Degree necessary for EE field?

[zerorisers]

So due to how the conversation went on https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/how-old-is-too-old-to-join-the-ee-field/15/ I think it would be interesting to have either an EEVBlab or an amphour conversation on the topic of EE degrees, how they may be useful, and where you would not need one in the EE field. I think it would get pretty interesting to hear more about it.

[dr.diesel]

If you search back, there has been extensive discussions on this topic.

[free_electron]

here we go again 

[AG6QR]

Many employers will require a degree in order to get into the door for an interview.  Others will be more interested in what practical capabilities you have demonstrated, and may overlook the lack of a degree from a candidate who has demonstrated ability.  Generally speaking, larger, more bureaucratic companies are more likely to require a formal degree.  There are some industry segments where degree requirements are more universal than others.

There aren't many situations where a degree will count against you.

[Mechatrommer]

if you have 2 applicants.... both are equally good at practical side but only one has a degree, which one you prefer?

[Richard Crowley]

if you have 2 applicants.... both are equally good at practical side but only one has a degree, which one you prefer?

All else being equal, the one with 10s (or 100s) of $K of education debt would have more motivation to work for me.
But then that isn't fundamentally different from slavery, is it?

OTOH, s/he might also be more susceptible to jump ship and go work for somebody who offered a few $$ more,
and the one without a degree might have more loyalty for taking chance on them.

[Mechatrommer]

degree or not degree, people will always look for places with more $$. loyalty is not related to "technical education" level, its pesonality or own behaviour or related to "moral/religious education". and $$ is not the only deciding factor whether to leave or stay, there are many other reasons. imho.

[hans]

Work isn't only about money in that sense. If there are no money issues, you will more likely focus on other aspects of the job.

Things like work culture (including the amount political dogfights going on), secondary conditions and the actual type of work (bored of that industry? dead end in seek of better positions?) etc.

These aspects would personally interest me a lot more than a 200$/month increase in salary at another company, which ~50% is going straight to the government and/or (e.g. in the Netherlands) you may also outgrow a tax-cut and effectively end up worse. Then again, in Netherlands we 'enjoy' the benefits of free college scholarship for first Bachelor/Master's degree and welfare state laws regarding employee protection laws.

Because of these welfare state laws I do not see a lot of people in the Netherlands doing "engineering work" without a Bachelor degree. My guess is because employers have to be careful who they take up for a job and seek someone with at least some 'proven' (on paper) records. Those laws go active after the probationary period (1 month typically) preventing the employer to fire someone easily unless the contract ends or something drastic happened (like theft, violence, etc).
1 month is not a very long period to fully evaluate one's performance. E.g. a project start to end may take 3 months to half a year to complete, but probably even longer if the job application was specifically for a big new upcoming project which isn't going to be finished in "years".

These laws also prescribe that after 2-3 years you need to get a indefinite term contract - often joked about as "you are now part of the furniture around here". Nevertheless there are still plenty of "job hoppers" to be seen. It depends on the person, and what they value from their job. There are still plenty of people sticking to the same employer for 25+ years.

Two ways to work around it I think; either prove you have experience besides a degree, or become self-employed.
Then again, YMMV in the States, because you have things sorted out a lot differently.

[Galenbo]

here we go again 

I think linux is better than windows.

[Smokey]

How about you just try to get real EE design jobs without a degree and let us know how it goes...

[free_electron]

How about you just try to get real EE design jobs without a degree and let us know how it goes...

Very well thank you.

[Smokey]

True.... But I think we can all agree that you are an outlier, Free_Electron.  I also remember you putting in your time as a tech and working your way up. 

[tggzzz]

There are useful parallels with the medical profession. Every doctor relies on nurses when newly-graduated, and knows that often nurses are more competent at some tasks, e.g. inserting a needle. Nurses can often use their experience to catch mistakes before they become a problem.

Nonetheless, for certain tasks you really would prefer a doctor to a nurse!

The same is true for engineers and technicians. Both are valuable. Both have limitations. Both have advantages.

[free_electron]

True.... But I think we can all agree that you are an outlier, Free_Electron.  I also remember you putting in your time as a tech and working your way up.

nah, lots of people like me. You have to create your own chances. simply idling until one lands in your lap gets you nowhere. degree or not.

[Galenbo]

True.... But I think we can all agree that you are an outlier, Free_Electron.  I also remember you putting in your time as a tech and working your way up.

nah, lots of people like me. You have to create your own chances. simply idling until one lands in your lap gets you nowhere. degree or not.

Indeed, the degree/nodegree is a useless discussion.
Instead, degree/selftoughtskills should be used.

