On 12/28/2009 3:59 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:> On 28 Des, 19:22, Eric Jacobsen<eric.jacob...@ieee.org> wrote: >> On 12/28/2009 10:50 AM, Tim Wescott wrote: > >>> Nothing is more useful than a practical guy with a PhD, but having a PhD >>> sure doesn't guarantee that practical bent. >> Practical guys with PhDs are very rare in my experience. I think in my >> entire career I've met a handful that I would say "get it" from both a >> practical and theoretical perspective. >> >> It takes a lot of one's formative years to get a PhD, and it takes a lot >> of one's formative years to get good, practical experience. > > Agreed. > >> People >> with PhDs are seldom put in the same positions where people get really >> useful practical experience, so the sorts of circumstances where >> somebody would wind up with both good practical formative experience and >> a PhD are pretty rare. > > There is the middle way: A PhD who doesn't understand the > practical aspects, but who knows that he doesn't understand. > >> But I have met a lot of people with PhDs who -think- they understand >> practical stuff but don't (like Jerry's guy with the electrolytic cap). >> Often no amount of evidence or cajoling will convince them otherwise. >> Sometimes these are the guys you want to keep far, far away from your >> project. > > The main problem with these guys is not that they lack > practical skills, but that they don't realize the fact. > Somebody who knows they are in deep waters might take > the necessary steps to get help or assistance. > > There is a saying in Norwegian, > > "Den som tror han er ferdig utl�rt er ikke utl�rt. > Han er ferdig." > > In my translation: > > "He who thinks his education has finished is not educated. > He is finished." > > RuneHehe. I like that, and I agree. People (with PhDs or not) who know what they know and, more importantly, know what they don't know, are by far, IMHO, the biggest assets. The PhDs with good theoretical, analytical, and simulation skills can be invaluable, as those are critical skills to apply to many problems. Having people who know how to take the results of the theory, analysis, and sims and apply them to practical solutions is also invaluable. Having people who know the real nuts and bolts (and solder and wire) of how to build stuff that works and holds up in the real world is also invaluable. They are, far and away more often than not, different people for each role. Some people can bridge two of those three, if they're really good, but it's extremely rare that somebody can bridge all three skill sets with good authority in each. -- Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms Abineau Communications http://www.abineau.com
Convolution Tutorial
Started by ●December 26, 2009
Reply by ●December 28, 20092009-12-28
Reply by ●December 28, 20092009-12-28
On Dec 29, 12:33�pm, Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacob...@ieee.org> wrote:> On 12/28/2009 3:59 PM, Rune Allnor wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 28 Des, 19:22, Eric Jacobsen<eric.jacob...@ieee.org> �wrote: > >> On 12/28/2009 10:50 AM, Tim Wescott wrote: > > >>> Nothing is more useful than a practical guy with a PhD, but having a PhD > >>> sure doesn't guarantee that practical bent. > >> Practical guys with PhDs are very rare in my experience. � I think in my > >> entire career I've met a handful that I would say "get it" from both a > >> practical and theoretical perspective. > > >> It takes a lot of one's formative years to get a PhD, and it takes a lot > >> of one's formative years to get good, practical experience. > > > Agreed. > > >> � �People > >> with PhDs are seldom put in the same positions where people get really > >> useful practical experience, so the sorts of circumstances where > >> somebody would wind up with both good practical formative experience and > >> a PhD are pretty rare. > > > There is the middle way: A PhD who doesn't understand the > > practical aspects, but who knows that he doesn't understand. > > >> But I have met a lot of people with PhDs who -think- they understand > >> practical stuff but don't (like Jerry's guy with the electrolytic cap). > >> � �Often no amount of evidence or cajoling will convince them otherwise. > >> � �Sometimes these are the guys you want to keep far, far away from your > >> project. > > > The main problem with these guys is not that they lack > > practical skills, but that they don't realize the fact. > > Somebody who knows they are in deep waters might take > > the necessary steps to get help or assistance. > > > There is a saying in Norwegian, > > > "Den som tror han er ferdig utl�rt er ikke utl�rt. > > Han er ferdig." > > > In my translation: > > > "He who thinks his education has finished is not educated. > > He is finished." > > > Rune > > Hehe. �I like that, and I agree. �People (with PhDs or not) who know > what they know and, more importantly, know what they don't know, are by > far, IMHO, the biggest assets. �The PhDs with good theoretical, > analytical, and simulation skills can be invaluable, as those are > critical skills to apply to many problems. �Having people who know how > to take the results of the theory, analysis, and sims and apply them to > practical solutions is also invaluable. �Having people who know the real > nuts and bolts (and solder and wire) of how to build stuff that works > and holds up in the real world is also invaluable. > > They are, far and away more often than not, different people for each > role. �Some people can bridge two of those three, if they're really > good, but it's extremely rare that somebody can bridge all three skill > sets with good authority in each. > > -- > Eric Jacobsen > Minister of Algorithms > Abineau Communicationshttp://www.abineau.comSpeaking