Abineau Communications http://www.abineau.com
From: HardySpicer on 2 Jan 2010 18:35 On Jan 3, 9:43 am, Fred Marshall <fmarshallx(a)remove_the_xacm.org> wrote: > It got too long and I just couldn't spend the time to read all the > posts. So, if this is redundant then .. OK: > > 1) Folks with common sense and experience are invaluable. > 2) Folks with an ability to focus on the real issue are invaluable. > 3) Folks who can figure something out quickly and put what they know to > use are invaluable. > > So, if in the process of earning a degree a person becomes a "quick > study" (thus the search / research part) and are able to convey the crux > of what they know or have quickly learned to everyone else (thus the > thesis and defense) then they might be really good to have around - as > long as they meet (1) and (2) at the same time. > > I have known folks who weren't really great at (1) and (2) or even (3) > who had advanced degrees. They were still helpful when we needed a > strong technical basis for pondering a thorny issue. But, in general, I > didn't find these latter guys in industry - more in academia or > government labs. There's nothing wrong with this, it's partly an > environmental emphasis. > > What's the difference between a plant manager and a consultant? > > If something goes wrong in the plant, the manager may know what to do > about it but maybe not why it happened or why the solution works. The > consultant may not know what to do about it but may know why the > solution works. Working together they may come up with a lasting > solution.... > > Fred What about problems that have not been solved to date? Can your average Joe engineer solve them or does it require some advanced knowledge/Maths that Joe may not follow. eg pre-Widrow and co there was no LMS,adaptive filters etc. Would an engineer in industry have had time to sit down and work all that out on his own or in a group? Doubt it. Maybe in a research lab environment for IBM or Bell labs but most companies are interested in one thing only - making money! That's why they are in business. Scholarly activity for its own sake is the domain of the University. Then again occasionally a company does discover something new - happens a lot in Japan. The knowledge will disseminate eventually but it's a secret for a long time - or it's patented so nowbody else can use it. I spent a long time working in a company with a very experienced engineer who told me every day how rubbish academics were and that they knew virtually nothing of any real use that wasn't in a text book. I eventually managed to squeeze out of him some great stuff indeed but it was a struggle. He was tight fisted when it came to knowledge. he considered it all bellonged to him since he had discovered it! It was his property and not to leave the company. Contrast this with a Uni. Yes companies are great but they exist but for one reason - to make money. Now remember that next time you discover something new. Hardy
From: Eric Jacobsen on 2 Jan 2010 18:50 On 1/2/2010 4:35 PM, HardySpicer wrote: > On Jan 3, 9:43 am, Fred Marshall<fmarshallx(a)remove_the_xacm.org> > wrote: >> It got too long and I just couldn't spend the time to read all the >> posts. So, if this is redundant then .. OK: >> >> 1) Folks with common sense and experience are invaluable. >> 2) Folks with an ability to focus on the real issue are invaluable. >> 3) Folks who can figure something out quickly and put what they know to >> use are invaluable. >> >> So, if in the process of earning a degree a person becomes a "quick >> study" (thus the search / research part) and are able to convey the crux >> of what they know or have quickly learned to everyone else (thus the >> thesis and defense) then they might be really good to have around - as >> long as they meet (1) and (2) at the same time. >> >> I have known folks who weren't really great at (1) and (2) or even (3) >> who had advanced degrees. They were still helpful when we needed a >> strong technical basis for pondering a thorny issue. But, in general, I >> didn't find these latter guys in industry - more in academia or >> government labs. There's nothing wrong with this, it's partly an >> environmental emphasis. >> >> What's the difference between a plant manager and a consultant? >> >> If something goes wrong in the plant, the manager may know what to do >> about it but maybe not why it happened or why the solution works. The >> consultant may not know what to do about it but may know why the >> solution works. Working together they may come up with a lasting >> solution.... >> >> Fred > > What about problems that have not been solved to date? Can your > average Joe engineer solve them or does it require some advanced > knowledge/Maths that Joe may not follow. eg pre-Widrow and co there > was no LMS,adaptive filters etc. Would an engineer in industry have > had time to sit down and work all that out on his own or in a group? > Doubt it. Uhh, I've worked in some pretty (comparatively) small companies where we did just exactly that sort of thing, and I've worked with a lot of people in some other comparatively small companies that also did that sort of work. I don't think it's as rare as you suggest. > Maybe in a research lab environment for IBM or Bell labs but > most companies are interested in one thing only - making money! That's > why they are in business. And a company that makes technical products that can get a performance (and therefore marketing) advantage from research do tend to do that sort of research, because they'll get a competitive advantage that'll sell more product, gain market share, etc., etc. Your notion that only big companies do that seems odd to me, if I understand you correctly. The main difference is that small companies don't have the motivation (and often can't afford the overhead) associated with publishing such things, so they tend not to. > Scholarly activity for its own sake is the > domain of the University. Then again occasionally a company does > discover something new - happens a lot in Japan. The knowledge will > disseminate eventually but it's a secret for a long time - or it's > patented so nowbody else can use it. I spent a long time working in a > company with a very experienced engineer who told me every day how > rubbish academics were and that they knew virtually nothing of any > real use that wasn't in a text book. I eventually managed to squeeze > out of him some great stuff indeed but it was a struggle. He was tight > fisted when it came to knowledge. he considered it all bellonged to > him since he had discovered it! It was his property and not to leave > the company. Contrast this with a Uni. > Yes companies are great but they exist but for one reason - to make > money. Now remember that next time you discover something new. So commerce can drive innovation, and usually does. Much, if not most, academic research is funded by companies interested in the research area because, guess what, they can use it to make products that make money. I don't see a problem here. -- Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms Abineau Communications http://www.abineau.com
From: HardySpicer on 2 Jan 2010 21:45
On Jan 3, 12:50 pm, Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacob...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > So commerce can drive innovation, and usually does. Much, if not most, > academic research is funded by companies interested in the research area > because, guess what, they can use it to make products that make money. > I don't see a problem here. > Not always, scholarly pursuit is just the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. The money motivation factor need not play a role at all. Exactly what did Einstein have in mind when discovering relativity or Newton when he discovered the laws of motion? I do agree however that many Universities are now greedy bastards and are in many respects becoming like companies. Hardy |