Help with university (Choosing course and path)

[XDroidie626]

Hello Community!! (First post so sorry if this is in the wrong section)
I am new to the field of electronics, I have experience with electronics (Mainly from computers) and I am thinking of taking my studies to university via an engineering degree.
I currently study Computer Sciences at the Open Uni, I thought it would help to get a job with hardware design and other development but it turns out Engineering is the best way, I am only in my first subject so I am not loosing out on much.
Okay so when I asked the university about the courses, I said I have an interest in both mechanics and electrical (Electrical most, I find mechanics intresting in terms of cars mostly, although I find engines interesting all together) and that I wished to follow the electrical field.
Now while I wanted to originally do hardware design to apply to computers, I recently started to play with my own electronics, only simple circuits and stuff (Followed some information from Dummies) and I found that I ideally would like to repair/build electronic systems, I wouldn't mind been able to apply my passion for cars and electronics together but one step at a time.
So I was offered the option of these two courses.
http://www.open.ac.uk/courses/qualifications/q65 <- Standard Beng.
http://www.open.ac.uk/courses/qualifications/m04 <- Beng + Masters included.
If I can I will go for the included masters, they suggested I try their quiz and see what level I am at.
but my problem is, the routes they provide to not clearly explain what you may do and what is best for your career wants, as said I wish to repair and build systems.
I was thinking modelling and application, and if you can switch maybe do a mechanics and materials also (If anyone here studied this at OU can you shine some light here?).
What would you suggest for someone who is a noob with electronics education?

Many Thanks!

[EEVblog]

Unless you have a very specific career branch in mind (say IC design), then forget about worrying about which EE course to do, any EE degree will do.
*insert Shia LaBeouf's Just Do It meme here*
You'll naturally get into whatever area interests you, likely outside of your uni course. or you might find something else that interests you during the course.

[XDroidie626]

Would you recommend doing the masters intergrated course over the standard beng also?

[tggzzz]

I don't know whether it is still the case, but HR-droids used to be "sniffy" about OU degrees.

Evaluate each syllabus against your personal interests and where you think you might want to go in the first few years of your career.

Avoid overly specific degrees which will prematurely "close doors", e.g. choosing telecommunications engineering before starting the course. A range of topics will enable you to develop understanding of what really does/doesn't interest you.

At this stage you need a good grounding in a wide range of fundamental theory that will be difficult to get and master later on. That will stand you in good stead for the whole of your career, whereas specific technologies will change every few years. You can demonstrate depth and understanding by applying that theory to your own practical projects. Employers love that, since it shows initiative, determination, learning, and an interest in the subject that they infer you will apply when working for them.

Avoid overly general degrees, since you need to be able to demonstrate that you are capable of understanding a subject in depth. "30000ft understanding" is easy, but sometimes you'll be in the trenches - particularly at the beginning of a career.

Sounds like you have made a good start thinking about things. Good luck.

[EEVblog]

Would you recommend doing the masters intergrated course over the standard beng also?

If you have the time (and money?), yes, it won't hurt you.

[EEVblog]

Avoid overly general degrees, since you need to be able to demonstrate that you are capable of understanding a subject in depth.

Not here in Australia. You either have an EE degree or you don't, in the vast majority of cases it's as simple as that.

[XDroidie626]

Would you recommend doing the masters intergrated course over the standard beng also?

If you have the time (and money?), yes, it won't hurt you.

We have student support here in the UK, the government pay for it then we pay it back when we earn over 21k p/a

[XDroidie626]

I don't know whether it is still the case, but HR-droids used to be "sniffy" about OU degrees.

Evaluate each syllabus against your personal interests and where you think you might want to go in the first few years of your career.

Avoid overly specific degrees which will prematurely "close doors", e.g. choosing telecommunications engineering before starting the course. A range of topics will enable you to develop understanding of what really does/doesn't interest you.

At this stage you need a good grounding in a wide range of fundamental theory that will be difficult to get and master later on. That will stand you in good stead for the whole of your career, whereas specific technologies will change every few years. You can demonstrate depth and understanding by applying that theory to your own practical projects. Employers love that, since it shows initiative, determination, learning, and an interest in the subject that they infer you will apply when working for them.

Avoid overly general degrees, since you need to be able to demonstrate that you are capable of understanding a subject in depth. "30000ft understanding" is easy, but sometimes you'll be in the trenches - particularly at the beginning of a career.

Sounds like you have made a good start thinking about things. Good luck.

Well I am referencing Electronics for dummies (For project based stuff mostly) and I am reading parts of Art of Electronics (When I have time and can actually be bothered) so I feel a theory side would help me.

[Bob F.]

Is there any particular reason to choose the OU?  Distance learning, especially at this level, is not an easy path.  If it is for future job prospects then a more traditional route may be preferable.  I do not know where you are located, but bricks and mortar Unis sometimes have evening classes leading to Bachelor degrees so that may be an alternative learning method if a solid 3-year on campus course is not an option for you.

There is scant detail in the course links but it does not seem to me that you will learn much electronics in these courses.  They appear to be general engineering courses.  They will teach engineering mathematics and materials science, modelling etc , and no doubt some electrical (rather than electronic) engineering aspects which is fine if that is what you are after. 

My own *very* limited experience of OU courses is that they tend to lack on the practical side - not least because of the lack of laboratory access.  One course I started (admittedly many years ago) was ostensibly on Computer Systems Design but in practice was more of a history lesson with no practical content whatsoever - I sent the coursework back, and to be fair, they refunded my fees with no quibble.

[Edit: "(When I have time and can actually be bothered) " does not bode well for an OU course!  ]

Good luck, Bob.

[XDroidie626]

Is there any particular reason to choose the OU?  Distance learning, especially at this level, is not an easy path.  If it is for future job prospects then a more traditional route may be preferable.  I do not know where you are located, but bricks and mortar Unis sometimes have evening classes leading to Bachelor degrees so that may be an alternative learning method if a solid 3-year on campus course is not an option for you.

There is scant detail in the course links but it does not seem to me that you will learn much electronics in these courses.  They appear to be general engineering courses.  They will teach engineering mathematics and materials science, modelling etc , and no doubt some electrical (rather than electronic) engineering aspects which is fine if that is what you are after. 

My own *very* limited experience of OU courses is that they tend to lack on the practical side - not least because of the lack of laboratory access.  One course I started (admittedly many years ago) was ostensibly on Computer Systems Design but in practice was more of a history lesson with no practical content whatsoever - I sent the coursework back, and to be fair, they refunded my fees with no quibble.

[Edit: "(When I have time and can actually be bothered) " does not bode well for an OU course!  ]

Good luck, Bob.

I chose the OU so I can stay working while doing studies, plus my background originally is in computing, my college related stuff was all IT.
I am also already with the OU on the Q62 course (IT).
They do have classes every 6 weeks or so and I have to attend week sessions down in bath for the practical side of stuff, but really I want the theory from them and ill try get a course for practical if they don't do enough, I have always learned practical stuff on my own faster than someone telling me, I learned about computers in the same fashion.
They do a lot of practical in IT now, or seem to, every assignment in CS has you building programs, while simple and pointless show someone new how to program (To a degree I find pointless as its all scratch based)
Also the when I have the time thing is about that book, I find it a lot to take in, normally I do not have any issues with researching for hours on end, just that book I cant explain why
Also about the general course, they said to me that eventually via the M04 course you get your chosen topic (Electronics to me of course) but I would also like a little bit of general engineering stuff before I dive in, always helps to understand different things

[Bob F.]

Sounds like they have moved on and teamed up with bricks and mortal colleges now. Good stuff!  That personal contact was missing back in the day and is so important.  I guess you just need to make sure they have the kind of electronics modules you will be interested in when you get to them.  One good thing about the OU is that you can mix and match like that and get a wider base of knowledge which is not always the case in a British Uni.

Good luck, Bob.

[AQUAMAN]

How old are you?

In my opinion I would say don't go to university - it is a total utter waste of time (and money) and has been dumbed down massively. It is the biggest con going.

You are better off studying yourself.

I would say if you do go, you absolutely have to go to one with good research centres and volunteer to do projects for them. This is far more important that the degree.
The degree itself is a total joke - just turning up gets you a 2.1. The standard of the other students was often absolutely horrific. It was basically an extension of school, except the standard was worse.

I don't know about the Open University.

I don't think there is much opportunity to get experience in hardware design for computer ICs in the UK. The best bet would be ARM and there are a few small companies.
I would not close my options like that. Most of the jobs end up being outsourced to Asia anyway.
If you want to work with hardware side of semiconductors there is a lot more than just microprocessors.
In Europe, power semiconductors is easier to get a job in if you speak German, but English is fine usually
Then what about semiconductors for photovoltaics? Also is a big area. For example Loughborough do a lot of research on new PV semiconductors. It is very interesting.
There is also a lot more than just designing the chips: thermal management and reliability are massive research areas and probably more interesting.

If I was you I would really try to get an Apprenticeship at Siemens or something, and then do a PhD after a few years.

Generally you have no idea what is going to happen. But if you do go to university you should do some research projects there - if it is a good research centre then the research will be relevant and you will probably find it interesting no matter what specific subject it is in. If you don't do this and in anyway expected your degree to be more than just paying 30k to buy a bit of paper, I think you will come to the end and realise what a waste of time and money it was. I certainly did.

I would also say just aim to work in the hardware side of semiconductors - but don't narrow it down more than that. You could end up doing reliability, packaging, physics type research or anything - not just design. Just take any job experience to do with it.