as somebody with a Ph.D (and somebody who has supervised a dozen or more of them) I can tell you what a Ph.D is supposed to give you. A Ph.D teaches somebody the basis of fundamental research - how to carry out best practice research in a particular area. How to do a literature survey and find an area which has not been tackled before. This original contribution is what makes the Ph.d unique. There must be a contrinbution to knowledge. Now, with a Ph.D working in industry don't expect that person to be any better than the next engineer. They can both solve problems. In fact the guy who has been in industry for longer may well be more practiced at the particular work in hand. (in fact certainly so!). So what can a Ph.D contribute? When the guy with the Ph.D has produced a new process (say) as part of his Ph.D and the company want to make use of it. Maybe he has developed a new kind of switch that uses biology instead of silicon..and such like. That's one reason to have a Ph.D. Another reason is that the person will normally be smart because to enter a Ph.D study they need to be amongst the best at their Uni. In fact in the USA they need to pass umpteen more exams before they even get to start the research part. The third reason is that the Ph.D may be needed to research a new experimental area - as in Bell labs type people. However, most Ph.Ds end up in academia marking exams and writing papers. Writing papers is what they are best at! Hardy
Reply by ●December 29, 20092009-12-29
On 29 Des, 01:02, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 29, 12:33�pm, Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacob...@ieee.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On 12/28/2009 3:59 PM, Rune Allnor wrote: > > > > On 28 Des, 19:22, Eric Jacobsen<eric.jacob...@ieee.org> �wrote: > > >> On 12/28/2009 10:50 AM, Tim Wescott wrote: > > > >>> Nothing is more useful than a practical guy with a PhD, but having a PhD > > >>> sure doesn't guarantee that practical bent. > > >> Practical guys with PhDs are very rare in my experience. � I think in my > > >> entire career I've met a handful that I would say "get it" from both a > > >> practical and theoretical perspective. > > > >> It takes a lot of one's formative years to get a PhD, and it takes a lot > > >> of one's formative years to get good, practical experience. > > > > Agreed. > > > >> � �People > > >> with PhDs are seldom put in the same positions where people get really > > >> useful practical experience, so the sorts of circumstances where > > >> somebody would wind up with both good practical formative experience and > > >> a PhD are pretty rare. > > > > There is the middle way: A PhD who doesn't understand the > > > practical aspects, but who knows that he doesn't understand. > > > >> But I have met a lot of people with PhDs who -think- they understand > > >> practical stuff but don't (like Jerry's guy with the electrolytic cap). > > >> � �Often no amount of evidence or cajoling will convince them otherwise. > > >> � �Sometimes these are the guys you want to keep far, far away from your > > >> project. > > > > The main problem with these guys is not that they lack > > > practical skills, but that they don't realize the fact. > > > Somebody who knows they are in deep waters might take > > > the necessary steps to get help or assistance. > > > > There is a saying in Norwegian, > > > > "Den som tror han er ferdig utl�rt er ikke utl�rt. > > > Han er ferdig." > > > > In my translation: > > > > "He who thinks his education has finished is not educated. > > > He is finished." > > > > Rune > > > Hehe. �I like that, and I agree. �People (with PhDs or not) who know > > what they know and, more importantly, know what they don't know, are by > > far, IMHO, the biggest assets. �The PhDs with good theoretical, > > analytical, and simulation skills can be invaluable, as those are > > critical skills to apply to many problems. �Having people who know how > > to take the results of the theory, analysis, and sims and apply them to > > practical solutions is also invaluable. �Having people who know the real > > nuts and bolts (and solder and wire) of how to build stuff that works > > and holds up in the real world is also invaluable. > > > They are, far and away more often than not, different people for each > > role. �Some people can bridge two of those three, if they're really > > good, but it's extremely rare that somebody can bridge all three skill > > sets with good authority in each. > > > -- > > Eric Jacobsen > > Minister of Algorithms > > Abineau Communicationshttp://www.abineau.com > > Speaking as somebody with a Ph.D (and somebody who has supervised a > dozen or more of them) I can tell you what a Ph.D is supposed to give > you.PhD degrees don't provide anything for the student. The degree programs are merely a way for universities to 'produce' credits in order to generate public funding. Sheer fraud.> A Ph.D teaches somebody the basis of fundamental research - how to > carry out best practice research in a particular area.That's total an utter BS. *Engineering* - well 'below' the PhD level - is about best practices. Any engineer worth his salary will be able to research a problem whenever need be.> How to do a > literature surveyAgain, a ridiculously basic skill, expected by anyone claiming a salary as a BSc-level engineer.> and find an area which has not been tackled before.Give me a break! people who try something not attempted before are either stupid or illiterate. There is only one reason why any particular approach have never been attenpted: 1) The task is irrelevant If the task is irrelevant, there is no reason why anyone would need to attempt it. There might be relevant tasks for which no solution exist, in which case there is is an additional reason why no such solution have been found: 2) The task is unsolvable. It is a safe assumption that any task worth the effort has been attempted solved. If no solution have yet been found, there is a reason for it.