electronics career pit

[Johnny]

True, I can say from what I've done of my uni course so far, is that very
little design is actually taught. We learn very general skills and basic
concepts, and we are left on our own to hone these skills further. Some
take it as a sign that they don't need to learn any more and in a way
they are right, they have all they need to know to pass the exam, but they
are sorely mistaken that their skill are sufficient to be of any use out
there in the world.

Just a slightly off topic question, I am a prolific tinker of
microcontrollers and fpga/cpld, and have stated so in my resume. I have
designed and built many devices, now does it help if I bring in a
physical example of what I've done to my next interview?

Actually I don't recommend it. Most employers are primarliy looking
for people with good communication skills who will make the best fit
into the team, technical skills are secondary consideration, and
unless the person doing the interview is very technical it is probably
a disadvantage and a distraction to do what you suggest.

It is much better to put together a portfolio of pictures and outline
information about previous projects. Prepare one to give to your
prospective employer and they will ask questions if they are
interested. Generally, the interviewers use your resume and any other
advance info to decide if your skills are appropriate or not, and that
is why you get the interview. The interview is more about assessing
your personality and honesty, rather than technical skills.

regards,
Johnny.

 

[nick]

But education comes LAST behind experience, enthusiasm and personality.
That is true for every company I have worked for, and most of the
companies I have delt with.
Any smart employer will work the same way, you'd be a fool not to. You
hire someone to do a real job, and a bit of paper means a brass razoo.
There are a few exceptions to this like government jobs and the like
which have inflexiable rules when it comes to hiring.

Well thats common but its not how I operate, experience is a weird thing,
sometimes it means alot, sometimes it doesnt. There is an overemphasis on it
I believe in the Aussie market, but then thats driven mostly by the
economics of risk I believe. I've often worked with techs who have done
something for years and didnt figure out any better ways to do it. So I take
it as part of the equation. I dont really care about experience if they are
poorly educated. I believe it says something about them as a person but
thats personal preference I guess. As I said in a previous post techs
usually have a serious failing that shows up sooner or later. But each to
their own.

That's leading edge in theory and research, NOT practical application
as most of electronics engineering is. There is a HUGE difference and
you've missed it entirely.

Well I think you missed it because thats what leading edge is... leading by
researching and solving something new. By its very nature its difficult to
be leading edge in engineering alone because everything has been done. In my
experience the engineering itself is usually secondary to a scientific
technique that makes the device leading edge.

You gotta be kidding right?
You think that's in any way hard or difficult?, only worthy of degreed
people?
Now let me think for a minute... off the top of my head I know FOUR
*non-degree* qualified electronics guys who could do that without
raising a sweat. Heck, one or two of them would do it "just for fun" to
prove they could.
On top of that, most of them would probably even think of a
better/easier/more novel way to do it than the proposed solution.

I doubt it, Ive yet to see a tafe grad who knew what a transform was. This
is not the same as going and getting the latest dsp application kit.. or
ripping a library off the net. Anyone can do that. This kid was a
mathematician. The electronics really is secondary to the solution. In any
case I suspect your not talking about a kid 6 months out of college. Apart
from that I wouldnt hire them, and doubt any of the majors would either.

I find that to be an incredible statement coming from a uni zealot such
as yourself.
PhD and "learned" papers are purposely written only to be
understandable by a select few other specialists in that field. You are
not meant to understand them. The introduction is about as far as most
will ever get.
Remember, they often spend YEARS of FULL TIME work reasearching and
writing ONE paper under the strict supervision of another learned PhD
specialist.

Thats not quiet true, they are written to be understood by anyone with the
skills in the particular area. As their scientific skills go beyond that of
undergrad uni grads most of us cant follow. Some of these problems take a
lifetime and are still unsolved. So what, thats because they are looking at
difficult problems.

As an electronics design engineer if I spend more than a few DAYS
writing a paper (even on topics which need research and for which
little existing literature exists) then I get my ass kicked. It's a
different world entirely.

