Electrical Engineering Careers in USA

To answer dbell's question, I received my undergrad EE degree from the
Univ of Akron (Akron, Ohio).  I was about half way through a Masters of
Computer Engineering, from Case Western Reserve (Cleveland, Ohio) when
the company I had joined anounced that they were moving to North
Carolina after I had been with them for three weeks, which put a damper
on my education plans.

As far as how to define "best", honestly that is a good question.
About the "best" answer I have is by word of mouth.  A school school is
a lot like pornography, "hard to define, but you know it when you see
it".  I would have to say, from what I have experienced, that (one of
the) difference(s) between a good school and a poor school is that
there is a difference in attitude, both in the institution as a whole
and from the teaching staff.  At Akron, I experienced a lot of
professors for whom it was obvious that they didn't give a good GD
about the students or what they went away from the classes with. I felt
that they were there only to collect a paycheck and that they felt that
the students were a complete waste of their time, even though the
students tuition contributed 70+% of their pay. An example of this
would be the chalk and eraser incident I posted earlier.    At Case,
things were very different.  I guess I could best describe it as the
staff was more passionate about what they were doing and this was
reflected in the attitudes and in the quality of the program.

Noway2 wrote:
> To answer dbell's question, I received my undergrad EE degree from the
> Univ of Akron (Akron, Ohio).  I was about half way through a Masters of
> Computer Engineering, from Case Western Reserve (Cleveland, Ohio) when
> the company I had joined anounced that they were moving to North
> Carolina after I had been with them for three weeks, which put a damper
> on my education plans.
> 
> As far as how to define "best", honestly that is a good question.
> About the "best" answer I have is by word of mouth.  A school school is
> a lot like pornography, "hard to define, but you know it when you see
> it".  I would have to say, from what I have experienced, that (one of
> the) difference(s) between a good school and a poor school is that
> there is a difference in attitude, both in the institution as a whole
> and from the teaching staff.  At Akron, I experienced a lot of
> professors for whom it was obvious that they didn't give a good GD
> about the students or what they went away from the classes with. I felt
> that they were there only to collect a paycheck and that they felt that
> the students were a complete waste of their time, even though the
> students tuition contributed 70+% of their pay. An example of this
> would be the chalk and eraser incident I posted earlier.    At Case,
> things were very different.  I guess I could best describe it as the
> staff was more passionate about what they were doing and this was
> reflected in the attitudes and in the quality of the program.
> 
I went to the University of Connecticut and at the time they paid their 
proffesors better than most private schools.  We had TA's for labs.  All 
my undergrad classes were taught by English speaking tenured proffs. 
Public schools tend to have the philosopy of letting a lot of people in, 
and then flunking out a lot to maintain standards.  For me, this worked 
out OK but I knew guys who flunked out of UCONN and went on to do well 
at private schools.  Some folks need a more nuturing environment.

Come on, Everette,

He told us how typical he was of younger engineers in one post which he
seemed to think was to his advantage over us old farts, and then that
his school was sub par in a subsequent post. Pay attention.  It was an
obvious question.

Dirk

I still remember learning that the semester after I graduated that
three professors I had were fired, one retired, and another was put in
prison.  I think that says a lot about the school (at least at that
time).

"dbell" <dbell@niitek.com> writes:
> Come on, Everett, he told us how typical he was of
> the younger engineers in one post which he seemed
> to think was to his advantage over us old farts,
> and then that his school was sub par in a subsequent
> post. Pay attention.  It was an obvious question.

That was the problem -- I was paying attention.

[Let's be careful with the "O" word!  Age discrim-
 ination and all that...]

On 23 Sep 2005 09:42:01 -0700, "Noway2" <no_spam_me2@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I still remember learning that the semester after I graduated that
>three professors I had were fired, one retired, and another was put in
>prison.  I think that says a lot about the school (at least at that
>time).


Hi Noway,

   I am also a Univ. of Akron Grad. 
Graduated in 1973.  That was back in the 
days when the air was clean and sex was dirty.