> This original contribution is what makes the Ph.d unique. There must > be a contrinbution to knowledge.Which is why it is totally ridiculous to talk about awarding PhDs to 25-30-year-olds - what the heck do *they* know about abnything worth knowing? The only outcome of the present PhD system is to mess with the minds of people, to the point where they become totally dysfunctional in any aspect of life worth half an effort.> Now, with a Ph.D working in industry don't expect that person to be > any better than the next engineer. They can both solve problems. In > fact the guy who has been in industry for longer may well be more > practiced at the particular work in hand. (in fact certainly so!). �So > what can a Ph.D contribute?Nothing.> When the guy with the Ph.D has produced a new process (say) as part of > his Ph.D and the company want to make use of it.Wrong. I did exactly that for my PhD degree. The technical side was intersting, and to some degree successful. The only problem was that the main strategy was totally and utterly flawed. The old process was imperfect but very tolerant to blunders, errors and flaws. The stuff I worked with required 100% accuracy - make the slightest error at any stage and the whole analysis blew sky high.> Maybe he has > developed a new kind of switch that uses biology instead of > silicon..and such like.No. That kind of thing takes a lifetime to do. And it requires a mind-set that the person in charge must question every step of the way and the rationale behind every single decision made throughout the development.> That's one reason to have a Ph.D.Bullshit! Once upon a time, having made such achievements used to be the reason for *obtaining* thedegree, *after* the fact. Present PhDs are conditioned to think that the less-than- mundane stuff they have spent ages dabbling with sets them above the 'ordinary' engineer, when in fact it puts them at a severe disadvantage.> Another > reason is that the person will normally be smart because to enter a > Ph.D study they need to be amongst the best at their Uni.Bullshit! I was once offered a PhD scholarship because some professor needed a TA for an upcoming class, and a PhD scholarship was the only viable way of funding the TA position.> In fact in > the USA they need to pass umpteen more exams before they even get to > start the research part.And what, exactly, have exams to do with anything worth caring about? While at university I had a summer vacancy on a metal plant. On one occasion I had to physically restrain a person from walking into an area where he was in severe danger of getting burned. The person I restrained was the site director. On another occasion I had to tell off a person who had walked behind my ~5 ton vehicle, exposing himself to squash / burn hazards, all but causing me to have a heart attack when I discovered him popping outh between my vehicle and the wall. That guy was the site production manager. Academic or formal positions, certificates and awards have *never* had anything to do with actual skills or knowledge.> The third reason is that the Ph.D may be needed to research a new > experimental area - as in Bell labs type people.Bullshit! I don't know what you mean by 'Bell lab type people', but I can assure you you only need highly skilled, dedicted people to do new stuff. The PhDs are the last people you want to have anywhere near, if you want an progress made.> However, most Ph.Ds end up in academia marking exams and writing > papers. Writing papers is what they are best at!There are plenty enough bureacrates around the world - no need to waste technical educatinal facilities on producing more. Rune
Reply by ●December 29, 20092009-12-29
On Dec 29, 6:30�pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:> On 29 Des, 01:02, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 29, 12:33�pm, Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacob...@ieee.org> wrote: > > > > On 12/28/2009 3:59 PM, Rune Allnor wrote: > > > > > On 28 Des, 19:22, Eric Jacobsen<eric.jacob...@ieee.org> �wrote: > > > >> On 12/28/2009 10:50 AM, Tim Wescott wrote: > > > > >>> Nothing is more useful than a practical guy with a PhD, but having a PhD > > > >>> sure doesn't guarantee that practical bent. > > > >> Practical guys with PhDs are very rare in my experience. � I think in my > > > >> entire career I've met a handful that I would say "get it" from both a > > > >> practical and theoretical perspective. > > > > >> It takes a lot of one's formative years to get a PhD, and it takes a lot > > > >> of one's formative years to get good, practical experience. > > > > > Agreed. > > > > >> � �People > > > >> with PhDs are seldom put in the same positions where people get really > > > >> useful practical experience, so the sorts of circumstances where > > > >> somebody would wind up with both good practical formative experience and > > > >> a PhD are pretty rare. > > > > > There is the middle way: A PhD who doesn't understand the > > > > practical aspects, but who knows that he doesn't understand. > > > > >> But I have met a lot of people with PhDs who -think- they understand > > > >> practical stuff but don't (like Jerry's guy with the electrolytic cap). > > > >> � �Often no amount of evidence or cajoling will convince them otherwise. > > > >> � �Sometimes these are the guys you want to keep far, far away from your > > > >> project. > > > > > The main problem with these guys is not that they lack > > > > practical skills, but that they don't realize the fact. > > > > Somebody