Depends on your point of view, you are simply pointing to a problem thats
very evident in the australian market.

PhD people get bagged a lot because they mostly have a real hard time
actually producing real practical solutions in a short period of time
which is demanded of design engineers.

With a PhD gratuate you are almost guaranteed that they haven't done
any real engineering in the last few years. And any real practical
engineering education they did get in the undergraduate degree is often
sucked out of them by the entirely different demands of a PhD.

Thats obvious, one of the real problems with the australian scene is that
alot of small companies expect the wrong thing from a PhD grad. They are
there to solve a particular problem, not to be the footsoldiers of whoevers
pulling the strings. This basic point is understood by the majors and PhD's
are carefully assigned. Even if you could get a PhD to do much footwork for
you, they'd be bored stupid. Nothing in textbook electronics interests them
much in my experience. You need to understand why they did the PhD in the
first place. In my experience they are not easily wowed by the things that
would you and I and they are extremely interest driven.

I have yet to meet a PhD who can do real practical demand driven design
engineering work, and I've worked with a lot of them. I'm sure they do
exist though :->

Maybe if you go to one of the majors in the states and meet the ever growing
community of expats.

Nick

 

[Phil Allison]

"nick mail.com>"

"David L. Jones"


Maybe if you go to one of the majors in the states and meet the ever
growing
community of expats.

** Oh really - is that so ??

How about this particular Aussie ex-pat then:

http://www1.dupont.com/NASApp/dupon...US/en_US/overview/executives/prendergast.html


Jim and I were in the same class at high school ( ie Kogarah Marist Bros )
for two years, became great friends, did the HSC exam together in 1970,
both achieved results very close to the top of the state of NSW in Maths and
Physics, enrolled in the faculty of Engineering at Sydney Uni in 1971 and
were immediately accepted into the special honours level courses in Maths
and Physics. We sat together during lectures and prac sessions, ate lunch
together and socialised during holiday periods.

I was forced at the end of year two to discontinue due to financial and
personal reasons - Jim was not.

Three years on, Jim won the University medal, as a consequence got a
scholarship to Cambridge Uni to do his masters and then PhD where he was
head hunted by a team from AT&T for their semiconductor physics research lab
in Allentown PA.

The AT&T lab in Allentown did not have even one American born person on any
research team - the bosses had figured out that lonely foreigners worked
much harder for their money with fewer distractions. A normal working week
there was 70 hours plus. This approach was a hangover from the Nazi rocket
scientist period after WW2.

A meagre two weeks annual leave applied - but all employees were
considered traitors to take any of it before at least two years continuous
time had been served.

Jim to this day has zero design skills - he is a specialist in the
software modelling of semiconductor structures, firstly of high current
thyristors for AC power cyclo-convertors and then later for MOS memory
cells.

The point is that the *only* place to learn anything about the real word of
electronics engineering IS in the real world - not any danm stupid
university or some massive company that does NOT produce commercial
products.




.......... Phil

 

[Mike Harding]

I agree except for a few points that I will make, and these have to do with
merit.

I see people like Phil constantly putting down uni grads, almost as if you
do a uni course you are no good, and thats crap.

The fact is that many more people do uni courses than should. Often they do
it because they get the HSC score, it sounds cool, and they think they are
going to make a bucket of money. But amongst them are still the good old
fashion hobbiest. Thats right Phil, not all hobbiest become techs, some
strive for greater things. And on average they are the smarter hobbiests.

Regardless of that, the good ones (with the passion) are not being given
their due merit.

Its very easy to sit back, say uni grads are crap, and use that as an excuse
not to do the degree. I find this position nonsense.

Personally if I am to hire an real design engineer, I would never hire a
tafe graduate, simply because I expect an engineer to be scientifically
rigourous, and regardless of the fact that I have met many great techs who
could design, in myself I feel they were all flawed at some level, and that
was at the basic technical level. Now having said that it doesnt mean I
would hire a clueless graduate either.

