> Happened to me. In the early '70's there was a shortage of > technicians. I offered to teach FOR FREE at the local community > college. I was declined because _I_only_had_a_Masters_ :-)
> ...Jim Thompson
Dunno what you did wrong, Jimbo. I've been teaching Electronics Technology at the local community college since the early 1980s on a BS-Physics.
> Is it me or was it only 'in the old days' that people went into > electronics (.i.e. got educated in it at college level) because they were > already hooked on it and had built a bunch of stuff? A friend and I were > selling crystal radios at primary school before we were eleven years old. > By the time I was 18 and went to university I had read every electronics > book in the city library, passed the Radio Amateurs Exam, and built dozens > of bits of kit. Don't kids do that any more?
> Cheers
> Ian
Dunno. I can only tell you that I offer my students a two letter grade bonus if they achieve a General ham license during the semester and in thirty years, not one taker.
>> Happened to me. In the early '70's there was a shortage of >> technicians. I offered to teach FOR FREE at the local community >> college. I was declined because _I_only_had_a_Masters_ :-)
>> ...Jim Thompson
>Dunno what you did wrong, Jimbo. I've been teaching Electronics Technology >at the local community college since the early 1980s on a BS-Physics.
>Jim
It was probably his attitude.
That "everyone but me is a leftist weenie" mentality is pretty blatantly apparent. Probably more so in person.
I would not want to be taught by such a twit either.
They probably called some of his former employers and got a handle of his "people skills"... or lack thereof.
> > Is it me or was it only 'in the old days' that people went into > > electronics (.i.e. got educated in it at college level) because they were > > already hooked on it and had built a bunch of stuff? A friend and I were > > selling crystal radios at primary school before we were eleven years old. > > By the time I was 18 and went to university I had read every electronics > > book in the city library, passed the Radio Amateurs Exam, and built dozens > > of bits of kit. Don't kids do that any more?
> > Cheers
> > Ian
> Dunno. I can only tell you that I offer my students a two letter grade > bonus if they achieve a General ham license during the semester and in > thirty years, not one taker.
> (or if already a General, Extra.)
> Jim
The 10,000 hours = 5 years x 50 weeks x 40 hours/week and then write your own ticket, if your nose is clean, is rule of thumb. I suppose it's a case of surviving, but I've been fired a few times, but don't take getting fired personal, it's a forced upward mobility. Ken
>>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:56:00 -0700 (PDT), Tim Williams >><tmoran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Oct 29, 6:47 pm, Ian Bell <ruffreco...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> Is it me or was it only 'in the old days' that people went into >>>> electronics (.i.e. got educated in it at college level) because they >>>> were already hooked on it and had built a bunch of stuff? A friend and I >>>> were selling crystal radios at primary school before we were eleven >>>> years old. By the time I was 18 and went to university I had read every >>>> electronics book in the city library, passed the Radio Amateurs Exam, >>>> and built dozens of bits of kit. Don't kids do that any more?
>>>Nope, they really don't.
>>>I got to chat with the school's EE chair once. He said, about 30 >>>years ago, people like me (kids who stuck screwdrivers into radios) >>>were common (he was one himself), so there was a lot of curriculum >>>they could test out of, or heck maybe even in those days it was just >>>"you know ohm's law? sure, you can skip this prerequisite".
>>No money in the degree if they allow you to test out of courses.
>So skip the basics and take advanced courses.
Advanced courses? What advanced courses?
>>>But nowadays, that's a lot less common (probably less than 10%), and >>>the certifications are more stringent, and the bureaucracy more >>>impersonal, so I'm doomed to sit in classes alongside students who >>>don't know the right end of the soldering iron.
>>In fairness, most will never need to touch a soldering iron. I've >>worked with many who haven't into any sort of lab since college. There >>is a lot more to EE, these days, than PCBs.