[XDroidie626]

I'm 22 at the moment, as said I've done it so far
Anyways I'm currently still in the early stages of learning how to build electrics, I'm thinking of trying for a course in electronics to get a certification, at my age your normally too old for apprenticeships
I am also currently studying from books although as with anyone new to any subject its finding the right books to begin with, while I think dummies books are good they seem to be a bit dumb and not enough theory in them, I'll use make electronic book to learn how to actually make electronics
Any more advice you could give?
Also most students in UK do not end up paying the cash required for uni back

[CatalinaWOW]

Reread what tggzzz said.  He is right.  But more importantly, none of us can give you an answer for this.  We can speak to the value of a degree, and the value of specific kinds of courses, but the most important things depend on you personally.  Any degree is an exercise in deferred gratification.  It is several years of hard work with the payoff years or decades away.  It can be easier if you are fascinated by the coursework at hand.  So listen to your heart.  Go in a direction that pleases you.  Even then you will have to compromise with the system and your head as you take necessary but unpleasing courses that are either solid groundwork for later studies, groundwork for your eventual career, or merely required by the institution.

I would also spend some time thinking about your choice of OU.  Some employers are cautious about online degrees, and many may not value them as highly as degrees from traditional universities with a reputation in your field of study.  OU may well be the right choice for you, but if you have any thoughts about specific employers or fields of employment be sure that OU is accepted by them.

[DJohn]

I don't know whether it is still the case, but HR-droids used to be "sniffy" about OU degrees.

I've heard the opposite, so it probably differs from place to place.  The initiative and self-motivation required to get through a distance degree while working full time can be seen as a significant plus.  Or you might be unlucky and run into the person who thinks they hand out degrees for watching the TV (having the BBC broadcast their video material (a very small component of any course) in the post-pub hours has left some parts of the public with a rather skewed view of what's involved in OU study).

The degree itself is a total joke - just turning up gets you a 2.1

There is no way a university that does this will get accreditation.  You have to make a reasonable effort just to pass.

You are better off studying yourself.

That depends on the individual.  I benefited from having an externally-imposed structure.  It also forced me to study things that I wouldn't have chosen myself, but in hindsight I'm glad I did.  There are things you don't know that you want/need to know until you know them.

The only concern I'd have with the OU's Engineering degrees is that they don't seem to offer any electronics (unless they've got something hidden where I can't find it).  It depends on what you want to get out of it - you'll certainly learn some valuable things, and might be able to fill in the electronic side yourself.

[tggzzz]

I don't know whether it is still the case, but HR-droids used to be "sniffy" about OU degrees.

I've heard the opposite, so it probably differs from place to place.  The initiative and self-motivation required to get through a distance degree while working full time can be seen as a significant plus.

I agree with all that, but I'm not the HR-droid that might or might not be a problem.

There are two major problems with HR-droids. Firstly they have to be seen to be doing something, and filtering CVs fits that. Second, a principal concern is to armour-plate their back against failure; if they "let in" somebody that fails and has to be sacked, it is a big black mark against them. OTOH, if they have ticked all the standard boxes, then they have cannot have failed - clearly the interviewers were at fault.

Yup, it sucks.

The degree itself is a total joke - just turning up gets you a 2.1

There is no way a university that does this will get accreditation.  You have to make a reasonable effort just to pass.

In the UK I agree.

However even 30 years ago some polytechnics' output was poor. (And some very good, of course). It is unwise to generalise solely on the basis of institution, but some institutions have better/worse reputations. Any decent HR-droid will be aware of the differences, and and decent interviewer will be able to spot the better/worse candidates.

You are better off studying yourself.

That depends on the individual.  I benefited from having an externally-imposed structure.  It also forced me to study things that I wouldn't have chosen myself, but in hindsight I'm glad I did.  There are things you don't know that you want/need to know until you know them.

The only concern I'd have with the OU's Engineering degrees is that they don't seem to offer any electronics (unless they've got something hidden where I can't find it).  It depends on what you want to get out of it - you'll certainly learn some valuable things, and might be able to fill in the electronic side yourself.

A major point in favour of conventional universities is that soaking up the academic atmosphere and ethos should be valuable in itself. And that's true whether or not you go on to be deeply academic. But that isn't possible for everyone, and doesn't suit everyone, in which case OU distance learning might be suitable.

Having said that, my daughter has just completed her degree at a Russell Group Uni, and I was shocked to hear of lectures with 800 people in the audience, and I'm unconvinced of the "face time" they got with their academic staff.

[Rick Law]

Would you recommend doing the masters intergrated course over the standard beng also?

If you have the time (and money?), yes, it won't hurt you.

I must say I have a provisional disagreement with "it won't hurt you."  I think it depends on your University's policies.  I have seen a mix of 4.5, 5, 5.5 year MS or BS+MS policies.  (In the USA, BS is typically 4 years)

A lot can change in 5 years: got recruited for a dream job, got married, broke your leg, world war III, whatever - a lot can change.  The safe bet is, get what you can along the way.  If the school has a "get out" provision and you can abandon your MS at year 4.1 and just take the BS degree and leave, then good.  If it doesn't have some kind of "get out" policy and you ended up having no degree at all after 4 years, that is not fun.

Note also, some may be by the student's own action however unwittingly - such as, the school allows a "get the BS after 4yr and out" but you were waiting to do that required but deadly boring course till last...

Besides, I think achieving step 1 is a good encouragement and excellent morale booster for step 2.

[f5r5e5d]

...and I found that I ideally would like to repair/build electronic systems

there's considerable step between Technician and Engineer, some Techs do make the transition but most have to go back to school for Calculus/DiffyQ to fully get Linear Systems, Signals and Systems, Control Theory which would be considered the basis of a Analog EE degree
Even CompSci degrees are likely to do Calculus, Linear Algebra and possibly other Modern Algebra type math at a level that few I have heard of mastering on their own

and the better programs have been thought out and do have necessary sequences of prereqs and successor courses - you may still not have a clue why they thought some material was important, required for the degree for years after leaving Uni, practicing as an engineer - some I was learning to appreciate even a decade afterwards

[IanB]

In my opinion I would say don't go to university - it is a total utter waste of time (and money) and has been dumbed down massively. It is the biggest con going.

You are better off studying yourself.

The degree itself is a total joke - just turning up gets you a 2.1. The standard of the other students was often absolutely horrific. It was basically an extension of school, except the standard was worse.

It would be very unfortunate if people read that and thought it was true in general. There may be some poor institutions, but I would not think that assessment is true of an accredited engineering course at a top ranked university.

Where I studied we lost 30% of the class at the end of the first year as not meeting the required standard for continuing to the second year. There is no way that just turning up was sufficient to stay the course. The workload was way harder than school.

[tggzzz]

In my opinion I would say don't go to university - it is a total utter waste of time (and money) and has been dumbed down massively. It is the biggest con going.

You are better off studying yourself.

The degree itself is a total joke - just turning up gets you a 2.1. The standard of the other students was often absolutely horrific. It was basically an extension of school, except the standard was worse.

It would be very unfortunate if people read that and thought it was true in general. There may be some poor institutions, but I would not think that assessment is true of an accredited engineering course at a top ranked university.

Where I studied we lost 30% of the class at the end of the first year as not meeting the required standard for continuing to the second year. There is no way that just turning up was sufficient to stay the course. The workload was way harder than school.

Yes indeed. It is difficult to distinguish aquaman's attitude from someone that has a very large chip on their shoulder.

[AQUAMAN]

In my opinion I would say don't go to university - it is a total utter waste of time (and money) and has been dumbed down massively. It is the biggest con going.

You are better off studying yourself.

The degree itself is a total joke - just turning up gets you a 2.1. The standard of the other students was often absolutely horrific. It was basically an extension of school, except the standard was worse.

It would be very unfortunate if people read that and thought it was true in general. There may be some poor institutions, but I would not think that assessment is true of an accredited engineering course at a top ranked university.

Where I studied we lost 30% of the class at the end of the first year as not meeting the required standard for continuing to the second year. There is no way that just turning up was sufficient to stay the course. The workload was way harder than school.

Yes indeed. It is difficult to distinguish aquaman's attitude from someone that has a very large chip on their shoulder.

I went to a 'good' university in the UK and did Electrical Engineering which was properly accredited. I got a 1st in it but I don't think I should have.

I still think it was a waste of time and money and that I should never have gone.
And I think to myself - if I went to a 'good' accredited course, god knows what it must be like in other universities.

Part of it is my fault - in fact almost all of the lecturers there were absolutely fantastic and it had the best library I have ever seen. Had I known what I know now I would have made much more of it (like doing research projects from the first year etc).
Unfortunately however, the standard of the course WAS a total joke and a huge number of the students (most of them) did not have basic skills or willingness to learn.
In my opinion, all you had to do to get a 2.1 was turn up. I have absolutely no idea how it was possible to fail it.

A lot of older people are stuck in the past when it comes to university. In the UK now, most of the students are there to buy the bit of paper at the end that lets them apply to some 'graduate' job - the actual learning in the degree is minimal or non-existent. Also, the sheer number of people that go to university means that the courses ARE being dumbed down.
They are there to buy that bit of paper, and if they don't get it, the university rating goes down.
I had a lecturer admit to me that one of his modules was removed because it was 'too difficult', after I complained about the course.