who knows they are in deep waters might take > > > > the necessary steps to get help or assistance. > > > > > There is a saying in Norwegian, > > > > > "Den som tror han er ferdig utl�rt er ikke utl�rt. > > > > Han er ferdig." > > > > > In my translation: > > > > > "He who thinks his education has finished is not educated. > > > > He is finished." > > > > > Rune > > > > Hehe. �I like that, and I agree. �People (with PhDs or not) who know > > > what they know and, more importantly, know what they don't know, are by > > > far, IMHO, the biggest assets. �The PhDs with good theoretical, > > > analytical, and simulation skills can be invaluable, as those are > > > critical skills to apply to many problems. �Having people who know how > > > to take the results of the theory, analysis, and sims and apply them to > > > practical solutions is also invaluable. �Having people who know the real > > > nuts and bolts (and solder and wire) of how to build stuff that works > > > and holds up in the real world is also invaluable. > > > > They are, far and away more often than not, different people for each > > > role. �Some people can bridge two of those three, if they're really > > > good, but it's extremely rare that somebody can bridge all three skill > > > sets with good authority in each. > > > > -- > > > Eric Jacobsen > > > Minister of Algorithms > > > Abineau Communicationshttp://www.abineau.com > > > Speaking as somebody with a Ph.D (and somebody who has supervised a > > dozen or more of them) I can tell you what a Ph.D is supposed to give > > you. > > PhD degrees don't provide anything for the student. The degree > programs are merely a way for universities to 'produce' credits > in order to generate public funding. > > Sheer fraud. > > > A Ph.D teaches somebody the basis of fundamental research - how to > > carry out best practice research in a particular area. > > That's total an utter BS. *Engineering* - well 'below' the > PhD level - is about best practices. Any engineer worth his > salary will be able to research a problem whenever need be. > > > How to do a > > literature survey > > Again, a ridiculously basic skill, expected by anyone claiming > a salary as a BSc-level engineer. > > > and find an area which has not been tackled before. > > Give me a break! people who try something not attempted > before are either stupid or illiterate. There is only one > reason why any particular approach have never been attenpted: > > 1) The task is irrelevant > > If the task is irrelevant, there is no reason why anyone > would need to attempt it. > > There might be relevant tasks for which no solution exist, > in which case there is is an additional reason why no such > solution have been found: > > 2) The task is unsolvable. > > It is a safe assumption that any task worth the effort has > been attempted solved. If no solution have yet been found, > there is a reason for it. > > > This original contribution is what makes the Ph.d unique. There must > > be a contrinbution to knowledge. > > Which is why it is totally ridiculous to talk about > awarding PhDs to 25-30-year-olds - what the heck do *they* > know about abnything worth knowing? > > The only outcome of the present PhD system is to mess with > the minds of people, to the point where they become totally > dysfunctional in any aspect of life worth half an effort. > > > Now, with a Ph.D working in industry don't expect that person to be > > any better than the next engineer. They can both solve problems. In > > fact the guy who has been in industry for longer may well be more > > practiced at the particular work in hand. (in fact certainly so!). �So > > what can a Ph.D contribute? > > Nothing. > > > When the guy with the Ph.D has produced a new process (say) as part of > > his Ph.D and the company want to make use of it. > > Wrong. I did exactly that for my PhD degree. The technical > side was intersting, and to some degree successful. The only > problem was that the main strategy was totally and utterly > flawed. The old process was imperfect but very tolerant to > blunders, errors and flaws. The stuff I worked with required > 100% accuracy - make the slightest error at any stage and the > whole analysis blew sky high. > > > Maybe he has > > developed a new kind of switch that uses biology instead of > > silicon..and such like. > > No. That kind of thing takes a lifetime to do. And it requires > a mind-set that the person in charge must question every step > of the way and the rationale behind every single decision > made throughout the development. > > > That's one reason to have a Ph.D. > > Bullshit! > > Once upon a time, having made such achievements used to be > the reason for *obtaining* thedegree, *after* the fact. > > Present PhDs are conditioned to think that the less-than- > mundane stuff they have spent ages dabbling with sets them > above the 'ordinary' engineer, when in fact it puts them > at a severe disadvantage. > > > Another > > reason is that the person will normally be smart because to enter a > > Ph.D study they need to be amongst the best at their Uni. > > Bullshit! I was once offered a PhD scholarship because some > professor needed a TA for an upcoming class, and a PhD > scholarship was the only viable way of funding the TA position. > > > In fact in > > the USA they need to pass umpteen more exams before they even get to > > start the research part. > > And what, exactly, have exams to do with anything worth > caring about? > > While at university I had a summer vacancy on a metal plant. > On one occasion I had to physically restrain a person from > walking into an area where he was in severe danger of getting > burned. The person I restrained was the site director. > > On another occasion I had to tell off a person who had walked > behind my ~5 ton vehicle, exposing himself to squash / burn > hazards, all but causing me to have a heart attack when I > discovered him popping outh between my vehicle and the wall. > That guy was the site production manager. > > Academic or formal positions, certificates and awards have > *never* had anything to do with actual skills or knowledge. > > > The third reason is that the Ph.D may be needed to research a new > > experimental area - as in Bell labs type people. > > Bullshit! I don't know what you mean by 'Bell lab type people', > but I can assure you you only need highly skilled, dedicted > people to do new stuff. The PhDs are the last people you want > to have anywhere near, if you want an progress made. >Well you may think that but look ta the history: Nyquist,Bode,Shannon et al. Litereature surveys are not as easy as you may think. just understanding the papers can be a challenge in itself. Anybody can read the abstract and write a sentence of course. As for TAs - well occasionally the less academic get offered them if they cannot get anybody better. (nothing personal). At the best Unis however they can pick and chose and frequently do. In fact they kick them out after a year if they do not perform. There are some Ph.D who think they are a cut above the rest - but it's horses for courses. Ph.Ds are trained mainly for University life and the ones that end up in industry are sometimes the ones that cannot get a teaching job - or are spoending a few years in industry before going back to academia. It's a bit like comparing a GP with a consultant heart doctor. the GP is better all round but the specialist is best at what he does - narrow interests but good.> Give me a break! people who try something not attempted > before are either stupid or illiterate. There is only one > reason why any particular approach have never been attenpted:err no!! We would still be sitting in caves with that approach. It is true that perhaps more than often a Ph.D candidate will produce a solution which is impractical at the time. (or perhaps only applicable in a few specialist areas). The Kalman-Bucy filter is a good example of an academic approach which has proven its worth. Of course the practical implmentation is another matter...there weren't too many Ph.D engineers at NASA and they landed on the moon. I can think of so many more examples. SPICE - started in academia over a long period of time. Many Ph.Ds went into SPICE. Many simulation methods included in MATLAB that ordinary engineers take for granted. Many new control methods - adaptive controllers. For example the european fighter jet uses H infinity control. (not my first joice!). Areas of communications - endless improvements. Real engineers make them all work of course. I am not going to knock one area or the other, I am proud of all engineering achievements. Hardy
Reply by ●December 29, 20092009-12-29
On 29 Des, 07:55, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:> > Bullshit! I don't know what you mean by 'Bell lab type people', > > but I can assure you you only need highly skilled, dedicted > > people to do new stuff. The PhDs are the last people you want > > to have anywhere near, if you want an progress made. > > Well you may think that but look ta the history: Nyquist,Bode,Shannon > et al.OK, I take your word for that the people mentioned held the degree. Now - assuming that's correct - *when* and *why* did they obtain the degree? I can easily imagine somebody like Shannon being awarded the degree based on his achievements in comminications theory, *after* he published his papers. That breaks fundamentally with present practices where people first obtain the degree and only then are expected to justify it.> Litereature surveys are not as easy as you may think. just > understanding the papers can be a challenge in itself. Anybody can > read the abstract and write a sentence of course.If you know your craft you will know the terminology. It is a fundamental requirement for professionals to read up on developments in their respective fields.> As for TAs - well > occasionally the less academic get offered them if they cannot get > anybody better. (nothing personal).No onein their right mind wanted the TA positions. When I enrolled, taking TA duty was part of the deal. These days, the only temporary positions in universities are PhD schlarships.> At the best Unis however they can > pick and chose and frequently do.I have no idea where you work, but I can assure you that the people who enroll on PhD programs waste their skills and efforts.> In fact they kick them out after a > year if they do not perform.Where do you get these kinds of delusions from? Kicking out a student is a no-no for any number of reasons: 1) The cerdist are lost for future fund applications 2) The academic stature of the supervisor diminishes in the eye of colleagues, department and funders 3) Kicking out students means by inductio that the supervisor accepted the wrong student in the first place, indicating fallibility 4) There are no useful measures of 'performance' around, particularly after merely one year. There are any number of reasons why students leave: 1) They find the job wasn't as exciting as they thought 2) They find better paid work 3) They can't submit a theis in time The one reason *no* *one* leave by, is that their work don't keep up to standards.> There are some Ph.D who think they are a > cut above the rest - but it's horses for courses. Ph.Ds are trained > mainly for University lifeAgain, what the heck are you talking about? I exaggergate somewhat, but not very much, when I say that there are more PhD degrees awarded per year than accumulated in all years previously. It might not be true now, but is certainly was true in the mid / late '90s.