It annoys me to some extent because I believe strongly in due credit, and I
believe that the best engineers are still those with degrees, and higher
degrees. Basically the argument is that if you can find a PhD with the
Passion (as was put) you have hit paydirt.

This idea that all techs with the Passion are better than uni grads is
nonsense, and I seriously doubt a large electronics company could operate on
this basis. That argument may make Phil all warm and fuzzy, but to spout
that is to propagate a basic lie.

Quite simply we are talking about averages here. In any one qualification
level you can find people who could have done more, but basically it means
electricians are dummer than technicians who are dummer than engineers.

What a load of rubbish.

You make sweeping statements about how you would _never_
hire a TAFE grad. and then go on to talk about due credit!

Elec. dummer than tech. dummer than eng?
More rubbish

I have spent 30 years in this business all over the world and
worked as everything from an electrician to a leading edge
design engineer and I have met some stupid engineers in
my time!

I have just observed my elder son and his friends go
through a four year electronics degree. It did not teach them
how to design - I did much more of that for him than university.
His friends haven't had the advantage of a father in the
business.

To become a good designer takes _years_ of experience
irrespective of whatever formal qualification one did. A
degree _should_ lay the foundations upon which to build
those skills - often it doesn't. A good TAFE grad. with interest
and enthusiasm may well develop to become a much better
designer than an "engineer" with a degree from the Uni. of
Nowhere who isn't really interested. I've know a few excellent
TAFE GRADs. over the years.

And don't forget an overriding factor here, much more
important than their technical ability: if you employ someone
with a super qualification and he has the people skills of
a teenage crocodile with sore feet... it doesn't matter a toss
_how_ good he is because he's going to cause half of the
people he works with to resign anyway. Give me the less
knowledgeable to the disfunctional any day. Can you imagine
Phil Allison in a team type situation?

Mike Harding

 

[Mike Harding]

Just a slightly off topic question, I am a prolific tinker of
microcontrollers and fpga/cpld, and have stated so in my resume. I have
designed and built many devices, now does it help if I bring in a
physical example of what I've done to my next interview?

Yes I would certainly suggest you take you own gear
along to interview. Also ensure you take circuit diagrams
and (printed) software listings and flow charts etc. Tell the
interviewer you have your widget which does X and would
he like to see it. Show him widget and circuit diagram - tell
him you have software listings but _don't_ show them to
him unless he asks to see them. Software takes ages to
follow and is deadly boring unless you're _really_
interested in it. Be prepared (as David said) to answer
some tough and in depth questions on your widget and
why you did things the way you did. _Don't_ bullshit! If
you don't know or did it because you "thought it was a
good idea at the time" then say so. You're a new
graduate - no one expects you to be an expert - in
fact we expect you to know next to nothing but we do
expect you to have an enquiring mind and be prepared
to question your own methods. Even after my 30 years
I am more than happy to learn a better way of doing
something - I don't know everything - and nor does
anyone else.

Good luck with your career - I have enjoyed electronics/
software a lot but am getting a little bored with it these
days

Mike Harding

 

[Al Borowski]

PS. I'm graduating soon and I'm still looking for the right job,

Congrads

Al

 

[Phil Allison]

"Al Borowski"

** In your case - take up garbage collecting.




.............. Phil

 

[TonyP]

Jim to this day has zero design skills - he is a specialist in the
software modelling of semiconductor structures, firstly of high current
thyristors for AC power cyclo-convertors and then later for MOS memory
cells.

I bet Jim thinks differently about his design skills. He has probably helped
design many semiconductors.

The point is that the *only* place to learn anything about the real word of
electronics engineering IS in the real world - not any danm stupid
university or some massive company that does NOT produce commercial
products.

And Semiconductors are not commercial products?

MrT.

 

[Phil Allison]

"TonyP" = the most evil troll on Aussie usenet.

"Phil Allison"

I bet Jim thinks differently about his design skills. He has probably
helped
design many semiconductors.