Like I said, it was partly my fault that I didn't get anything out of university, but when you are 18 and surrounded in that environment it is very difficult. I always knew deep down that what I was doing wasn't what university was supposed to be.
Nevertheless, even if I had made the most of it and managed to take part in research projects throughout (probably you won't be allowed to do proper research until the final years), it still wouldn't have been worth the money and debt.

[AQUAMAN]

A major point in favour of conventional universities is that soaking up the academic atmosphere and ethos should be valuable in itself. And that's true whether or not you go on to be deeply academic. But that isn't possible for everyone, and doesn't suit everyone, in which case OU distance learning might be suitable.

Having said that, my daughter has just completed her degree at a Russell Group Uni, and I was shocked to hear of lectures with 800 people in the audience, and I'm unconvinced of the "face time" they got with their academic staff.

This is precisely my point. You are stuck in the past. This DOES NOT exist any longer in the modern university.

Perhaps it might in a few select courses in Oxbridge, but in general even if you do Engineering at an accredited Russell Group university, you will not experience any kind of atmosphere you are thinking off.

It is just an extension of school.

[tggzzz]

In my opinion I would say don't go to university - it is a total utter waste of time (and money) and has been dumbed down massively. It is the biggest con going.

You are better off studying yourself.

The degree itself is a total joke - just turning up gets you a 2.1. The standard of the other students was often absolutely horrific. It was basically an extension of school, except the standard was worse.

It would be very unfortunate if people read that and thought it was true in general. There may be some poor institutions, but I would not think that assessment is true of an accredited engineering course at a top ranked university.

Where I studied we lost 30% of the class at the end of the first year as not meeting the required standard for continuing to the second year. There is no way that just turning up was sufficient to stay the course. The workload was way harder than school.

Yes indeed. It is difficult to distinguish aquaman's attitude from someone that has a very large chip on their shoulder.

Part of it is my fault - in fact almost all of the lecturers there were absolutely fantastic and it had the best library I have ever seen. Had I known what I know now I would have made much more of it (like doing research projects from the first year etc).

I'm not sure what "research" projects an undergrad would do. N.B. second and final year projects != research.

OTOH I had been doing my own projects for a decade before university, and that was well looked upon by potential employers.
 

Unfortunately however, the standard of the course WAS a total joke and a huge number of the students (most of them) did not have basic skills or willingness to learn.
In my opinion, all you had to do to get a 2.1 was turn up. I have absolutely no idea how it was possible to fail it.

Remarkable and worrying. In my course, IIRC ~10% were kicked out at the end of the first year and another 10% at the end of the second year.

A lot of older people are stuck in the past when it comes to university. In the UK now, most of the students are there to buy the bit of paper at the end that lets them apply to some 'graduate' job - the actual learning in the degree is minimal or non-existent. Also, the sheer number of people that go to university means that the courses ARE being dumbed down.
They are there to buy that bit of paper, and if they don't get it, the university rating goes down.
I had a lecturer admit to me that one of his modules was removed because it was 'too difficult', after I complained about the course.

We showed our 2nd year maths course to a contemporary maths student. He was horrified at the amount we had to do compared to his second year course. The concept of complaining didn't even cross our minds. OTOH we did complain about an incomprehensible set of E&M lectures and, after sitting in on one lecture, one of "our" professors agreed.

Like I said, it was partly my fault that I didn't get anything out of university, but when you are 18 and surrounded in that environment it is very difficult. I always knew deep down that what I was doing wasn't what university was supposed to be.

That is a mature, selfless evaluation which does you credit.

Nonetheless it doesn't apply to everyone - any more than everyone should go to university.

I've always been disgusted that the polytechnics rebranded themselves as unis - each had distinct characteristics and advantages.

Nevertheless, even if I had made the most of it and managed to take part in research projects throughout (probably you won't be allowed to do proper research until the final years), it still wouldn't have been worth the money and debt.

[gildasd]

Just a general remark:
Become an engineer, it's a title that you will keep forever.
You might study IT but find a passion for condensator chemistry...
Most people will only consider your title, your research and "show and tell" not what option spread you took in first year (and if they do, avoid that company).

[Landrew2390]

I'm not familiar with the education format in the United Kingdom, but I have to agree with Gildasd.  Work to earn the title of Engineer.  HR normally don't understand the qualifications for a field, but they do recognize titles.  I applied for a job and didn't get to interview because I didn't have the required 10 years experience working with the Windows 7 operating system.  If I'd applied with a title attached to my name, I would probably have a job there.

One other thing that I've picked up on during 6 years of college.  Having a thorough knowledge of a field is good, but take every single elective you can from other subjects.  It will be harder, but it will help you branch out if you ever have to change fields.  I started in Forestry and ended up working on computers.  6 years is a long time and you never know where you're going to end up.  Do your best to cover your bases and enjoy the ride.

[tggzzz]

One other thing that I've picked up on during 6 years of college.  Having a thorough knowledge of a field is good, but take every single elective you can from other subjects.  It will be harder, but it will help you branch out if you ever have to change fields.  I started in Forestry and ended up working on computers.  6 years is a long time and you never know where you're going to end up.  Do your best to cover your bases and enjoy the ride.

That is very true, and is good advice.

Everything in life is about making choices, and that inevitably means permanently "closing some doors". e.g. my not taking ALevel biology meant I was closing the door on becoming a doctor.

It is worth understanding what doors you don't mind closing, which doors you want left open, and which doors you might decide to open at some stage in the future. The last category is the one to keep in mind, and the one which carefully chosen electives can help.

Besides, even if you don't actively use such knowledge (psychology and business studies in my case), you'll probably find they helpfully shape your thinking and comprehension.

[IanB]

e.g. my not taking ALevel biology meant I was closing the door on becoming a doctor.

I once met a cardiologist who had re-trained as a doctor after getting a PhD in EE. I guess electricity is electricity, wherever it is found 

But seriously, it is rare that a closed door cannot be reopened if you have sufficient motivation.

[tggzzz]

e.g. my not taking ALevel biology meant I was closing the door on becoming a doctor.

I once met a cardiologist who had re-trained as a doctor after getting a PhD in EE. I guess electricity is electricity, wherever it is found 

But seriously, it is rare that a closed door cannot be reopened if you have sufficient motivation.

I've met one biologist that took a 1 year MSc course and became an extremely compentent EE. Lovely guy, with the advantage that two of his antecedents had Nobel prizes The exception that proves the rule!

The trouble with HR-droids is that they will take any "retraining" as a sign of failure and/or lack of conviction. No, I don't agree with that. If you can avoid the HR-droids, which is possible if you know how, then that problem evaporates.

[HighVoltage]

A good friend had studied chemical engineering in Germany, did not like it too much when he was done.
Then he went on and started to work as a programmer and liked it much more.

You never know, where your path will lead.

[Landrew2390]

The HR-drones are the worst.  I know that large companies need an HR department, but the people reading CVs normally don't know computer science from electrical engineering.  It's all the same to them.  Kind of reminds me of this wonderful explanation on corporate culture.

https://youtu.be/RUNqDK2Ryrg

[EEVblog]

If I was you I would really try to get an Apprenticeship at Siemens or something, and then do a PhD after a few years.

How do you do a PhD without a degree? 

[tec5c]

If I was you I would really try to get an Apprenticeship at Siemens or something, and then do a PhD after a few years.

How do you do a PhD without a degree? 

+1

[tggzzz]

If I was you I would really try to get an Apprenticeship at Siemens or something, and then do a PhD after a few years.

Oh, I missed that! For someone with your claimed background, that's the second unbelievable contention - the first being that undergrads do "research projects"[1].

I caution other readers to make their own judgement about whether they should take anything you say seriously (on this subject at least).


[1] https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/help-with-university-(choosing-course-and-path)/msg705376/#msg705376 and https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/help-with-university-(choosing-course-and-path)/msg707333/#msg707333

[CatalinaWOW]

Another thing of the past.  Once upon a time it was possible to enter PhD programs based on your body of work.  Today it is extremely rare, if ever, that it happens.  There are a lot of reasons for this, including the huge number of people who like academia and qualify by the traditional route, a bit of the HR droid syndrome mentioned elsewhere, a bit of the incredible political pressure cooker in grad school and university staff, where everyone is kneeing and elbowing for position, a bit of the pressure of public funding and the rarity of people who really are qualified without the formal paper.  Plus a number of other reasons I am sure.

All this in spite the fact that I had a long time hobby in electronics, went straight through to a Masters degree and still learned far more in the first year on the job than I had learned previously.  More all nighters keeping up with work than I ever did at school.

[AQUAMAN]

If I was you I would really try to get an Apprenticeship at Siemens or something, and then do a PhD after a few years.

Oh, I missed that! For someone with your claimed background, that's the second unbelievable contention - the first being that undergrads do "research projects"[1].

I caution other readers to make their own judgement about whether they should take anything you say seriously (on this subject at least).


[1] https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/help-with-university-(choosing-course-and-path)/msg705376/#msg705376 and https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/help-with-university-(choosing-course-and-path)/msg707333/#msg707333

It is only jobsworths and HR morons that actually believe that doing an undergraduate degree makes you better suited to doing a PhD.

Again, you are completely stuck in the past. University is now just an extension of school and there is no difference in quality from 1st or 4th years (other than life experience which you could get more of by having a real job). Intelligence is intelligence.

If you want to do a PhD but you have 5 years working for Siemens instead of a piss poor undergraduate experience, you will be able to do it - providing you target a Professor in the right topic. It is just HR bollocks that enforces the rule.