> and the ones that end up in industry are > sometimes the ones that cannot get a teaching job - or are spoending a > few years in industry before going back to academia.Wrong. The PhDs are considered under-paid engineers, if they can get relevant work at all. The reality is that people work for less competent MScs, who have the years to reach first-level managers, while not having a clue what the real world is about. One of my friends work in a major company who provides household services like laundry, cleaning and food services for other companies. Another friend of mine works with a florist wholesale dealer. Both these guys use far more advanced technology and process tracking systems than the offshore survey companies who operate in the oil business, that I deal with. Take one guess where the MScs and PhDs work.> It's a bit like > comparing a GP with a consultant heart doctor. the GP is better all > round but the specialist is best at what he does - narrow interests > but good. > > > Give me a break! people who try something not attempted > > before are either stupid or illiterate. There is only one > > reason why any particular approach have never been attenpted: > > err no!! We would still be sitting in caves with that approach.Whoever first learned to control fire or invent the wheel did *not* claim that they would go on to Achieve Great Things in advance. Their names would, no doubt, be hailed along with the greatest, on a par with Archimedes, Newton or Einstein, had they not been lost to history, but only because of the achievements, not because of any diplomas, ranks or titles. Again, *first* earn the privilege; *then* recieve ranks and titles. Ceremonies are nothing but voodoo and mysticism that have nothing to do with engineering. Rune
Reply by ●December 29, 20092009-12-29
this is what happens when i get outa bed at 3 am because i can't sleep... On Dec 29, 2:26�am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:> On 29 Des, 07:55, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:wow. i read through this, but rather than respond to the individual points, i might just make a couple of observations. Rune, the fact that you're a PhD that is so critical of the system that awards such a credential, gives you credibility. far more than the self-absorbed doofi that toss around phrases like "union card" or "terminal degree", etc. once in a while i might complain about the system because i am ABD and in 1990 was "declined" for reappointment at a quite non-prestigious school (U of Southern Maine) because of lacking the PhD. i also know the difference between good teaching and poor teaching and estimate that there are plenty of PhDs in academics that do not. but for me to complain will smack of sour grapes or a self-serving argument by a wannabee who didn't cut it. but even if i *did* finish and successfully defend my dissertation, i would have the same attitude and would be more in your camp about it. about PhDs being solely for academics, the numbers just don't support that anymore. used to be (like before 1975) that there weren't enough PhDs to serve engineering and nursing schools in the many non- prestigious land-grant schools in the US, i had a few of those profs at the U of North Dakota and for the most part they were competent teachers knowledgeable in their field. but since, there is a glut of PhDs out there. schools with PhD programs graduate far more PhDs than academia can absorb as faculty or as researchers or as post-docs. some *must* end up in industry. probably the majority. it just isn't realistic that the system would groom each of these candidates for academe when more of these candidates don't swing that way. *but* there *is* an awful lot of bullshit out there. one of my favorite books about it was published about the same time (ca 1991 or 92) by Martin Anderson called "Imposters in the Temple". it was about multiple bogus stuff surrounding the whole academic racket. the bogus PhD research (no one should be getting a PhD without a bona-fide *novel* contribution to the body of knowledge), and the continuing bogus research done by many academics. the appearance of new journals all the time that serve no purpose but as a repository for this bogus output so that profs seeking tenure or the next research grant can point to a publication record in an environment that is getting tighter and tighter (so more room is made with the creation of new and more specialized and esoteric journals). then there were stings like the Sokal Affair that exposed the bogus publications. (and sad shit like the Bogdanov Affair that literally proved by example that PhDs were going to people who really were ambitious bullshitters.) so quantity and vapidity were being rewarded in academe over quality and those who were more honest about the work (and significance thereof) that they do. sometimes, especially in the arts, a non- doctorate would get an academic position due to the recognized output of theirs (like the guy wrote a few really good books). even in physics, there might be a giant or two in the academy without the Union Card (like Freeman Dyson). but far more often than not, the PhD is viewed as an absolute minimum requirement for the job of teaching 19 year olds electrical engineering, simply now because of the glut of PhDs, even the non-prestigious schools can use that as an effortless initial weeding out processing to reduce the number of "c.v.'s" (people who are so insecure that they need to prepend their name with "Dr" or append with "PhD" don't send out resumes, they send out their c.v.) from 200 to 150 (for a single position). that said, i am sorta an elitist regarding things that are important. we don't want posers like George W Bush to attain positions of responsibility where