Electrical Engineering Careers in USA

The relevance is in one of the points I was trying to make:  That while
the technology that is taught in an EE program changes, that I believe
that biggest thing that engineering school teaches is to learn and
adapt - and this is one of the primary things that defines what an EE
is.  I believe this to be especially true of the electrical programs,
as compared to the other engineering disciplines based on the
differences in the non electrical course I had to take versus the
electrical courses that the non EE students had to take.  Even though I
received my degree in 1995, very little of what was taught is relevant
to my work today and this would likely be even more true of someone who
received their degree 20 or more years ago.

The other point I wanted to make is that especially with the amount of
off-shoring and loss of the number of EE positions, as the original
post indicates, that those who are going to survive MUST possess these
skills.  Take your concentration is signal processing for instance.
Signal processing involves software algorithms, microprocessor
architecture, advanced mathematics, and controls theory, amongst other
disciplinces all rolled into one package and compare this to the number
of EEs out there that are very limited in their ability to apply their
skill set.

>From what I understand many attempts to offshore engineering has met
with communication and social barriers in addition to, as a recent
article I read indicated,  that many of the foriegn engineers posses
limited skill sets, especially in the analog domain.  Unfortunately,
this won't remain this way forever, so the ability to adapt becomes
even more important.

'Even though I received my degree in 1995, very little of what was
taught is relevant to my work today and this would likely be even more
true of someone who received their degree 20 or more years ago.'

That is a strange assumption. Most of what I took is actually still
relevant. I have just built on it. Having to teach yourself new things
is nothing new, it's been part of the job for a long time before you or
I came along.

Dirk

"Noway2" <no_spam_me2@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1127306574.707701.173980@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I get the impression that both of you got your degrees in or around the
> 60s.  I received my  "EE" degree in 1995.  By that point, the "4 year"
> EE degree was filled with so much english composition, speech writing,
> etc that it took five an half years to complete with only about two and
> a half years worth of actual engineering classes.  Obviously the
> technology that was tought (then) is different than what was tought in
> the 60's and 70s as we focused on what today would be considered small
> scale integration and we spent a lot of time wiring up circuits
> consisting of rows of 74LSxx chips.

I received mine in 1994, so very similar time frame.  I went to a small "liberal 
arts" college, so we had our share of English, etc. classes.  I was able to 
squeeze it into 4 years, with the help of a couple of summer courses (and some 
very full schedules).  We learned quite a bit of programming, as well as 
embedded system design, which I think was fairly progressive for the time.  For 
digital design, we actually did FPGA programming, not logic chips, which again I 
think was ahead of the curve.  We even had a class on boundary scan and design 
for test, which is much more practical that you might expect!
The trend when I was there was away from control theory (still covered the basic 
PID stuff, but less in depth) away from solid-state/semi-conductor theory, and 
toward the "more practical" digital design and programming topics.  We still had 
the basics of analog design.

> I Have spent time talking to a number of other EEs that graduated
> around the same time, from different schools, and I am finding that
> there is a common theme regarding what get got out of the schooling.
> Besides a basic foundation in math, which in my opinion was still
> insufficient, and basic circuit theory the only REAL thing that
> engineering shool taught us was how to learn and absorb new information
> and then apply it - quickly.

I have directly used some of the things I learned (Karnaugh maps, state machine 
design, basic circuit theory, C programming language, embedded design 
principles, and DSP basics spring to mind), but I agree learning how to learn 
and in the process gaining confidence that you can analyze and solve problems 
was very important. 

"Tim Wescott" <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote in message
news:K7-dnVWuhYgK8qzeRVn-vw@web-ster.com...
> Noway2 wrote:
>
> > I get the impression that both of you got your degrees in or around the
> > 60s.  I received my  "EE" degree in 1995.  By that point, the "4 year"
> > EE degree was filled with so much english composition, speech writing,
> > etc that it took five an half years to complete with only about two and
> > a half years worth of actual engineering classes.  Obviously the
> > technology that was tought (then) is different than what was tought in
> > the 60's and 70s as we focused on what today would be considered small
> > scale integration and we spent a lot of time wiring up circuits
> > consisting of rows of 74LSxx chips.
> >
> > I Have spent time talking to a number of other EEs that graduated
> > around the same time, from different schools, and I am finding that
> > there is a common theme regarding what get got out of the schooling.
> > Besides a basic foundation in math, which in my opinion was still
> > insufficient, and basic circuit theory the only REAL thing that
> > engineering shool taught us was how to learn and absorb new information
> > and then apply it - quickly.
> >
> The basics and the ability to quickly learn stuff and apply it are
> what's going to carry your career forward.
>
> The english comp stuff is because when you get to the point of being a
> technical lead you have to spend a lot of your time communicating,
> orally and in writing.  You need to write documents that your team
> members can follow, you need to write power-point presentations that
>

Power point my ass. What a waste of time that is. Fancy pics flying by and
nobody is any the wiser. I have seen so many student power point
presentations and they look brilliant - unfortunately they just look good
like the icing on a cake.

Shytot

We didn't get anything like that in my program.  I still remember the
day the teacher had the chalk in his right hand and the eraser in his
left as he showed us how to aproximate a system gain from a root locus
plot.  About the only classes that was halfway decent, in retrospect,
were circuits 1 and 2 that were taught by an old man who spent his life
at NASA.