If a 22 year old came to a Professor wanting to do a PhD, but instead of doing 4 years as an undergraduate, they did 4 years at ABB or Siemens, the Professor would be a complete fool not to consider it. Whether his HR jobsworth lets him employ the person from ABB is another matter.

And if you do an apprenticeship, you dont get into 40k of debt (which is what happens in the UK now). And don't say 'its not real debt' or some other line - in 10 years the Government will just change the rules on the loans or sell the book to a debt collector.

It is also quite feasible to participate in research projects at the end of the first year. You have 3 months holiday in the UK during the summer. If the university has an active research program with a large number of PhDs and Post-Docs, I bet you can find one of them that needs some circuit built in order to do an experiment but is struggling to find the time to do it themselves.

Times have really changed. The combination of the fact that everybody goes to university now (so a degree = worthless), combined with it costing an absolute fortune AND it being largely of dreadful quality, means anyone encouraging someone else to enter into this needs to really think about what they are advising and whether their advice is still relevant.

In 1980 and 1990, about 75k people were awarded their first degree, and 30k a higher degree.
In 2011, it was 350k and and 194k.

I'm sorry but times change.
I know that degrees will become irrelevant for anyone with any ability to think beyond the level of a HR droid.

[CatalinaWOW]

If I was you I would really try to get an Apprenticeship at Siemens or something, and then do a PhD after a few years.

Oh, I missed that! For someone with your claimed background, that's the second unbelievable contention - the first being that undergrads do "research projects"[1].

I caution other readers to make their own judgement about whether they should take anything you say seriously (on this subject at least).


[1] https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/help-with-university-(choosing-course-and-path)/msg705376/#msg705376 and https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/help-with-university-(choosing-course-and-path)/msg707333/#msg707333

It is only jobsworths and HR morons that actually believe that doing an undergraduate degree makes you better suited to doing a PhD.

Again, you are completely stuck in the past. University is now just an extension of school and there is no difference in quality from 1st or 4th years (other than life experience which you could get more of by having a real job). Intelligence is intelligence.

If you want to do a PhD but you have 5 years working for Siemens instead of a piss poor undergraduate experience, you will be able to do it - providing you target a Professor in the right topic. It is just HR bollocks that enforces the rule.

If a 22 year old came to a Professor wanting to do a PhD, but instead of doing 4 years as an undergraduate, they did 4 years at ABB or Siemens, the Professor would be a complete fool not to consider it. Whether his HR jobsworth lets him employ the person from ABB is another matter.

And if you do an apprenticeship, you dont get into 40k of debt (which is what happens in the UK now). And don't say 'its not real debt' or some other line - in 10 years the Government will just change the rules on the loans or sell the book to a debt collector.

It is also quite feasible to participate in research projects at the end of the first year. You have 3 months holiday in the UK during the summer. If the university has an active research program with a large number of PhDs and Post-Docs, I bet you can find one of them that needs some circuit built in order to do an experiment but is struggling to find the time to do it themselves.

Times have really changed. The combination of the fact that everybody goes to university now (so a degree = worthless), combined with it costing an absolute fortune AND it being largely of dreadful quality, means anyone encouraging someone else to enter into this needs to really think about what they are advising and whether their advice is still relevant.

In 1980 and 1990, about 75k people were awarded their first degree, and 30k a higher degree.
In 2011, it was 350k and and 194k.

I'm sorry but times change.
I know that degrees will become irrelevant for anyone with any ability to think beyond the level of a HR droid.

You are only half right.  While the professor might be a fool, the vast majority of them went through a painful process to get their degree, and won't readily admit that someone else can get there more easily or do anything which reduces the perceived value of their path.  Just human nature. 

Pride also gets into it.  When I went back for a PhD in the late seventies took one class from a professor who was a leading light in his field.  Wrote THE book on the subject, which is still relevant to this day.  Published regularly.  But could not imagine that anyone was ahead of him or his students in implementing the algorithms he had developed in a microprocessor.  He was sure they could cram them in in a couple of years and just couldn't accept the fact that several companies had fielded products.  Since it wasn't in the peer reviewed journals that he read (and was a peer reviewer for), it just didn't happen as far as he was concerned.  I suppose I could have cheated and had an easy thesis, but just couldn't do that and ended up never finishing.

[Landrew2390]

It's been my experience that professors who finished their degrees and went straight into teaching are inferior instructors.  They have the academic background, but they don't understand the industry they're preparing students for.  The absolute best professor I ever had spent twenty years working with chemical weapons and retired to teach.  He was much more laid back and understood what the industry expected chemistry graduates to know upon graduation.  That is something a pure academic wouldn't automatically know.

Being the product of the American college babysitting services, I'm not sure how PhD level work is done overseas.  But in the systems I came through, you were required to be in an upper level (3rd year minimum) course to do any kind of research.  PhD candidates were also required to have Masters Degrees in their field before attempting a PhD.  The exception is an honorary degree that is handed out for significant contributions to society.  A degree isn't worth as much as it was 40 years ago, but it has become necessary in the United States to have some kind of post secondary schooling unless you want to flip hamburgers for a living.

[Rick Law]

It's been my experience that professors who finished their degrees and went straight into teaching are inferior instructors.  They have the academic background, but they don't understand the industry they're preparing students for.  The absolute best professor I ever had spent twenty years working with chemical weapons and retired to teach.  He was much more laid back and understood what the industry expected chemistry graduates to know upon graduation.  That is something a pure academic wouldn't automatically know.

Being the product of the American college babysitting services, I'm not sure how PhD level work is done overseas.  But in the systems I came through, you were required to be in an upper level (3rd year minimum) course to do any kind of research.  PhD candidates were also required to have Masters Degrees in their field before attempting a PhD.  The exception is an honorary degree that is handed out for significant contributions to society.  A degree isn't worth as much as it was 40 years ago, but it has become necessary in the United States to have some kind of post secondary schooling unless you want to flip hamburgers for a living.

re: "but it has become necessary in the United States to have some kind of post secondary schooling unless you want to flip hamburgers for a living. "
Stats shows a good number of college graduates find only jobs where college education is not used - such as making coffee at coffee shops.  I don't know the exact number as stats are all over the place depending on the survey/article you read.  But they are all around 60-80% rate of find jobs, and 30%-50% are really under-employed.  So, flipping burgers these days may well requires a degree. 

re: "It's been my experience that professors who finished their degrees and went straight into teaching are inferior instructors."
It is unfortunate that Universities in the USA appears to have less and less experienced practitioners of the field but more and more (judging from their age) moves from student to teacher with little real life experience.  I think this is one of the reason why degree are less worthwhile than years past.

I have a lot of doubt about some of the focus in the U these days.  Some of the course and majors lead me to wonder about how these kids think - how do they expect to make a living given their training and their majors.


With my kid approaching college age, about a month ago, I attended a "consider us" seminar held by a well known university.  The speaker is the admission officer for my State/Region.  After spending an hour listening to and looking at slides at how much fun their kids are having, I raise my hand to ask questions.  Follow-up question to his answers eventually lead me to ask: "Just what is the percentage of your graduates (of the 2014 school year) got jobs?"  Well, 42% got a job, 35% went on to graduate school, 30% went into volunteer work.  Only 42% got gainful employment!  This is a university I considered as "solid gold reputation" until about a month ago...

I'd say, if I purchase a load transistors, and only 42% them works, I say that manufacturer an't making something that works.

Bottom line, be prepare to have multiple careers.  Be flexible and be ready to change.  World is changing very fast.  We need to move with the value chain or we will slide down in value.  What only "we" can do today, soon, everyone else would learn how to do, and some will do it better than "us", some will do it not as good but a lot cheaper, but some will do it better than us and cheaper than us.

Remember the movie The Graduate.  (The word of advice from a family friend to the graduate:) "Just one word - plastic..."

[miguelvp]

It's been my experience that professors who finished their degrees and went straight into teaching are inferior instructors. 

re: "It's been my experience that professors who finished their degrees and went straight into teaching are inferior instructors."
It is unfortunate that Universities in the USA appears to have less and less experienced practitioners of the field but more and more (judging from their age) moves from student to teacher with little real life experience.  I think this is one of the reason why degree are less worthwhile than years past.

If the professor is worth anything he was involved in research before graduating and started his/her own research after becoming a professor.

University professors are not just teachers, they actually bring a lot of money in the form of research grants, and they do know what they are talking about 

[Landrew2390]

re: "but it has become necessary in the United States to have some kind of post secondary schooling unless you want to flip hamburgers for a living. "
Stats shows a good number of college graduates find only jobs where college education is not used - such as making coffee at coffee shops.  I don't know the exact number as stats are all over the place depending on the survey/article you read.  But they are all around 60-80% rate of find jobs, and 30%-50% are really under-employed.  So, flipping burgers these days may well requires a degree.

I agree most college graduates are underemployed right now.  But I was including trade and technical education in my statement.  In my area right now, most new college graduates are working low end jobs.  I feel part of that is the glut of new graduates.  Having said that, almost everyone I know that possesses a 1-2 year technical certification in fields like industrial maintenance and computers is working full time.  Some of them are working +60 hours right now because we have a severe deficit of trained personnel.

People can argue all day about statistics, but my observations point to some form of post-secondary education becoming more and more important towards getting a career off the ground.  The reason I changed from a 4 year environmental science program to a 2 year technology support program was the horrible options after graduation.  I decided it wasn't worth the debt to finish a degree when 90% of the people that graduated two years ahead of me weren't fully employed.

