How to tell who's the "best engineer"?

[DimitriP]

My only goal was to pinpoint particular designs and engineering problems I could work on to improve my own skills. As a bonus I was hoping there would be some metric to easily measure my success so as not to fool myself into a competence illusion.

"It's far better to look for a solution to a problem  rather than trying to get someone else's "solution" to work."

In other words.....it would have been much more straightforward to ask what you can do to improve your skills in the firstplace. Unfortunately the answers will not be as straighforward as the question. 

[eecook]

My only goal was to pinpoint particular designs and engineering problems I could work on to improve my own skills. As a bonus I was hoping there would be some metric to easily measure my success so as not to fool myself into a competence illusion.

In other words.....it would have been much more straightforward to ask what you can do to improve your skills in the firstplace. Unfortunately the answers will not be as straighforward as the question. 

Absolutely

[free_electron]

my answer would have been : find someone else to cram this into an altoids box. this can't be done, i'm outta here.

[Rerouter]

there aren't many EEs around or even related companies out there,

Sometimes this just means you havent learnt the right wording. Be it a large company going out of there way to call a job what it is, or a small company not knowing what to call the position.

E.g. my current job was listed tas "R&D / repair technition" but its actually a full package engineering role, designing complete products

No elder with a beard to go ask technical questions to and in terms of buying equipment and components, it is not easy nor cheap to buy stuff.

My best recommendation would be if you genuinely have no one local would be to find an electronics IRC group, or even get more compfortable with this forum, generally most problems dont need a grey beard to solve, just someone who has learnt things different to you, so you can build upon each other. (I know the pain of finding technically minded freinds)

I want to improve, I feel the necessity to learn the craftsmanship and mastery of the art. I need guidance and I want to be effective in how I use my time. The need for a metric is merely a way to keep myself bounded and be able to see my mistakes, considering that there won't be any mentors around.

This may sound redundant, but a good starting metric is to ask yourself "what do I not know?" E.g. the first that pops to my mind is RF black magic. One of thr better skills to have as am engineer is to know your limitations, so you can plan time, or seek out knowledge to learn that topic enough to accomplish your task.

Seeing mistakes is harder, there are a few threads per month of people posting pcb layouts to have a wider audience reveiw it to catch out all the small things you learn over time, reading a few of them can help refine your understanding.

I have not yet found my niche within EE, so I would like to keep on exploring.

I would like to improve my analog design skills and embedded system skills.

Sounds like you have a good starting point, fair warning. You never really get a niche, just expertise in an area. Too much of a good thing can be boring as an engineer. If you know everything there is to know in a feild, the challenge stops.

Completing projects is indeed a good way to quickly build up a knowledge base, expecially when you go outside your compfort zone. For me I learn from others mistakes on this forum, reading up enough to help others through things I walked into with zero knowledge of.

If you want to learn more about embedded and analog. Then you can approach it a few ways, e.g. for the analog, it splits generally into high accuracy or high speed, they both get approached different ways, and there are some amazing free reference guides by various component manufacturers on the subjects.

For the embedded, its going to come down to what flavor. E.g. take a micro, and get it to do something at the lowest power draw. Or getting your hands dirty on the built in peripherals, doing as much in hardware as possible leaving the micro free to compute or log, etc

[tggzzz]

Real engineers must be able to recognize an impossible design spec, and respond appropriately. (Where 'appropriate' depends on the circumstance.)

In the Electrical Engineering finals papers at Imperial College Professor Eric Laithwaite used to set one question that could not be answered in the available time. He expected his students to recognise and avoid that question.

I wonder if you could get away with that nowadays?

[Brumby]

Probably not.

Someone would likely get up in arms about it and challenge the validity of the test on the basis that the discernment necessary was not a core part of the subject being tested and that valiant efforts to answer such a question simply wasted time.

The fact that such decisions need to be faced frequently in the real world would not be considered relevant.

That is, until you get out there.

[JacquesBBB]

This is usually known as the secretary problem. How to choose the best secretary. From what i recall, there is a standard solution which is to interview sqrt(n) candidates, where n is the number of candidates.

You do not take any of these, and then you take the first of the next ones that is better than the previously interviewed.

Here sqrt(n)=10

[Brumby]

This is usually known as the secretary problem. How to choose the best secretary. From what i recall, there is a standard solution which is to interview sqrt(n) candidates, where n is the number of candidates.

You do not take any of these, and then you take the first of the next ones that is better than the previously interviewed.

Here sqrt(n)=10

This actually isn't relevant to the Op's real question.

We only found this out recently...