I remember getting a one semester class on programming, taught by a guy
who was a complete flake, and about dying with laughter when the guy
said that we may want to consider "software engineering" as a possible
career choice.  As far as programmable logic, I think the fact that it
existed was mentioned in the last day of the logic class.  After
graduation, there weren't many jobs available and those that were
required 5+ years of experience.  I took a job as a service tech for a
company and two years later I moved into their engineering department
doing embedded systems software.  Since that time, I have spent
countless hours (re) teaching myself large portions of the degree.  The
skills that I use in my job were all self taught after graduation.

I do realize that a lot of this has to do with the school I went to.  A
few years ago, before I made a major move across the country, I was
working on my masters at a very good (private) school.  The first class
I took was on microprocessor architecture and I was able to relate many
of the concepts to my work almost from the first class.

My advice to anyone considering pursuing an EE degree today, would be
to think very hard about it and if they decided to go for it to find
the best possible school that they can afford.

"Shytot" <Shytot@yme.com> writes:
> "Tim Wescott" <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote
> > The basics and the ability to quickly learn stuff and apply it are
> > what's going to carry your career forward.

Quite true.  In most fields, the technology in use at
the time of your studies will not be the technology
in use 40 years later.

> > The english comp stuff is because when you get to the point of being a
> > technical lead you have to spend a lot of your time communicating,
> > orally and in writing.  You need to write documents that your team
> > members can follow, you need to write power-point presentations that

You can be the most brilliant person on earth and
have some of the greatest ideas ever known to
mankind, but if you can't communicate with others,
you won't be very effective.

> Power point my ass. What a waste of time that is. Fancy pics flying by and
> nobody is any the wiser. I have seen so many student power point
> presentations and they look brilliant - unfortunately they just look good
> like the icing on a cake.

Form vs. substance.  If you have nothing to say, make
it look pretty and maybe nobody will notice. Obfuscate,
obfuscate, obfuscate,...

A great example of communication (lack thereof) is the
first Space Shuttle loss.  Someone had a "brilliant"
slide supposedly showing the hazards of cold temperatures
and the O-ring risk.  Unfortunately, the pretty picture
form used to present the data obscured the point the
author was trying to make.

Where did you go to school?

Shytot wrote:

> "Tim Wescott" <tim@seemywebsite.com> wrote in message
> news:K7-dnVWuhYgK8qzeRVn-vw@web-ster.com...
> 
>>Noway2 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I get the impression that both of you got your degrees in or around the
>>>60s.  I received my  "EE" degree in 1995.  By that point, the "4 year"
>>>EE degree was filled with so much english composition, speech writing,
>>>etc that it took five an half years to complete with only about two and
>>>a half years worth of actual engineering classes.  Obviously the
>>>technology that was tought (then) is different than what was tought in
>>>the 60's and 70s as we focused on what today would be considered small
>>>scale integration and we spent a lot of time wiring up circuits
>>>consisting of rows of 74LSxx chips.
>>>
>>>I Have spent time talking to a number of other EEs that graduated
>>>around the same time, from different schools, and I am finding that
>>>there is a common theme regarding what get got out of the schooling.
>>>Besides a basic foundation in math, which in my opinion was still
>>>insufficient, and basic circuit theory the only REAL thing that
>>>engineering shool taught us was how to learn and absorb new information
>>>and then apply it - quickly.
>>>
>>
>>The basics and the ability to quickly learn stuff and apply it are
>>what's going to carry your career forward.
>>
>>The english comp stuff is because when you get to the point of being a
>>technical lead you have to spend a lot of your time communicating,
>>orally and in writing.  You need to write documents that your team
>>members can follow, you need to write power-point presentations that
>>
> 
> 
> Power point my ass. What a waste of time that is. Fancy pics flying by and
> nobody is any the wiser. I have seen so many student power point
> presentations and they look brilliant - unfortunately they just look good
> like the icing on a cake.
> 
> Shytot
> 
> 
When in Rome...

If Power Point is expected then Power Point is what you have to be good 
at.  Like any presentation in any form (even blackboard and chalk) you 
can dazzle with brilliance or baffle with bullshit.  Power Point eases 
the latter more than the former, but you can make informative 
presentations with it.

When I used to interview people part of the process involved asking the 
candidate to give a little talk about some project that they had done, 
so we could get an idea of their presentation skills.  If they couldn't 
make us understand what they did their resume went into the big pile.

-- 

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Noway2 wrote:
>[snip]
> 
> My advice to anyone considering pursuing an EE degree today, would be
> to think very hard about it and if they decided to go for it to find
> the best possible school that they can afford.
> 

But what is your definition of "best" ?
First you need to really understand your goal.

In the early 60's Cornell and .... were trying to show how much better 
they were than the other. Unfortunately for me the emphasis was on 
theoretical physics. I don't know how Cornell stacked up against other 
schools. However, I do know that Physics and Engineering Physics majors 
opted for the EE quantum courses if they wanted to pursue state of the 
art. But that not what I consider *ENGINEERING*

I wish to APPLY rather than DISCOVER.

Cost of school measures nothing except thinness of wallet ;}

"dbell" <dbell@niitek.com> writes:
> Where did you go to school?

Speaking of failure to communicate...