The job market in the United States is really screwed up.  The huge numbers of people that went to college and racked up debt because they couldn't find a job is staggering.  That's one reason I suggested taking as many electives as possible.  You don't have a clue where the job markets are going to be in 5 years.

[Landrew2390]

If the professor is worth anything he was involved in research before graduating and started his/her own research after becoming a professor.

I fully agree.  The unfortunate trend in my wonderful state is most schools are "Teaching" universities and not "Research" universities.  The education system here is broken and just shows signs of getting worse.  I've actually paid money for classes that I learned nothing in.  One in particular spent almost 7 weeks on Ohm's Law and the difference between series/parallel circuits.  The larger universities might be better, but the majority of them have gone that far downhill.

[miguelvp]

Seems to me only one out of six on NW Georgia doesn't do research.

gru.edu, troy.edu and gsu.edu are research universities.
westga.edu a bit less but still has some research programs.
ung.edu doesn't have much of a research program.

With Research:
http://www.gru.edu/research/
http://www.troy.edu/research/
http://research.gsu.edu/

Low Research:
http://www.westga.edu/oso/index.php
http://www.westga.edu/orsp/index.php

Almost Nil Research:
http://ung.edu/news/research.php

No Research that I can find:
uga.edu is the only one that doesn't seem to have any.

But choosing a university should be based on how much research on your major they have.
For Electrical and Electronic Engineering in the US according to topuniversities.com these are the best:
(source) http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2013/engineering-electrical-and-electronic#sorting=rank+region=+country=+faculty=+stars=false+search=

(ties on ranking mine, but actually in order as presented by them)

1) MIT (of course)
1) Stanford (of course)
1) Berkeley (actually I think this one is better that the previous two and way cheaper)
4) UCLA
5) Harvard (they do more than lawyers)
6) Urbana Champaign in my current State (IL)
7) Princeton
Caltech (a bit overrated if you ask me)
and.... 9) Georgia Institute of Technology
10) University of Texas in Austin.

I know it's hard trying to get to one or another and the research to get there usually doesn't include an actual future, it's more like a gut feeling or a desire to get away from where you grew up or family or whatever.

Still, the best university won't do miracles, you gotta do that on your own. But they do offer more opportunities for those who want to put the extra effort. (meaning less parties and more work)

It's all about choices

[Landrew2390]

I was speaking from experience with the University of West Georgia and Dalton State College.  Research normally took a back seat and that problem got worse as enrollment went up.  The University of West Georgia does some research, but it is minimal compared to a university the caliber of Georgia Tech.  Professors were always encouraged to do research, but most didn't have time due to the other duties the university placed on them.  That's just my experience and it may be different at other universities.  I also wasn't in research heavy programs. 

UWG has one of the better public history programs.  As a result, it has large amounts of support and funding.  My program did some research, but it was a much smaller amount than I would expect from a large university.

As always, your mileage may vary.  I do agree with miguelvp, choose your university based on their research.  If they're doing active research, that will place you on the cutting edge and provides some insurance that your program won't be cancelled (Happened to me).

[CatalinaWOW]

Being a good researcher and being a good teacher are not mutually exclusive, but they are different things.  As a student I would place a lower value on the research ability and higher on the teaching ability.  Unless you want in on pre-publication information or want training in how to write grant applications you can get the research information from anywhere that has a decent library, or even from home if you are willing to pay subscription fees.  There is nothing worse than sitting in a class with a world class researcher at the front of the room whose only thoughts about the class are resentment that the dean made them teach, has no idea of how to present the worlds of information in his/her head and no interest in learning how to do so.

I will admit that there is nothing better than a world class researcher who wants to and can teach.  They guys at Cal Tech who got to take classes from Feynman are some of the luckiest people in the world.  There are other examples.

[tggzzz]

Being a good researcher and being a good teacher are not mutually exclusive, but they are different things.

Very true.

At my school (not uni) one of the maths teaches had actually come up with a new way of generating pythagorean triads. His lessons were incomprehensible even to the top maths class. OTOH, a maths grad who had realised he would never be an original mathematician was an excellent teacher - partly because he could understand what we did not yet understand.

He also managed to teach us calculus from first principles when we were 14, in only 2hrs 40 mins. At that point we understood why differentiation and integration worked, and how to do it for polynomials except 1/x. Trig functions and 1/x came when we wer 15.

[IanB]

He also managed to teach us calculus from first principles when we were 14, in only 2hrs 40 mins. At that point we understood why differentiation and integration worked, and how to do it for polynomials except 1/x. Trig functions and 1/x came when we were 15.

When I was at school I found some old O-level textbooks in the back of a store cupboard that had chapters on calculus. That was certainly not on offer in the exam syllabus that we were taught. (And trying to get my maths teacher to explain complicated things brought endless cries of "I can't talk about that, it's not on the syllabus!")

I fear that school curricula have been on a trend of rationing knowledge for decades know.

[miguelvp]

In Spain we did touch on trig, derivatives and differential equations on 8th grade and fully on 1st B.U.P. They have changed things now and now it's not covered until a couple of years later after the last education reform.

I was surprised that Calculus 101 covered things that I took 4 years back so of course I aced it once I came to the States and even if I knew English I wasn't fluent by any means (my dad is fluent since he was with the US Airforce but my mom didn't know much of it so we always spoke in Spanish at home).

Same with Physics and Chemistry,  Our High School chemistry finals I think it was to name 100 formulas and write 100 formulas based on the names, getting 3 of those wrong you'll fail the finals.

School is too easy now but then again we had to even learn Latin for 1 year in HS regardless if you were going to continue on science (2nd B.U.P you got to choose between science or Letters (that included literature, history, philosophy etc)

After 8th grade you got to choose if you were going to continue to Uni, or do trades (they called it professional formation) Funny thing is that electronics was a trade same as mechanics. Not to be confused with electrical engineering that was still a university thing (the theory of it, not the practice).

Anyways, I don't know if cutting the curricula not to saturate students is a good thing or not. Eventually you'll get what you need without the extra baggage. But I get a kick to tell people that I did learn Latin at age 15. Of course students that continued in "Letters" would have to take more Latin and even classical Greek.

Different times.

Edit: but I digress, we are talking about Universities, not High School. Different type of teachers IMHO. I rather have a cranky professor that actually has done something in the field than someone that only knows what the textbook has.

[Rick Law]

Being a good researcher and being a good teacher are not mutually exclusive, but they are different things.

Very true.

At my school (not uni) one of the maths teaches had actually come up with a new way of generating pythagorean triads. His lessons were incomprehensible even to the top maths class. OTOH, a maths grad who had realised he would never be an original mathematician was an excellent teacher - partly because he could understand what we did not yet understand.

He also managed to teach us calculus from first principles when we were 14, in only 2hrs 40 mins. At that point we understood why differentiation and integration worked, and how to do it for polynomials except 1/x. Trig functions and 1/x came when we wer 15.

Research is the act of discovering and developing new knowledge.  A university's function is to do just that, and then pass that knowledge on to the students.

So, while good research doesn't necessary by itself make the researcher a good teacher, it is certainly is needed if just to uphold the apparent quality of the institution.

Here in lies the rub.  Under such charter as "developing new knowledge" and "passing it on", where is employability of graduates in that equation?   Yet that is the primary reason why one goes to college.  Then again, employability of graduates or the lack there of is mostly due to lack of marketable knowledge.

I think as a culture, we need to reassess university/college education: what is it for?  what is the success criteria? how much should it cost? how much is the education worth?

I am one with a heavy bias towards the value education, yet I would be lying if I say I believe colleges/universities serve society well these days.

[tron9000]

In my opinion I would say don't go to university - it is a total utter waste of time (and money) and has been dumbed down massively. It is the biggest con going.

You are better off studying yourself.

I would say if you do go, you absolutely have to go to one with good research centres and volunteer to do projects for them. This is far more important that the degree.
The degree itself is a total joke - just turning up gets you a 2.1. The standard of the other students was often absolutely horrific. It was basically an extension of school, except the standard was worse.

I'll stop you right there - I acutally work in an electronics Lab at a university and I see both side of the spectrum - I see students who work diligently and with a true passion for what they are doing! I do also see those who wish they were somewhere else and really couldn't care less. They however soon leave and you stop seeing there face's, which is a real shame, as they do ask us for help and we try and instil some enthusiasm, try and find what makes them tick, why they wanted to be here in the first place and try and lead them in a direction to where they want to be. Hell we've had loads of Comp Sci's swap there courses to electronics!

as for it being dumbed down - where did you go? I look a scripts the students have to do and I have to dig REALLY deep to even get on the same page and I have a head start on the poor buggers cos I DID THIS EXACT COURSE!

Turning up gets a 2.1....right, that's definitely not true. Personal experience: short sharp boot in the arse from my supervisor (verbally) told me I was not putting enough effort in and was in danger of failing at the final hurdle - if you want the degree and a career in electronics, you earn it!

As far as project being more important than the degree, that too is a myth - you want that Eng title, finish your exams first! At least in the first year: prove to your peers that you can do the work in their projects. Although some projects, like the final year projects, are counted towards your final mark, but project work on its own is nothing without the exam marks.