>This is excellent. Lots of ancient instrumentation is failing or out >of production, and there are few people who can design next-gen gear. >Most of the kiddies are useless around real electricity [1], and the >big aerospace and scientific instrument companies are less and less >eager to do stuff in-house.
I'm not disagreeing, just stating the way it is. Being able to do this work has worked out well for me.
>>>Not that the classes are very useful anyway. I'm in a control systems >>>class right now. I still don't know what the hell 1/(s+2) is. I know >>>full well what 1 / (s + 1/RC) is, but see, that's not what they >>>teach. It's just more numbers, run the algebra and find the answer.
>Some academics want to abstract the math away from real circuits. >That's why it's so good to come into these classes with some real >circuit experience and instincts. Then lightbulbs turn on for you >while the rest of the class doesn't notice.
>But most circuit designers can learn all they need about control >theory in one day.
>>That is an issue. Laplace should be taught after there is a sound >>circuits understanding. They never taught Gregg before English.
>Spice has eliminated the need for most analytic solutions to control >loops. Most good loops are nonlinear anyhow, so were never solvable >analytically. The best combo is good instincts and LT Spice.
Spice isn't good for building instincts, however. It too easily becomes a crutch and makes people believe that they're really standing.
>John
>[1] most of the young EEs I meet are *afraid* of electricity.
Haven't seen that so much, but I have been tutoring one student who has a real problem with algebra.
Bill Sloman wrote: > Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson strikes again. I'm actually a > useful odd-jobs man, and do carpentry, plumbing, and the odd bit of > household wiring. I am left-handed, and do understand differential > screws.
You know I don't take sides :-), but I agree, multidisciplinary skills are very usefull and are in decline as everything gets more specialised. I think it's partly a generational thing as the immediate post ww2 generation had to make do and mend everything. I still do all the electrical, radio, tv, carpentry and even building work around the house and that's besides interests in mechanical engineering and a core skill set of software engineering coming from an electronics background. It's surprising how usefull it can be in all sorts of ways.
I don't think you can generalise about phd's either. I've met some who knew nothing outside their specialist field, head in the clouds and others who were some of the most switched on people i've ever met. Some of the EE graduates i've worked with in the past could hardly solder two wires together and had no interest at all in the job outside work. I find that depressing, as to be really good at anything, you need to have a passion for the subject and have a very inquisitive mind. The lack of scientific curiosity and the general dumbing down of everything will be the undoing of our civilisation. Nearly everything we come into contact with on a daily basis depends on science or engineering in some way...
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:27:34 -0500, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:23:05 -0800, John Larkin ><jjSNIPlar...@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>So skip the basics and take advanced courses.
>Advanced courses? What advanced courses?
Well, twenty years ago (Wow! how time flies!) when I decided to go back to school and get my EE degree, I learned a lot of interesting lessons.
While I had been a hobbiest since I was a kid, my bachelors degree was in psychology. I know that I didn't know a lot of the math and such, so went back to get a second bachelors in EE. I moved from California to New Mexico just to get into a program, and in my first class learned my first lesson.
You don't need a bachelors in EE to get a Masters in EE.
Because of that lesson, I inquired back in California, and a year later started at UC Santa Barbara in the Masters program.
I started taking a lot of the basic circuits and control theory classes, and found myself on academic probation. In the masters program, you need to keep a 3.0 gpa, but in those basic theory classes, they graded to a 2.0 average. These were also the 'weed' classes, where they TRIED to get students to fail, by heaping so much make work on them that they would be overwhelmed. My problem - I didn't do all the homework and make it look spiffy and nice, I just did what I needed to learn the subject. I had A's and B's on all the tests. In my second semester, the T.A.s taught me the second lesson:
When there is a bachelor level course, and a master's level course, take the Master's level course.
In the BS course, they go into excruciating detail on the basics, as well as heaping loads of meaningless homework on the poor students. In the Master's class, they mention the important aspects of the basics in teh first couple of weeks, and then get right to business. The Master's courses also tended to be more real world, with actual applications and circuits. If you could keep up, they were a lot more fun. they also graded to a B curve, not a C curve!