their incompetence can hurt a lot of people. i might want to see a real "MD" credential on the wall of the surgeon that's gonna cut into me. but teaching is different. particularly given the different levels (undergrad or grad) and the legitimate range of prestige of different institutions. i wouldn't expect MIT to hire a non-PhD for their faculty, because they don't have to. but for the University of East Podunk to reduce their applicant pool *artificially*, just because there is a glut of PhDs doesn't mean that they'll get the best person for the job. the best person might very well be one of them without the PhD, but the UEP will never find that out. some things *have* gotten worse and the racket of academia (with prices that increase at a rate more than double that of the CPI) is one such. the self-love of the product (degrees) that they put out, the constant pressure for publication even if it means more trees die for literally no valid reason, the pressure to get funding for research (no one researches anything for it's intrinsic interest, which is what unfunded research is), and the ego inflation where every prof has to think that he/she is a world leader in *something* no matter how esoteric or narrow it is (and represent him/herself as such). there is no room for the school that sees its primary mission to teach with faculty that are comfortable with themselves with that role and status. everyone must be one-upping someone else or at least appear to be so. and, like corporate board members that scratch each other's backs with inflated executive salary, academics do that to each other (unless you're Alan Sokal). it's a sad state, and is not sustainable. someday academics in the US will come crumbling down because of the high percentage of overpaid profs that are no better (and sometimes far worse) than the people who actually *do* the stuff these profs teach. eventually prospective students will be forced to look to other methods to learn what they need to learn to do the stuff they want to do for a living. maybe mentoring and apprenticeship will come back (from the 19th century). the credential will be word-of-mouth and a candidate's portfolio of creation and product. r b-j
Reply by ●December 29, 20092009-12-29
Rune Allnor wrote:> On 29 Des, 07:55, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote: > >[snip] >> In fact they kick them out after a >> year if they do not perform. > > Where do you get these kinds of delusions from? Kicking out > a student is a no-no for any number of reasons: > > 1) The cerdist are lost for future fund applications > 2) The academic stature of the supervisor diminishes > in the eye of colleagues, department and funders > 3) Kicking out students means by inductio that the > supervisor accepted the wrong student in the first > place, indicating fallibility > 4) There are no useful measures of 'performance' around, > particularly after merely one year. > > There are any number of reasons why students leave: > > 1) They find the job wasn't as exciting as they thought > 2) They find better paid work > 3) They can't submit a theis in time > > The one reason *no* *one* leave by, is that their work > don't keep up to standards. >Rune, you are wrong. A young man who graduated from my high school was a PhD candidate in chemistry when I was an Instrument Technician for the department. He left with a MS degree. That was in the 60's so things *may* have been different.
Reply by ●December 29, 20092009-12-29
"robert bristow-johnson" <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote in message news:56e99129-b05e-40cc-827c-a10912611c92@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... this is what happens when i get outa bed at 3 am because i can't sleep... On Dec 29, 2:26 am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:> On 29 Des, 07:55, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:wow. i read through this, but rather than respond to the individual points, i might just make a couple of observations. Rune, the fact that you're a PhD that is so critical of the system that awards such a credential, gives you credibility. far more than the self-absorbed doofi that toss around phrases like "union card" or "terminal degree", etc. once in a while i might complain about the system because i am ABD and in 1990 was "declined" for reappointment at a quite non-prestigious school (U of Southern Maine) because of lacking the PhD. i also know the difference between good teaching and poor teaching and estimate that there are plenty of PhDs in academics that do not. but for me to complain will smack of sour grapes or a self-serving argument by a wannabee who didn't cut it. but even if i *did* finish and successfully defend my dissertation, i would have the same attitude and would be more in your camp about it. about PhDs being solely for academics, the numbers just don't support that anymore. used to be (like before 1975) that there weren't enough PhDs to serve engineering and nursing schools in the many non- prestigious land-grant schools in the US, i had a few of those profs at the U of North Dakota and for the most part they were competent teachers knowledgeable in their field. but since, there is a glut of PhDs out there. schools with PhD programs graduate far more PhDs than academia can absorb as faculty or as researchers or as post-docs. some *must* end up in industry. probably the majority. it just isn't realistic that the system would groom each of these candidates for academe when more of these candidates don't swing that way. *but* there *is* an awful lot of bullshit out there. one of my favorite books about it was published about the same time (ca 1991 or 92) by Martin Anderson called "Imposters in the Temple". it was about multiple bogus