University is definitely not a con, and yes some would say this is a biased opinion, but if you want a degree in electronic engineering or higher, then its YOUR investment in time and money: choose the right university, talk with the supervisors/teachers, talk with the students, grill them about the projects they do and look at the examples of the course material. You wouldn't buy a house  without looking at it then say its a crap-hole after you've moved in!

However I agree that university is not for everyone - you could find a job that offers plenty of training and a good foot in the door (even an apprenticeship) - if you do get those offers, seriously bite their hand off! Experience, training and income is a no brainer!

To the original author though - have you thought about apprenticeships? They aren't just reserved for young-uns, you could get an apprenticeship working in the field of automotive electronics (I did know someone doing a motor-sports engineering apprenticeship).

[HighVoltage]

University is definitely not a con, and yes some would say this is a biased opinion, but if you want a degree in electronic engineering or higher, then its YOUR investment in time and money:

This was 100% true, when I went to the University and I got out of it as much as I put in to it and it was worth every penny.

These days I have two new experiences with two children in two very different universities. And although its not electronics engineering, it reflects the state of mind in different universities.

One of my daughters choose a degree in Arts and it was a total joke from any point of view at a UK University. She ended up with a masters and good grades but learned almost nothing. But the cost was horrendous and the classes had like 200 students in them.

The other daughter studies medicine in a real traditional university sense of way in Hungary with research attached and unbelievable difficult exams. This university is worth every penny of the cost (Even more horrendous) and she is learning in a very fast way. The classes are limited to 20 students max and most of the time they only have 10 students per class.

So, I guess it depends a lot of the university that one would choose and the personality of the student.

[Landrew2390]

. . . its YOUR investment in time and money . . .

   100% correct. 

That's the hardest part for most people.  They struggle to quantify the benefits and costs of going to a university.  As a rule, you get more out of it if you put in more effort.  As for the cost, that's a personal decision.

[tggzzz]

Being a good researcher and being a good teacher are not mutually exclusive, but they are different things.

Very true.

At my school (not uni) one of the maths teaches had actually come up with a new way of generating pythagorean triads. His lessons were incomprehensible even to the top maths class. OTOH, a maths grad who had realised he would never be an original mathematician was an excellent teacher - partly because he could understand what we did not yet understand.

He also managed to teach us calculus from first principles when we were 14, in only 2hrs 40 mins. At that point we understood why differentiation and integration worked, and how to do it for polynomials except 1/x. Trig functions and 1/x came when we wer 15.

Research is the act of discovering and developing new knowledge.  A university's function is to do just that, and then pass that knowledge on to the students.

So, while good research doesn't necessary by itself make the researcher a good teacher, it is certainly is needed if just to uphold the apparent quality of the institution.

In this country that used to be one of the distinctions between universities and polytechnics. You are describing the former, where the latter was more suitable for people who were less "academic" but more "hands-on practical" types. The split is still there to a large extent, but unfortunately it isn't visible to those without prior knowledge. Damn shame.

Even while it was happening, it annoyed me that polytechnics felt the need to rebrand themselves as universities. They both had different advantages and disadvantages.

Here in lies the rub.  Under such charter as "developing new knowledge" and "passing it on", where is employability of graduates in that equation?   Yet that is the primary reason why one goes to college.  Then again, employability of graduates or the lack there of is mostly due to lack of marketable knowledge.

It is one reason, and for most people probably the most important reason. I went because I loved the subject and wanted to know more theory than I could find out at home.

I think as a culture, we need to reassess university/college education: what is it for?  what is the success criteria? how much should it cost? how much is the education worth?

I am one with a heavy bias towards the value education, yet I would be lying if I say I believe colleges/universities serve society well these days.

I think that is a balanced, reasonable view - continual reassessment is essential in all walks of life. For many courses I think the value is very marginal, and for some it is negative.

Unfortunately going to university became a political aspiration.

[tggzzz]

Many comments omitted, because I agree with them.

University is definitely not a con, and yes some would say this is a biased opinion, but if you want a degree in electronic engineering or higher, then its YOUR investment in time and money: choose the right university, talk with the supervisors/teachers, talk with the students, grill them about the projects they do and look at the examples of the course material.

Very true, but there's a problem: many schoolkids simply don't have the knowledge and ability to do that assessment - particularly those whose parents did not go to uni. In fact many schoolkids and their parents assume that all courses are equivalent, because all A Levels are more or less equivalent.

My daughter is employed to help sort out such questions and misapprensions, via a university outreach programme.

You wouldn't buy a house  without looking at it then say its a crap-hole after you've moved in!

One of my relatives did buy a house without ever having been to the town! He never complained and lived there for 30 years!

[tron9000]

Many comments omitted, because I agree with them.

University is definitely not a con, and yes some would say this is a biased opinion, but if you want a degree in electronic engineering or higher, then its YOUR investment in time and money: choose the right university, talk with the supervisors/teachers, talk with the students, grill them about the projects they do and look at the examples of the course material.

Very true, but there's a problem: many schoolkids simply don't have the knowledge and ability to do that assessment - particularly those whose parents did not go to uni. In fact many schoolkids and their parents assume that all courses are equivalent, because all A Levels are more or less equivalent.

My daughter is employed to help sort out such questions and misapprensions, via a university outreach programme.

This is true for the 16-18 age bracket. I admit this was more of the assumption of the age of the original poster was 20-30, given his background.

We do have open days and its hard for some of the prospective students to come out of their shell and for their parents to engage too, as usually they don't have any engineering background and don't know what to ask.

I think the tack for us the staff is to try and encourage them to ask us questions, but what seems to work is asking them what they do or are doing for projects then talk about the facilities and courses we offer. I've tried this and seems to work at open days, gets good feedback

Outreach days seem to work: we get about 40 electronics students at them - you have a sit down and a natter over lunch and some of them are doing stuff with R-pi's, arduino's, STM32 disco's, processing, all the entry level stuff, and some are literally just starting and finding it all rather interesting! its all good to hear! So maybe there's hope for the next gen? Maybe we will hear more of these questions being asked.

Its good you daughter is doing that, these misapprehensions need to be put down by whatever their school may (or may not is the likely case) have told them. I was told by my school's careers advisor: "you don't need maths to go straight into electronics!" boy was she bloody wrong! But it wasn't hopeless: a foundation year took care of that - this is what the university informed me! but it would have been nice to know this before!

You wouldn't buy a house  without looking at it then say its a crap-hole after you've moved in!

One of my relatives did buy a house without ever having been to the town! He never complained and lived there for 30 years!

erm....good for them....but its a risk I'd rather not take.

[CatalinaWOW]

I can't speak for other countries, but here in the states there is a lot of BS about the reasons for and value of a college (or university-the terms are now effectively interchangeable here) education.  Our president has given a speech stating a goal of giving everyone a college education so they can all earn above average salaries.  How someone can say that without embarrassment confuses me.  (Part of it is that I have not directly quoted, but combined the meaning of nearby sentences.)  But this thinking leads to large numbers of people entering the institutions of higher learning for economic reasons, with no clue what they want.  Vast numbers take the easy or entertaining path, choosing such degrees as general studies or media studies, not recognizing that there is not a vast demand for those "skills".   Most of the schools receive large portions of their funding from the public sector, either directly or through scholarships received by their students so they are forced to go along with the program.  Some do it kicking and screaming, others have bought the program and go forth enthusiastically.  While there remain pockets of excellence the average quality has dropped significantly.

The truly sad thing is that for a significant majority of these people the lifetime economic impact of their education will be negative.  They will have lost several years of earning and incurred large debts with little or no impact on their compensation.  The winners will be people who recognized that there will be shortages of people interested in and skilled in various "trades" and reap the rewards having people competing for their time.

[tggzzz]

I can't speak for other countries, but here in the states there is a lot of BS about the reasons for and value of a college (or university-the terms are now effectively interchangeable here) education.  Our president has given a speech stating a goal of giving everyone a college education so they can all earn above average salaries.  How someone can say that without embarrassment confuses me.  (Part of it is that I have not directly quoted, but combined the meaning of nearby sentences.)  But this thinking leads to large numbers of people entering the institutions of higher learning for economic reasons, with no clue what they want.  Vast numbers take the easy or entertaining path, choosing such degrees as general studies or media studies, not recognizing that there is not a vast demand for those "skills".   Most of the schools receive large portions of their funding from the public sector, either directly or through scholarships received by their students so they are forced to go along with the program.  Some do it kicking and screaming, others have bought the program and go forth enthusiastically.  While there remain pockets of excellence the average quality has dropped significantly.

The truly sad thing is that for a significant majority of these people the lifetime economic impact of their education will be negative.  They will have lost several years of earning and incurred large debts with little or no impact on their compensation.  The winners will be people who recognized that there will be shortages of people interested in and skilled in various "trades" and reap the rewards having people competing for their time.

All of of that is valid, with one exception noted below. It is also true to some extent over here, but the fees are/were much lower so the negative impact is lessened. I had hoped that the introduction of fees would have given people the idea that "comparative folk dancing" is probably not a good route to riches, but I was dissapointed. Perhaps the financial turmoil of the last few years will have helped, but I doubt it.

I get the feeling that many of out STEM degrees are largely populated by overseas students, which doesn't bode well for the  future.

The error? It is entirely possible for the majority of people to be better than average: consider 6,6,6,6,6,6,1,6,6,6 in which 90% are higher than the average (mean ).

[HighVoltage]

The truly sad thing is that for a significant majority of these people the lifetime economic impact of their education will be negative. 