Ok guys this post has been an epic FAIL  . My only goal was to pinpoint particular designs and engineering problems I could work on to improve my own skills. As a bonus I was hoping there would be some metric to easily measure my success so as not to fool myself into a competence illusion.

That's it! The fabricated "hiring somebody" scenario played differently in my head, I though it would be a good way to start the conversation, but I can see now that it was a terrible idea. So please let's forget about it 

[TerraHertz]

Real engineers must be able to recognize an impossible design spec, and respond appropriately. (Where 'appropriate' depends on the circumstance.)

In the Electrical Engineering finals papers at Imperial College Professor Eric Laithwaite used to set one question that could not be answered in the available time. He expected his students to recognise and avoid that question.

I wonder if you could get away with that nowadays?

Probably not.

Someone would likely get up in arms about it and challenge the validity of the test on the basis that the discernment necessary was not a core part of the subject being tested and that valiant efforts to answer such a question simply wasted time.

The fact that such decisions need to be faced frequently in the real world would not be considered relevant.

That is, until you get out there.

This reminds me of the recent thread about a Leftist lady professor of Elec Eng proposing that 'engineering rigor' was some kind of white male entitlement rubbish.

The story about prof. Laithwaite's 'impossible to answer in the time available' exam question is nice. Every engineering exam should include one; feelings of those who fail it be damned. That's the whole point - anyone who argues such a question was unfair should not be an engineer. I wonder how the designers of that tensioned concrete foot-bridge that collapsed would have handled Laithwaite's question?

Engineering courses should include a section on recognizing situations where going along with perceived expectations will lead to disaster. Cutting costs and time with bridges, attempting to solve impossible questions in exams, allowing a Shuttle launch at temperatures below the design safety window, or whatever.

Edit to add:
@eecook.  Other desirable engineering attributes, are openness, honesty, and not over-thinking problems.
OK, so you are geographically isolated. I can empathize with this. Australia is similar, though not as severe. In any case my own circle of friends now includes not one other ee-engineer, or even any kind of engineer. (Since a good friend died last year.)
So you are 'limited' to what you can gain from the Internet. Be thankful you do have that vast resource, unlike earlier generations (me & my friend) who had no such thing for most of our lives.

Anyway, you've learned something from this. When you have a problem to solve (for eg finding ways to improve your own skills) to get assistance from the international community, best to ask the exact question. Not construct some convoluted scenario that you hope may lead to something relevant to your needs. One thing to _never_ do on the Net, is let yourself be perceived to be devious and misleading.

By the way. As others have pointed out, there is NO WAY any engineer is going to do a whole, complex design (eg your solar power supply in a small box) just as an exercise for some skills evaluation. They _might_ be prepared to show details of past designs done - but probably not, as those will likely be proprietary to previous companies they worked for. If they did give you such details, you wouldn't hire them anyway, since they just demonstrated they can't be trusted to keep commercial secrets.
Letting you briefly view documentation, or showing actual PCBs and proving they designed them (and they worked)... that's workable.

Another way to find out a lot about what someone knows, is to hand them some random consumer electronics product, or tech instrument, and have them take it apart and give you commentary on how they think it works, what each component does, functional areas of boards, etc. Maybe you could suggest it has various kinds of faults, and ask where they would start looking for the problem. Or ask how they would improve it. Focused casual conversation can be very revealing of general tech knowledge. If you want to see their practical skills, get them to replace some part you specify, using your equipment.
Even small things can be significant, like whether they handle PCBs/parts in a static-safe way, and whether they know which kinds of boards and components would be static sensitive, and which are not.

[TerraHertz]

FWIW, back in 1999, I wanted to find another person with general electronics and software skills, to add to a design team I was leading for a small poker machine maker. Here's an advert, that I made up and placed in (I think) ETI magazine.

We got a few applicants, but none that were adequate. One Russian engineer I was still in contact with then, from a company I'd previously worked at, got the answer. And also found a bug in the design. I'd not actually constructed the thing; it was just a mental model. I'd have given my Russian friend the job, but his existing one was better paid.

What's the answer? I don't suggest you waste your time. But if you do try you'll know without me telling you, if you get the right answer.

[eecook]

Seeing mistakes is harder, there are a few threads per month of people posting pcb layouts to have a wider audience reveiw it to catch out all the small things you learn over time, reading a few of them can help refine your understanding.

That's a good idea! will do that.
 

Completing projects is indeed a good way to quickly build up a knowledge base, expecially when you go outside your compfort zone. For me I learn from others mistakes on this forum, reading up enough to help others through things I walked into with zero knowledge of.