stuff surrounding the whole academic racket. the bogus PhD research (no one should be getting a PhD without a bona-fide *novel* contribution to the body of knowledge), and the continuing bogus research done by many academics. the appearance of new journals all the time that serve no purpose but as a repository for this bogus output so that profs seeking tenure or the next research grant can point to a publication record in an environment that is getting tighter and tighter (so more room is made with the creation of new and more specialized and esoteric journals). then there were stings like the Sokal Affair that exposed the bogus publications. (and sad shit like the Bogdanov Affair that literally proved by example that PhDs were going to people who really were ambitious bullshitters.) so quantity and vapidity were being rewarded in academe over quality and those who were more honest about the work (and significance thereof) that they do. sometimes, especially in the arts, a non- doctorate would get an academic position due to the recognized output of theirs (like the guy wrote a few really good books). even in physics, there might be a giant or two in the academy without the Union Card (like Freeman Dyson). but far more often than not, the PhD is viewed as an absolute minimum requirement for the job of teaching 19 year olds electrical engineering, simply now because of the glut of PhDs, even the non-prestigious schools can use that as an effortless initial weeding out processing to reduce the number of "c.v.'s" (people who are so insecure that they need to prepend their name with "Dr" or append with "PhD" don't send out resumes, they send out their c.v.) from 200 to 150 (for a single position). that said, i am sorta an elitist regarding things that are important. we don't want posers like George W Bush to attain positions of responsibility where their incompetence can hurt a lot of people. i might want to see a real "MD" credential on the wall of the surgeon that's gonna cut into me. but teaching is different. particularly given the different levels (undergrad or grad) and the legitimate range of prestige of different institutions. i wouldn't expect MIT to hire a non-PhD for their faculty, because they don't have to. but for How about a non-bachelor? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Fredkin Very rare, but it does happen. the University of East Podunk to reduce their applicant pool *artificially*, just because there is a glut of PhDs doesn't mean that they'll get the best person for the job. the best person might very well be one of them without the PhD, but the UEP will never find that out. some things *have* gotten worse and the racket of academia (with prices that increase at a rate more than double that of the CPI) is one such. the self-love of the product (degrees) that they put out, the constant pressure for publication even if it means more trees die for literally no valid reason, the pressure to get funding for research (no one researches anything for it's intrinsic interest, which is what unfunded research is), and the ego inflation where every prof has to think that he/she is a world leader in *something* no matter how esoteric or narrow it is (and represent him/herself as such). there is no room for the school that sees its primary mission to teach with faculty that are comfortable with themselves with that role and status. everyone must be one-upping someone else or at least appear to be so. and, like corporate board members that scratch each other's backs with inflated executive salary, academics do that to each other (unless you're Alan Sokal). it's a sad state, and is not sustainable. someday academics in the US will come crumbling down because of the high percentage of overpaid profs that are no better (and sometimes far worse) than the people who actually *do* the stuff these profs teach. eventually prospective students will be forced to look to other methods to learn what they need to learn to do the stuff they want to do for a living. maybe mentoring and apprenticeship will come back (from the 19th century). the credential will be word-of-mouth and a candidate's portfolio of creation and product. r b-j
Reply by ●December 29, 20092009-12-29
dvsarwate wrote:> On Dec 28, 10:59 am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> averred: > >> I had one guy with a Ph.D. in some electrical branch of physics tell me >> that the curved line on the schematic representation of a 'lytic was a >> "mere visual embellishment". To prove that a polar capacitor was a >> contradiction in terms, he wrote out the defining equation. > > > Oh, shoot! You mean V = IR is all wrong and if I apply > a gazillion volts to a 1-ohm resistor, I won't get a gazillion > amps flowing through it?This fellow was a walking indictment of an educational system. He wasn't stupid, just uneducated. Once we taught him how to use a soldering iron (he figured out by observation which end to pick up) he learned quickly. The guy who told me that the power supply I has lent him didn't work right was also college educated. The supply voltage was adjustable and the thing had a current limit. His observation was that current and voltage couldn't be controlled independently. There goes V = IR again! Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●December 29, 20092009-12-29
Rune Allnor <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> writes:> [...] "He who thinks his education has finished is not educated. He > is finished."I have found that education exposes one's own ignorance. -- Randy Yates % "And all that I can do Digital Signal Labs % is say I'm sorry, mailto://yates@ieee.org % that's the way it goes..." http://www.digitalsignallabs.com % Getting To The Point', *Balance of Power*, ELO