Looking back on it, I was I could have skipped the 
Western Culture, English, Mechanics, Thermodynamics, 
Chemistry, Materials Science, etc. classes.

(I realize that some guys are jump on me about this.)

I wish we had spent much much 
more time on basic digital logic theory and labs, 
and RF engineering theory and labs.
(Some Control System theory and labs would have 
been useful.)

I wonder, do they still have the Co-op program 
at the Univ. of Akron?

See Ya'
[-Rick-]

Rick Lyons wrote:

> [ significant(?) snip ]
> 
> Looking back on it, I was I could have skipped the 
> Western Culture, English, Mechanics, Thermodynamics, 
> Chemistry, Materials Science, etc. classes.
> 
> (I realize that some guys are jump on me about this.)
> 

Given jumping invitation, I JUMP ;)

Actually I also jump on:
  1. IEEE ( and other !@#$ engineering education standard setters )
  2. Liberal Arts professors/schools that don't educate
  3. narrow minded engineering students(sic)

I will harangue in reverse order ;)

"sic"="Latin word for 'thus' used to indicate an apparent error"

I'm annoyed enough to leave much as exercise to student.

Perhaps I will annoy/irritate others so they will "engage brains before 
putting ????? in gear"

A very interesting discussion. I am curious to know what your (y'alls?)
thoughts are on the bleak scenario painted by IEEE-USA for US
engineers. Especially the assertion that salaries have been held low
vis-a-vis lawyers and doctors, due to influx of foreign workers. I am
in the odd situation of being a H1-B engineer paying IEEE-USA dues and
hear them constantly lobby against our ilk...

V.S. wrote:
> A very interesting discussion. I am curious to know what your (y'alls?)
> thoughts are on the bleak scenario painted by IEEE-USA for US
> engineers. Especially the assertion that salaries have been held low
> vis-a-vis lawyers and doctors, due to influx of foreign workers. I am
> in the odd situation of being a H1-B engineer paying IEEE-USA dues and
> hear them constantly lobby against our ilk...
> 
IMHO,  The goal of the IEEE is to promote technology, not the 
technologists.  It considers itself to be an international institution 
(except when it wants money), so it doesn't and never will advance the 
interests of US (Canadian, European, ...) engineers to the disadvantage 
of others.

IEEE-USA is supposed to be a bit more nationalistic.  I quit IEEE a 
couple of years ago but to my knowledge IEEE-USA has always supported 
permanent visas. If it wanted to keep salaries high, it would oppose all 
immigration. The difficulty has been primarily with temporary 
generically qualified engineers.  The facts are that the law governing 
H1-B visas have been abused. It is supposed to be for highly specialized 
workers.

IMHO, the essential problem with engineers in the US is that policy 
makers view engineers as something that comes out of spigot that money 
can turn on and off at will.  Think about the Appolo space program, the 
Vietnam war, and the Reagan military build up. There was a big ramp up 
of demand and then a huge bust.  These patterns are not conducive to a 
profession that requires many years to master the necessary skills. You 
could work on something for ten years and poof some politician has 
decided what you have, isn't needed. Some manager may decide to shift 
your job across the country or across the world.

   I think that the reason that kids in the US don't want to go in 
engineering is that its a roll of the dice.  Higher education was 
relatively cheap when I was a kid. I could go to college or be like my 
father and work in a factory. Taking a risk on engineering was a no 
brainier.  Its a nobrainer for a kid in India or China right now if you 
have the opportunity. Go to college or ride your fathers water buffalo, 
pick rice or whatever. In the US, a kid is looking at spending between 
$50K-100K on an education. Do they choose engineering or do they look at 
something else.  It simply isn't the same decision it was 25 years ago.



IMHO, the H1-B is really not the problem.  It dosen't help either.

Richard Owlett wrote:

   ...

> "sic"="Latin word for 'thus' used to indicate an apparent error"

It is used to claim "Don't blame me; that's how it was written."

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������