If you want to learn more about embedded and analog. Then you can approach it a few ways, e.g. for the analog, it splits generally into high accuracy or high speed, they both get approached different ways, and there are some amazing free reference guides by various component manufacturers on the subjects.

For the embedded, its going to come down to what flavor. E.g. take a micro, and get it to do something at the lowest power draw. Or getting your hands dirty on the built in peripherals, doing as much in hardware as possible leaving the micro free to compute or log, etc

Thanks indeed! Any reference document you might suggest?

[coppice]

Real engineers must be able to recognize an impossible design spec, and respond appropriately. (Where 'appropriate' depends on the circumstance.)

In the Electrical Engineering finals papers at Imperial College Professor Eric Laithwaite used to set one question that could not be answered in the available time. He expected his students to recognise and avoid that question.

I wonder if you could get away with that nowadays?

This was pretty normal in high school exams when I was at school. The UK A-levels for physics, chemistry and maths were "answer 8 out of these 10 questions" type papers. Sometimes you dropped the 2 on the subjects you were weakest on. Sometimes you dropped a question because it was clearly a horrendous time soak.

[eecook]

@eecook.  Other desirable engineering attributes, are openness, honesty, and not over-thinking problems.

Thanks!!! Well, I definitely have all of those except for the last one! I am actually glad you brought that up, I cannot seem to escape the "mental masturbation" cycle. How do you train that skilll? Take a recent problem I had, to instrument an isolated current meter for AC mains connected appliances. My thinking process was too chaotic and stressful to be honest, for example:
"Shit I have never done this before, I wonder if I am going in the right direction?"
"Should I account for common-mode noise?"
"Should I use a simple single ended op-amp or a differential in-amp?"
"How could I establish which of those I should use?"
"How could I establish a fair comparison?, the two circuits will respond differently to temperature, there will be thermal noise from caps and resistors and the noise from the op-amps will also come into play...."

I quickly turn something simple into an untraceable clusterfuck.

I ended up designing the 2 circuits which I'll be building this week, but I realise I'll be only playing with them in the hope of gaining insight.

OK, so you are geographically isolated. I can empathize with this. Australia is similar, though not as severe. In any case my own circle of friends now includes not one other ee-engineer, or even any kind of engineer. (Since a good friend died last year.)
So you are 'limited' to what you can gain from the Internet. Be thankful you do have that vast resource, unlike earlier generations (me & my friend) who had no such thing for most of our lives.

Absolutely, the internet is by all means my friend here. I am super grateful for this forum.

Anyway, you've learned something from this. When you have a problem to solve (for eg finding ways to improve your own skills) to get assistance from the international community, best to ask the exact question. Not construct some convoluted scenario that you hope may lead to something relevant to your needs. One thing to _never_ do on the Net, is let yourself be perceived to be devious and misleading.

Yes!! That needs no editing, lesson learned!

[eecook]

Real engineers must be able to recognize an impossible design spec, and respond appropriately. (Where 'appropriate' depends on the circumstance.)

In the Electrical Engineering finals papers at Imperial College Professor Eric Laithwaite used to set one question that could not be answered in the available time. He expected his students to recognise and avoid that question.

I wonder if you could get away with that nowadays?

I would have benefit from that a lot!

[tggzzz]

Actually a more complete statement of Laithwaite's position was...

Eric Laithwaite at Imperial College used to set exams where one question was easy and sufficient get you a pass mark, one was more challenging and couuld get you a good degree, and one could not be answered adequately in the time available. He expected his undergraduate engineers to be able to determine which questions to avoid. If they couldn't, they wouldn't make good engineers anyway.

[JohnnyMalaria]

His Royal Institution Christmas Lectures on BBC were amazing.

[eecook]

I wonder if something like the Elenco Playground would help to build up my analog skills

[Rick Law]

Earlier in my career (late 1980), "hire for attitude" was much the conversation.  (Summarized by this article decades later:  Hire for Attitude, Train for Skill in Harvard Business Review by Bill Taylor, Feb 01, 2011)

Today, changes in technology is even more rapid.  Unless one is hiring for a particular slot in a project, I would think "ability to learn" is far more important than existing skill.  Attitude is the super-set of learning ability.  How the candidate deals with unknowns (ie: needs for learning), risk, etc. would be every bit as important in success as in 1980's, 2011, or today.

[Rerouter]

Reference guides:
High speed analog
http://www.analog.com/en/analog-dialogue/articles/high-speed-printed-circuit-board-layout.html

Precision analog
http://www.analog.com/en/technical-articles/layout-for-precision-op-amps.html

General layout practicrs http://www.ti.com/lit/ml/slyp173/slyp173.pdf

Low power embedded starting point
https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/reducing-arduino-power-consumption

[Leiothrix]

Actually a more complete statement of Laithwaite's position was...