There was a long discussion about this on reddit and a friend of my daughter from the US posted this:

=========
I am 29 now and I have had a part-time job since I was 15. I worked hard in high school, participated in sports, did the extracurriculars and all the extra stuff because that is what was expected of me. Ended up getting into a large state college in engineering. Continued working hard and not partying because that was expected of me. Ended up graduating with honors in 4 years, during which I got a whole bunch of accolades, did research, all the good stuff. That was back in 2008, and the job market was horrible so I decided to go to grad school. Got into a top 5 pharmacy program and kept working hard at school and part time on the side. When I graduated I average 27 hours of work a week while going to grad school full time.

When I graduated there were no jobs. I mean nothing. Applied everywhere, got bites, nothing more. Ended up getting a job in retail in the worst place ever. The expectations are absurd and we are constantly in fear for our safety (robbed twice since I have been there). So I decided this gig wasn't for me and decided to go to law school.
Right now I am working 30 hours a week. Going to school full time but on track to graduate with high honors. Despite that I will likely graduate without a job lined up. On top of that I am paying for a mortgage and 2 cars. I work 28 days a month. I just got married and I barely see my wife. I never sleep more than 6 hours a night. I haven't seen a doctor in 5 years because up until last year had no insurance.

Last weekend was my only weekend off this month. I went to go see my in-laws because I am a good husband. My father-in-law asked mentioned how lazy people my age are. He was quick to say he wasn't talking about me of course. I was furious. I told everything I just said above in one long angry breathless rant. He didn't know what to say when I was done. I don't think he ever considered how much I was working just to do half of what he was able to do with his life. I have literally 5 times his education and he retired a year ago when he was 55. Fucking 55.

I hope I am dead by 55. At least then I can get some fucking sleep."
==========

https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/2ik3v2/student_loans_have_hit_a_record_high_of_12/

It seems to be very different these days, compared to when I went to college.

[Rick Law]

The truly sad thing is that for a significant majority of these people the lifetime economic impact of their education will be negative. 

There was a long discussion about this on reddit and a friend of my daughter from the US posted this:

=========
I am 29 now and I have had a part-time job since I was 15. I worked hard in high school, participated in sports, did the extracurriculars and all the extra stuff because that is what was expected of me. Ended up getting into a large state college in engineering. Continued working hard and not partying because that was expected of me. Ended up graduating with honors in 4 years, during which I got a whole bunch of accolades, did research, all the good stuff. That was back in 2008, and the job market was horrible so I decided to go to grad school. Got into a top 5 pharmacy program and kept working hard at school and part time on the side. When I graduated I average 27 hours of work a week while going to grad school full time.

When I graduated there were no jobs. I mean nothing. Applied everywhere, got bites, nothing more. Ended up getting a job in retail in the worst place ever. The expectations are absurd and we are constantly in fear for our safety (robbed twice since I have been there). So I decided this gig wasn't for me and decided to go to law school.
Right now I am working 30 hours a week. Going to school full time but on track to graduate with high honors. Despite that I will likely graduate without a job lined up. On top of that I am paying for a mortgage and 2 cars. I work 28 days a month. I just got married and I barely see my wife. I never sleep more than 6 hours a night. I haven't seen a doctor in 5 years because up until last year had no insurance.

Last weekend was my only weekend off this month. I went to go see my in-laws because I am a good husband. My father-in-law asked mentioned how lazy people my age are. He was quick to say he wasn't talking about me of course. I was furious. I told everything I just said above in one long angry breathless rant. He didn't know what to say when I was done. I don't think he ever considered how much I was working just to do half of what he was able to do with his life. I have literally 5 times his education and he retired a year ago when he was 55. Fucking 55.

I hope I am dead by 55. At least then I can get some fucking sleep."
==========

https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/2ik3v2/student_loans_have_hit_a_record_high_of_12/

It seems to be very different these days, compared to when I went to college.

  [Bold added to quote]

I am very sad for your daughter's friend.  Sad as it is, unfortunate that his experience is typical.  2008 was indeed a bad job market.  I knew a few kids who went into graduate school for that reason as your daughter's friend did.  And just as your daughter's friend, they still got nothing after graduate school.  Job market in 2010 was worst.

Yes, it is very different these days.  Kids have a hard time even find retail jobs.  When I was in college, I was able to work as waiter, bus-boy, dish-washer...  Painting houses, waiting on tables, gardening, fixing decks, used to be what college kids do to make it through college.  Now kids have to compete with "delayed deportation" people.

We (USA) is in dire situation already.  Most politicians are not aware of, or do not care about the state of education.  Perhaps Common Core would wake up enough people.  SAT and PSAT are now aligned with Common Core making it a total waste of time in terms of accessing student's academic ability.  19 states woke up a bit and already rejected Common Core.  More States have bills to limit or to reject Common Core in the State Legislature.  Rejecting low standard is one thing, actually doing things to fix the education system will be magnitude harder.

This whole "STEM" thing is symptomatic of the dysfunctional education system.  STEM stands for Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics.  Creating a new acronym is not the same as doing something about the existing problem.  While saying how important STEM is, they continue to treat "volunteer to pick up trash in center city" as valuable indicator to the kids ability to succeed in engineering.  Don't get me wrong.  Volunteerism is a good thing.  I volunteered every Saturday day to help kids and gave up Saturdays for almost 10 years until about 3 years ago.  When one has a job and living as a productive citizen, one is volunteering.  When one can't get a paying job except "volunteering", one is not standing on ones own feet.  The most important thing education must achieve is to make productive citizens.  We are failing that with our education system.

As much as Chinese kids used to learn English and trying to take the SAT, if we don't change soon, American kids will be learning Chinese to take some Chinese standardize exam so we can learn/study Advance Sciences in universities in China.  Well, we are even loosing out on the export front: with the current "new" SAT, I don't know why the Chinese or anyone else would want to take it.

[gildasd]

Here in Belgium, as a student working in a electrical motor factory, my take home pay is 11.7€ per hour all tax paid. If they keep me for more than 3 weeks, it will go up.
If I worked nights at the plastic factory next door, it would be 14€, the detergent factory pays 14.3€ to 15.6€ (3 shifts, 7 days a week, so hourly pay varies)...

I choose the lower paying job as it is relevant for my future (and I can work 1 day a week there during the school year).

In some factories, management even has to come the floor to help because of shortages of skilled labour.
These companies, even if they are world class, are all family owned businesses (not run by MBA's hoping to cash in fast and move on to the next sacrificial cow).
I love a lot of things about the US, but not your management culture.

BTW, all master diplomas (and there are great engineering ones) in Gent are in English - and are capped at 9000€ per year (last time I checked), as a French but Belgian resident doing studies that are considered important for the economy, I pay about 500€ per year for a Bachelor's (just the Advanced Fire Fighting module is worth 5000€ - so really worth it).

[Rick Law]

...
...

Here in lies the rub.  Under such charter as "developing new knowledge" and "passing it on", where is employability of graduates in that equation?   Yet that is the primary reason why one goes to college.  Then again, employability of graduates or the lack there of is mostly due to lack of marketable knowledge.

It is one reason, and for most people probably the most important reason. I went because I loved the subject and wanted to know more theory than I could find out at home.

I think as a culture, we need to reassess university/college education: what is it for?  what is the success criteria? how much should it cost? how much is the education worth?

I am one with a heavy bias towards the value education, yet I would be lying if I say I believe colleges/universities serve society well these days.

I think that is a balanced, reasonable view - continual reassessment is essential in all walks of life. For many courses I think the value is very marginal, and for some it is negative.

Unfortunately going to university became a political aspiration.

[RL: I added Bold added in quote] 

re: "I went because I loved the subject and wanted to know more theory than I could find out at home."

Ah ha!  I thought I was the only fool in town.   Yeah...  Me too, I loved Physics and decided to give up my Photographer job and went to college and working as a "kitchen hand" cutting chickens and peeling shrimps to make it through college.

re: "I think that is a balanced, reasonable view - continual reassessment is essential in all walks of life. For many courses I think the value is very marginal, and for some it is negative."

A friend (Mechanical Engineering major) trying to switch me to major in Engineering for job opportunities, drove me around town and pointed out the PhD physicist who is the service guy pumping gas at the station.

I never really use Physics in my post-college career.  The problem solving skills I learned, the analytical skills I learned, the attitude for success I learned...  Not a day went by that I didn't use some of those skills.

I think colleges/universities can offer many knowledge and skills.  Some are hard-academic, some merely (shall I say) attributes/habits that is critical for success.  At the same time while I have my disappointments with colleges and universities, I would recommend anyone with the opportunity to attend college do so.

[Rick Law]

...
...
These companies, even if they are world class, are all family owned businesses (not run by MBA's hoping to cash in fast and move on to the next sacrificial cow).
I love a lot of things about the US, but not your management culture.
...
...

Keep an open mind and see more.  You may be surprised by how diverse US management culture is.

Having more than 30 years 20+ of which as management in Fortune 500 in the USA, I have seen management of all kinds.  Some I couldn't trust as far as I can throw a house.  Yet I have also seen managers I could literally trust my life on if necessary.

"Doing the right thing" is often emphasized.  Many just say it, but a good number actually believe in in.

I've seen a VP who spend 3 days and nights in his office reviewing job records deciding a layoff.  Yet I have also seen Directors/VP/SVP/EVP with total disregard.

So, keep an open mind.  USA is a big place and with a wide mix of range of people - manager or otherwise.  Just like in Belgium, I am sure you see very different attitude from the Flemish Belgium to Brussel area to Wallonia Belgium.