** The topic was "electronic circuit design " - you lying, criminal
piece of shit.

BTW Which thyristors does AT&T sell ??


Jim has never claimed that he was ever involved with the design of any
commercial product.





........... Phil

 

[Wing Fong Wong]

Congrads

Al

Thanks, but I still have a semester(one unit) left. But it help to be
looking early.

 

[Mike Harding]

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 21:59:43 +1100, Johnny

snip

Generally, the interviewers use your resume and any other
advance info to decide if your skills are appropriate or not, and that
is why you get the interview. The interview is more about assessing
your personality and honesty, rather than technical skills.

I don't really agree.

I take CVs as a guide only. It's always necessary to
thrash out exactly what technical skills a person has.
We are all inclined to "improve" our skills when writing
our CVs

Certainly the interview _should_ also be about checking
out personalities whether it is or not depends upon the
skill of the interviewer. Few engineers have training
in discerning such things and many engineers have
significant personality flaws anyway so would not be
well placed to assess others.

Mike Harding

 

[Franc Zabkar]

"nick mail.com>"


** Oh really - is that so ??

How about this particular Aussie ex-pat then:

http://www1.dupont.com/NASApp/dupon...US/en_US/overview/executives/prendergast.html

Jim and I were in the same class at high school ( ie Kogarah Marist Bros )
for two years, became great friends, did the HSC exam together in 1970,
both achieved results very close to the top of the state of NSW in Maths and
Physics, enrolled in the faculty of Engineering at Sydney Uni in 1971 and
were immediately accepted into the special honours level courses in Maths
and Physics. We sat together during lectures and prac sessions, ate lunch
together and socialised during holiday periods.

I was forced at the end of year two to discontinue due to financial and
personal reasons - Jim was not.

Three years on, Jim won the University medal, as a consequence got a
scholarship to Cambridge Uni to do his masters and then PhD where he was
head hunted by a team from AT&T for their semiconductor physics research lab
in Allentown PA.

The AT&T lab in Allentown did not have even one American born person on any
research team - the bosses had figured out that lonely foreigners worked
much harder for their money with fewer distractions. A normal working week
there was 70 hours plus. This approach was a hangover from the Nazi rocket
scientist period after WW2.

A meagre two weeks annual leave applied - but all employees were
considered traitors to take any of it before at least two years continuous
time had been served.

Jim to this day has zero design skills - he is a specialist in the
software modelling of semiconductor structures, firstly of high current
thyristors for AC power cyclo-convertors and then later for MOS memory
cells.

The point is that the *only* place to learn anything about the real word of
electronics engineering IS in the real world - not any danm stupid
university or some massive company that does NOT produce commercial
products.

The point is that a person with an engineering degree became a VP at
DuPont, presumably with a six figure salary and a lifestyle to match,
whereas his bigoted whiney dropout classmate ended up as a pathetic
loser eking out a meagre living in a dying trade, repairing amps from
the backyard of some rented shack in Summer Hill (?), and facing
retirement with the prospect of an age pension dwarfed by rental
payments.


- Franc Zabkar

 

[Phil Allison]

"Franc Zabkar"
"Phil Allison"

The point is that a person with an engineering degree became a VP at
DuPont, presumably with a six figure salary and a lifestyle to match,

** You presume far too damn much.

Jim was not picked up by AT&T until he already had his PhD from Cambridge,
which by pure chance was in a topic area they were working on at Allentown
at the time. The only reason he was able to work in the USA was because AT&T
could effectively over-ride the US Green Card system that normally keeps
foreign workers out. Of 1100 boys who entered the Sydney Uni EE course in
1971 - he was the only one to get near so lucky.

He has never been highly paid and never done what most would consider as
electronics at all. During his stint with AT&T, and taking into account the
horrendous 70 hour weeks, he was paid less than US$20 per hour before tax.