Eric Laithwaite at Imperial College used to set exams where one question was easy and sufficient get you a pass mark, one was more challenging and couuld get you a good degree, and one could not be answered adequately in the time available. He expected his undergraduate engineers to be able to determine which questions to avoid. If they couldn't, they wouldn't make good engineers anyway.

That only has a chance of working if you tell the students beforehand.  Otherwise they'll just assume it is another terribly written test and try and give some sort of answer to all of the questions.  Normally half an answer will give you some marks, where as a non-attempt will give you zero.

[EEVblog]

By the way. As others have pointed out, there is NO WAY any engineer is going to do a whole, complex design (eg your solar power supply in a small box) just as an exercise for some skills evaluation.

If I was asked to do such a thing in an interview I'd go off on a tangent about random design considerations that would go into such a thing. If they didn't like that response then they aren't smart enough to work for.

Another way to find out a lot about what someone knows, is to hand them some random consumer electronics product, or tech instrument, and have them take it apart and give you commentary on how they think it works, what each component does, functional areas of boards, etc. Maybe you could suggest it has various kinds of faults, and ask where they would start looking for the problem.

I do that in interviews. I give them a board and say "tell me whatever you can about it". Some need some prompting, and that's ok, but the idea is to see what type of broad knowledge you have, or specific areas of expertise etc. Those can't tell me me anything at all after prompting fail the basic knowledge test.

[tggzzz]

By the way. As others have pointed out, there is NO WAY any engineer is going to do a whole, complex design (eg your solar power supply in a small box) just as an exercise for some skills evaluation.

If I was asked to do such a thing in an interview I'd go off on a tangent about random design considerations that would go into such a thing. If they didn't like that response then they aren't smart enough to work for.

I was once asked, at an company that should have known better, "if you were an ancient Egyptian building the pyramids, how would you know when the shift had ended?". I spent a long time avoiding the "expected" answer, coming up with many alternative workable ideas.  I was offered the job, but declined it.

I had been inspired by the apochryphal "how would you measure the height of a building with a barometer?" => "compare shadow lengths", "time how long it takes to fall", "give it to the janitor in exchange for the information" etc

Another way to find out a lot about what someone knows, is to hand them some random consumer electronics product, or tech instrument, and have them take it apart and give you commentary on how they think it works, what each component does, functional areas of boards, etc. Maybe you could suggest it has various kinds of faults, and ask where they would start looking for the problem.

I do that in interviews. I give them a board and say "tell me whatever you can about it". Some need some prompting, and that's ok, but the idea is to see what type of broad knowledge you have, or specific areas of expertise etc. Those can't tell me me anything at all after prompting fail the basic knowledge test.

One of my techniques for design positions was to say "a manufacturer wants us to design a traffic light controller for a 7yo toy car/road set. What do you suggest?". Then we would have a leading conversation based on what they thought of and what the company would do. That two way flow of information was most revealing.

[EEVblog]

One of my techniques for design positions was to say "a manufacturer wants us to design a traffic light controller for a 7yo toy car/road set. What do you suggest?". Then we would have a leading conversation based on what they thought of and what the company would do. That two way flow of information was most revealing.

I do that as well, even with the PCB question. They mention differential pair, and off we go in that direction...

[NivagSwerdna]

I was once asked, at an company that should have known better, "if you were an ancient Egyptian building the pyramids, how would you know when the shift had ended?". I spent a long time avoiding the "expected" answer, coming up with many alternative workable ideas.  I was offered the job, but declined it.

As a contractor I've had rather a lot of interviews with such questions and after a while the trick is to appear not to have heard the question before, create a suitable delay and then give the answer.
One programming question that really annoys me is... you are given a set of the number 1..n in no particular order but with one number missing, how would you find the missing number efficiently?
But some pleasure can be gained after answering the question by posing the question back to the interviewer... what if two numbers are missing.... or three... how is that relevant to communications protocols... by that time their mind has melted and you can get on with the job. 
others... sitting in a boat with a brick, throw the brick over board, what happens to the boat, brick, lake.... etc etc etc....

[Rerouter]

The other way you can throw it back, Do they need it time efficient, cost efficient, memory efficient, time to market efficiency. etc

E.g. coming from an embedded past, If I know it was only an Int16 or int32 number, allocate that amount of memory, set the corresponding bit for each number, then at the end check what was not FF, It overall my untrained head thinks that would be faster than any sort approach.