The final lesson was, choose your professors carefully. I took classes from many professors, but learned after almost flunking the second class in a row from one professor, that we were not on the same page. I had the same material from two different professors, and from him it always sounded like greek, while I grok'd the material instantly from the other. Sometimes, the learning chemistry is just not there.
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:54:20 -0800, Charlie E. <edmond...@ieee.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:27:34 -0500, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:23:05 -0800, John Larkin >><jjSNIPlar...@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>So skip the basics and take advanced courses.
>>Advanced courses? What advanced courses?
>Well, twenty years ago (Wow! how time flies!) when I decided to go >back to school and get my EE degree, I learned a lot of interesting >lessons.
Make that thirty-five. ;-)
>While I had been a hobbiest since I was a kid, my bachelors degree was >in psychology. I know that I didn't know a lot of the math and such, >so went back to get a second bachelors in EE. I moved from California >to New Mexico just to get into a program, and in my first class >learned my first lesson.
>You don't need a bachelors in EE to get a Masters in EE.
Nope. You should have shot your advisor.
>Because of that lesson, I inquired back in California, and a year >later started at UC Santa Barbara in the Masters program.
>I started taking a lot of the basic circuits and control theory >classes, and found myself on academic probation. In the masters >program, you need to keep a 3.0 gpa, but in those basic theory >classes, they graded to a 2.0 average. These were also the 'weed' >classes, where they TRIED to get students to fail, by heaping so much >make work on them that they would be overwhelmed. My problem - I >didn't do all the homework and make it look spiffy and nice, I just >did what I needed to learn the subject. I had A's and B's on all the >tests. In my second semester, the T.A.s taught me the second lesson:
All of our "flunk out" courses were in the other disciplines. In particular, the years I was there it was Chemistry, Math, and the third semester of Physics (where they even admitted they wanted 20% to fail). In previous years the "flunk out" courses were Theoretical and Applied Mechanics (YOY do EEs need to learn how to crush concrete?), Thermodynamics, Statics, and Dynamics, all of which had been dropped as requirements by the time I graduated.
>When there is a bachelor level course, and a master's level course, >take the Master's level course.
Not having been in the graduate college, I couldn't take them but that was well known by all, at the time. Actually, our EE department pretty much graded on the 'B' (4.0 in our case) curve. By the time the Junior year rolled around they'd gotten rid of enough.
>In the BS course, they go into excruciating detail on the basics, as >well as heaping loads of meaningless homework on the poor students. In >the Master's class, they mention the important aspects of the basics >in teh first couple of weeks, and then get right to business. The >Master's courses also tended to be more real world, with actual >applications and circuits. If you could keep up, they were a lot more >fun. they also graded to a B curve, not a C curve!
I never turned in homework.
>The final lesson was, choose your professors carefully. I took >classes from many professors, but learned after almost flunking the >second class in a row from one professor, that we were not on the same >page. I had the same material from two different professors, and from >him it always sounded like greek, while I grok'd the material >instantly from the other. Sometimes, the learning chemistry is just >not there.
I knew all about that from day one. I worked for the EE department as a lab technician (the only bene of being an EE prof's kid) so was able to be first in line for the EE sections I wanted. The first time I took the semiconductor physics course I dropped it before I could fail it. My advisor (Ben Streetman, who wrote the book) wasn't pleased because it was a required course, but I forced him to sign the paperwork. The next semester I took it again from him and had no trouble with the course, at all. He was known as a tougher grader too, but it's far easier to get a grade if you have a clue what's going on, too. ;-) The first prof was an old geezer (one of my father's buds, in fact) just waiting to retire. What a total loss.
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:05:45 -0700, RST Engineering - JIm wrote:
> "Ian Bell" <ruffreco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> Is it me or was it only 'in the old days' that people went into >> electronics (.i.e. got educated in it at college level) because they >> were already hooked on it and had built a bunch of stuff? A friend and I >> were selling crystal radios at primary school before we were eleven >> years old. By the time I was 18 and went to university I had read every >> electronics book in the city library, passed the Radio Amateurs Exam, >> and built dozens of bits of kit. Don't kids do that any more?