Despite the USA having plenty of top PhD students from places like the
IT - AT&T preferred to employ foreigners because they found that no
Americans would work hard enough for their liking or for the shitty money.





............. Phil

 

[Al Borowski]

"Al Borowski"



** In your case - take up garbage collecting.

You Clown

 

[[email protected]]

"Franc Zabkar"
"Phil Allison"
match,


** You presume far too damn much.

Jims life is apparently refutable.. Phil's is not

 

[Terry Collins]

"Al Borowski"

** In your case - take up garbage collecting.

Be careful about giving this advice.
More than ever, there is "money in muck these days"

 

[Fred Ferd]

What a load of rubbish.

You make sweeping statements about how you would _never_
hire a TAFE grad. and then go on to talk about due credit!

Elec. dummer than tech. dummer than eng?
More rubbish

You are in denial, see an occupational psychologist right away.

Eg Ask the electrician what the difference between a diff amp and an op amp
is,
mathematically .

I have spent 30 years in this business all over the world and
worked as everything from an electrician to a leading edge
design engineer and I have met some stupid engineers in
my time!

You didnt do their job, so dont you criticise. They didnt want to tell you
how useless you are,
so they didnt say much, so you say they are stupid. they could have proved
you to be a ignorant
'throw the components on the board and move them until they work' designer,
but I guess you didnt listen to any comment, so you never found out. you
just believe you are good and they are dumb.


Engineers look after the mathematics and general design.

If the parts delivered have some unspecificied behaviour, it may be that you
new about that behaviour, buts what you are there for. If they didnt need a
pleb to repair simple faults like hot spots or discharge from cirucit to
case, and other things that may not be well predicted from a design, then
they would just have a robot build the circuit straight from design. You
would be redundant.

There's design and then there's engineering designing. You fail to mention
that.
You are the ignorant one , not the graduates.

I have just observed my elder son and his friends go
through a four year electronics degree. It did not teach them
how to design - I did much more of that for him than university.

No it doesnt.

His friends haven't had the advantage of a father in the
business.

You didnt offer to employ them toget that experience either.
You judge them as useless without giving them the experience they would need
before you could judge them , so shame on you !

To become a good designer takes _years_ of experience
irrespective of whatever formal qualification one did.

And how is ANYONE going to get that if you dont give them a start ?

A
degree _should_ lay the foundations upon which to build
those skills - often it doesn't.

You have strange idea of what university is.

A good TAFE grad. with interest
and enthusiasm may well develop to become a much better
designer than an "engineer" with a degree from the Uni
of Nowhere who isn't really interested. I've know a few excellent
TAFE GRADs. over the years.

You may think that, but you dont know the falacy of 'better the devil you
know'.

You just get along with the tafe grads, because they dont challenge you.


The uni grads were doing totally different stuff that is beyond you.
Believe me, its beyond you. No point even starting to explain , given what
you have said so far.

And don't forget an overriding factor here, much more
important than their technical ability: if you employ someone
with a super qualification and he has the people skills of
a teenage crocodile with sore feet... it doesn't matter a toss
_how_ good he is because he's going to cause half of the
people he works with to resign anyway.

Dont beat the 'graduates have problems' crap constantly. Its no use hiding
it in this 'he's going to cause' something.

Engineers are normally quite able to decide what is in their arena and what
isnt, and if you are talking about stuff that isnt in their job description,
they stay right away from it.


One trouble with the pleb management is that they tend to constantly let
fires grow they redirect all staff efforts into fighting that one fire.
because its a rush and its every man on on deck, its an innefficient. people
are running to get supplies instead of waiting for deliveries. they are
asking questions and questions instead of just waiting for a design to be
printed and sets of instructions to be delivered. they are doing things by
hand because the tool to do it is three days away.

The grad engineer is the PIONEERING engineer.

The TAFE designer, like you, is the 'well this book has a circuit so I am
copying it', the circuit is dated
1965.

well good, you are great at 1965 circuits,
you totally fail to understand university and university graduates roles.