[Marco]

SAT and PSAT are now aligned with Common Core making it a total waste of time in terms of accessing student's academic ability.

Have you ever read the common core standard? It's pretty short. New math isn't even an inherent part of it ... you could satisfy it's requirements, from just a standard point of view, with a class based on 40 year old books with a few supplementals for number line insight AFAICS.

It's the certification process of class room materials which is broken. The level of math proficiency common core demands for college entry level is quite sufficient, so SAT/PSAT being aligned with it means nothing. If the writers of the SAT/PSAT tests are of the same quality as some of the common core textbook writers then there is a problem.

As for New Math, it reminds me a bit of functional programming, clever ... yet completely incompatible with my brain. If all teachers and text book writers had very high level math capabilities I think new math wouldn't be a problem, the problem seems to be that most of them don't really understand it either. Just like functional programming it's simply too clever for most people (at least to adjust too once habits have been formed).

[Rick Law]

SAT and PSAT are now aligned with Common Core making it a total waste of time in terms of accessing student's academic ability.

Have you ever read the common core standard? It's pretty short. New math isn't even an inherent part of it ... you could satisfy it's requirements, from just a standard point of view, with a class based on 40 year old books with a few supplementals for number line insight AFAICS.

It's the certification process of class room materials which is broken. The level of math proficiency common core demands for college entry level is quite sufficient, so SAT/PSAT being aligned with it means nothing. If the writers of the SAT/PSAT tests are of the same quality as some of the common core textbook writers then there is a problem.

As for New Math, it reminds me a bit of functional programming, clever ... yet completely incompatible with my brain. If all teachers and text book writers had very high level math capabilities I think new math wouldn't be a problem, the problem seems to be that most of them don't really understand it either. Just like functional programming it's simply too clever for most people (at least to adjust too once habits have been formed).

Yes I have seen Common Core standard.  I have been paying attention to it before it is even called Common Core.

The "It's the certification process of class room materials which is broken" is a loaded statement.  (To that, I mean "tip of the iceberg")

To be more precise, it is ok to have a lowest common denominator standard.   However, when that translates into a lowest common denominator universal curriculum, than it becomes a problem.  It turns "everyone minimum X" to everyone = X.  So conceptually, rather than common core standard being the problem, the common curriculum is the devil in the details and that is the problem.  So in that sense, I agree with you.

Conversely, testing should not have min-X as goal.  The value of "above grade level testing" is well establish.  That is what enable a distinction between good and very good and very very good.

SAT was not a test of knowledge - rather, it was a test of ability to learn (Scholastic Aptitude Test).  ACT was the test of knowledge.  In theory, SAT should not need to change regardless of changes to the curriculum.  Now that SAT is realigned as "how much you have learned from Common Core", what then is the difference between it and ACT?

As to "new math"...

"New math" is not suitable for teaching kids.  For someone with good understand of various mathematical theorems, it is easy to understand how this method arrives at the answer.  But for kids without a firm understanding all those foundational knowledge, it is incomprehensible.  (Foundational in this case is "Associative Law", "Commutative Law", "Distributive Law", and their likes).   And you can't really understand these fundamental rules before you learn what is multiply and what is divide.

Perhaps it is in the same spirit that the first draft of "race to the top" (common core before it was called common core) had kids learning division before addition.

[Landrew2390]

To be more precise, it is ok to have a lowest common denominator standard.   However, when that translates into a lowest common denominator universal curriculum.

I came through a public high school during No Child Left Behind.  The standards may have been higher, but it was almost as bad.  The concept of the class not moving on until everyone gets the topic is a great idea.  Kind of like communism in the respect that it works on paper and not in practice.  The issue we consistently ran into was students that refused to do anything except take up space.  Most of them were just waiting until they were old enough to dropout of school.  The government needs to stop trying to find a one size fits all program and forcing it on people.  It would be far better to offer pathways based on actual ability and not an ill defined standard.

One other issue I have with the education system I came through was the complete and total BS of advisers.  They actively discouraged trade school participation after graduation.  Even to the point of using scare tactics.  "Unless you get a four year degree, you won't be successful."  Being smart doesn't mean you have a piece of paper.  It means you are capable of learning and applying what you have learned.  Standards are statistical markers and statistics say whatever the highest bidder wants them to say.

[Rick Law]

To be more precise, it is ok to have a lowest common denominator standard.   However, when that translates into a lowest common denominator universal curriculum.

I came through a public high school during No Child Left Behind.  The standards may have been higher, but it was almost as bad.  The concept of the class not moving on until everyone gets the topic is a great idea.  Kind of like communism in the respect that it works on paper and not in practice.  The issue we consistently ran into was students that refused to do anything except take up space.  Most of them were just waiting until they were old enough to dropout of school.  The government needs to stop trying to find a one size fits all program and forcing it on people.  It would be far better to offer pathways based on actual ability and not an ill defined standard.

One other issue I have with the education system I came through was the complete and total BS of advisers.  They actively discouraged trade school participation after graduation.  Even to the point of using scare tactics.  "Unless you get a four year degree, you won't be successful." Being smart doesn't mean you have a piece of paper.  It means you are capable of learning and applying what you have learned.  Standards are statistical markers and statistics say whatever the highest bidder wants them to say.

[Bold added inside the quoted - to which I am replying]
re: The concept of the class not moving on until everyone gets the topic is a great idea.  Kind of like communism in the respect that it works on paper and not in practice.

That is the problem when minimum standard became the standard curriculum.  That very act ensures no one is above average and the average only move downward.

re: One other issue I have with the education system... ... complete and total BS of advisers ... ..."Unless you get a four year degree, you won't be successful."

Bill Gates didn't have a degree.  Bill Gate, a college drop out, became "world's richest" by unseating Li Ka-Shing, who never attended college.  Li Ka-Shing became the richest with his shipping empire.  Bill Gates and Larry Ellison traded the top spot of world's richest more than once.  Larry Ellison, co-founder of Oracle, attended U of Illinois at at Urbana–Champaign, not finished, and then U of Chicago, not finished.

I wonder if your advisers considered them successful.  They were merely giants in industry and self-made billionaires and didn't have a degree (honorary degrees not withstanding).

Case and point:  real world vs academic world.

[Marco]

In theory, SAT should not need to change regardless of changes to the curriculum.

AFAICS even IQ tests for adults assume knowledge, or rather they should if they wanted to give meaningful results, familiarity with the method of complete induction generally helps for instance (and training even more). Trying to separate aptitude from knowledge in something even more structured like math is folly IMO.

You don't just have to assume the body of knowledge (throwing PDEs at them if only a couple percent of students follow a curriculum which even teaches them obviously doesn't say much about aptitude) but you do indeed have to make assumptions about the curriculum as well ... even a straightforward concept to make questions a little more difficult like mixing domains will advantage kids who have done so before. Assuming a curriculum was always a necessary step to make aptitude testing tractable, it was just implicit before.

[tggzzz]

Bill Gates didn't have a degree.  Bill Gate, a college drop out, became "world's richest" by unseating Li Ka-Shing, who never attended college.  Li Ka-Shing became the richest with his shipping empire.  Bill Gates and Larry Ellison traded the top spot of world's richest more than once.  Larry Ellison, co-founder of Oracle, attended U of Illinois at at Urbana–Champaign, not finished, and then U of Chicago, not finished.

Ah yes, the old "all black birds are crows"[1] chestnut... aka the "post hoc ergo prompter hoc" fallacy.

Bill Gates didn't go to university. Bill Gates is great.
I didn't go to university. I will be great.

[1] "all crows are black birds" is true, but "all black birds are crows" does not follow!

[CatalinaWOW]

There is another version of the all black birds are crows chestnut -

Pick three or four people who got degrees and describe their success, then conclude from that that university is necessary or beneficial to all.

The point of bringing up these exceptions is to establish possibility, not likelihood.  Gates and the others mentioned are demonstrations that a degree is not necessary, not that lack of a degree is associated with success.  The high school counselors in question were asserting that a degree is a requirement for success, clearly not true.

[Landrew2390]

In my home town, we've had a strong manufacturing sector for decades and education wasn't a high priority.  You could quit school at 16 to go work in the mills and make a good living.  Because of that, education was never pushed the way it should be.  I consider myself to be of average intelligence, but I could have skipped 3.5 years of high school because it was a repeat of middle school.  The biggest reason they pushed college wasn't so we would be successful.  It was because they received more federal money if a higher percentage of their students enrolled in college.

One thing that really sticks in my mind about the attitude of my school system was a gentleman that graduated in 2008 with high honors.  He had taken 13 Physical Education classes in 4 years and upon graduating, he was reading on the level of an average 6 year old.  Unfortunately, he is rather representative of my area.  The entire area has been suffering from poor education for decades and most people with significant academic abilities are leaving in order to take better jobs.

My county has been holding up the minimum standards for a decade now and crowing that more than 80% of their students meet the standards.  I don't know when it became acceptable to set the bar low and then brag that most of your charges made it over the bar.  Learning is critical in having a bright future, but in my area, it's considered a waste of time by most of the residents.  I've seen people try to change that, but they have no support from administration.

It's gotten to the point where I'm moving to another state as soon as I find a job.  If ignorance was a commodity, my area would be rich.  In fact, if anyone on this blog has seen the show "Here comes Honey BooBoo" it is considered to be normal with a lot of families around here.  I'm disgusted by it.