> Dunno. I can only tell you that I offer my students a two letter grade > bonus if they achieve a General ham license during the semester and in > thirty years, not one taker.
> (or if already a General, Extra.)
Does the General still include 13 WPM Morse code? That was the stopper for me.
In article <pan.2009.11.02.18.34.07.70...@example.net>, Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net> wrote:
>> Dunno. I can only tell you that I offer my students a two letter grade >> bonus if they achieve a General ham license during the semester and in >> thirty years, not one taker.
>> (or if already a General, Extra.)
>Does the General still include 13 WPM Morse code? That was the stopper >for me.
There is no longer any Morse code requirement, for any amateur radio license class. It was 5 WPM (for both General and Extra) up until around 18 months ago, and was entirely eliminated at that time.
-- Dave Platt <dpl...@radagast.org> AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
Rich Grise wrote: > On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:05:45 -0700, RST Engineering - JIm wrote:
>>"Ian Bell" <ruffreco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>Is it me or was it only 'in the old days' that people went into >>>electronics (.i.e. got educated in it at college level) because they >>>were already hooked on it and had built a bunch of stuff? A friend and I >>>were selling crystal radios at primary school before we were eleven >>>years old. By the time I was 18 and went to university I had read every >>>electronics book in the city library, passed the Radio Amateurs Exam, >>>and built dozens of bits of kit. Don't kids do that any more?
>>Dunno. I can only tell you that I offer my students a two letter grade >>bonus if they achieve a General ham license during the semester and in >>thirty years, not one taker.
>>(or if already a General, Extra.)
> Does the General still include 13 WPM Morse code? That was the stopper > for me.
> Thanks, > Rich
There is no longer a (CW) code requirement.
But with practice, it don't take me long to get back to 30 WPM.. :)
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote: >One of my chaps is off to do his PhD, which means he will know a lot >about nothing.
>He asked me the other day if reversing the 24V AC power supply to a >board had caused damage to an elctrolytic capacitor. I don't think >you have to know the circuit to answer the question.
>Talk about not understanding what he knows.
How would you like working with an entire cadre (over 100) of EEs about that smart? That is why i have a love/hate relationship with my job.
<lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote: >ChrisQ wrote: >> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>> I joined IEEE in 1962. Quit around 1968 when they made the >>> Proceedings extra cost. >>> Rejoined 5 years ago when I could get the old farts rate ;-)
>>> Still couldn't get papers from outside my member groups.
>>> Inquired about some kind of senior membership that would allow >>> reasonable-cost access to the "digital" libraries.
>>> Confiscatory fees.
>>> So I let my IEEE membership lapse.
>>> Worthless bunch of shit-heads.
>> I just object to any self serving organisation that expects me to feel >> gratefull for the high prices they are charging me.
>> Member organisations should be there to serve the members. Oherwise, >> what is the point ?...
>> Regards,
>> Chris
>Organizations that perpetuate themselves outlast those that don't.
However, raping your practitioner members (academic members are normally paid for by the institution they work for) with excessive fees is way counterproductive in perpetuating them selves as a practice oriented organization. Oops my bad, the IEEE is not such any more.
On Nov 5, 12:41 am, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:09:20 +0000, Raveninghorde
> <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote: > >One of my chaps is off to do his PhD, which means he will know a lot > >about nothing.
> >He asked me the other day if reversing the 24V AC power supply to a > >board had caused damage to an elctrolytic capacitor. I don't think > >you have to know the circuit to answer the question.
> >Talk about not understanding what he knows.
> How would you like working with an entire cadre (over 100) of EEs > about that smart? That is why i have a love/hate relationship with my > job.
You think you're smarter than a cadre of over 100 EE's?
|