I don't think there's a subfield that educated electronic masters know, and Free_electron doesn't.
Both routes are possible, and it's good so, but there's no easy way.

[Galenbo]

Nonetheless, for certain tasks you really would prefer a doctor to a nurse!

But sometimes I like to hear from an expierienced nurse wich doctor is motivated, and wich one is an alcoholic.

And sometimes the things a nurse (with 10 years expierience in the bushes of afrika) does or says make more sense that what a hanger-on doctor does.

[tggzzz]

Nonetheless, for certain tasks you really would prefer a doctor to a nurse!

But sometimes I like to hear from an expierienced nurse wich doctor is motivated, and wich one is an alcoholic.

And sometimes the things a nurse (with 10 years expierience in the bushes of afrika) does or says make more sense that what a hanger-on doctor does.

I suggest you read all of my post - and don't prune it so heavily that its points are inverted. Strawman arguments are never impressive; crude strawman arguments doubly so.

[Galenbo]

I suggest you read all of my post - and don't prune it so heavily that its points are inverted.

What is the data and the logic you used to think that I did not read your post completely?
Can I assume you do not personally know a nurse that lived 10 years in Afrika in a region where she was the only literate person?

...don't prune it...
Strawman arguments are never impressive; crude strawman arguments doubly so.

I do not know what that means in your culture. I do not understand that, it's an expression that is not used here.

[zapta]

>> Degree necessary for EE field?

Not necessary but very helpful.

OP, if your dilemma is wether to get a STEM academic degrees, I say go for it.  You will have deeper knowledge, will be able to get more interesting jobs and will be payed more.

[tggzzz]

I suggest you read all of my post - and don't prune it so heavily that its points are inverted.

What is the data and the logic you used to think that I did not read your post completely?

Simple: because your point merely emphasises what I wrote - and you cut my first and third paragraphs which makes that clear.

For the avoidance of doubt, here it is again, with added emphasis since English isn't your first language: "Every doctor relies on nurses when newly-graduated, and knows that often nurses are more competent at some tasks, e.g. inserting a needle. Nurses can often use their experience to catch mistakes before they become a problem." and "The same is true for engineers and technicians. Both are valuable. Both have limitations. Both have advantages"

...don't prune it...
Strawman arguments are never impressive; crude strawman arguments doubly so.

I do not know what that means in your culture. I do not understand that, it's an expression that is not used here.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=strawman+argument and the first result is perfectly adequate.

[zapta]

And sometimes the things a nurse (with 10 years expierience in the bushes of afrika) does or says make more sense that what a hanger-on doctor does.

We are dealing with probability and distributions, not cherry picked data points. 

Look at the graphs below, the red and green graphs do overlap but are very different.  If you select a pair of random points from the red and green populations respectively, the probability of the red point having higher value is significantly higher than the opposite.

[CatalinaWOW]

Work isn't only about money in that sense. If there are no money issues, you will more likely focus on other aspects of the job.

Things like work culture (including the amount political dogfights going on), secondary conditions and the actual type of work (bored of that industry? dead end in seek of better positions?) etc.

These aspects would personally interest me a lot more than a 200$/month increase in salary at another company, which ~50% is going straight to the government and/or (e.g. in the Netherlands) you may also outgrow a tax-cut and effectively end up worse. Then again, in Netherlands we 'enjoy' the benefits of free college scholarship for first Bachelor/Master's degree and welfare state laws regarding employee protection laws.

Because of these welfare state laws I do not see a lot of people in the Netherlands doing "engineering work" without a Bachelor degree. My guess is because employers have to be careful who they take up for a job and seek someone with at least some 'proven' (on paper) records. Those laws go active after the probationary period (1 month typically) preventing the employer to fire someone easily unless the contract ends or something drastic happened (like theft, violence, etc).
1 month is not a very long period to fully evaluate one's performance. E.g. a project start to end may take 3 months to half a year to complete, but probably even longer if the job application was specifically for a big new upcoming project which isn't going to be finished in "years".

These laws also prescribe that after 2-3 years you need to get a indefinite term contract - often joked about as "you are now part of the furniture around here". Nevertheless there are still plenty of "job hoppers" to be seen. It depends on the person, and what they value from their job. There are still plenty of people sticking to the same employer for 25+ years.

Two ways to work around it I think; either prove you have experience besides a degree, or become self-employed.
Then again, YMMV in the States, because you have things sorted out a lot differently.

Is a degree necessary?  In the US, absolutely not.  Free_electron being a poster child example.  But it is rapidly becoming more so.  In the company I retired from, many of the top performers had no degree, had a degree, but a low GPA, or came from a university with a lessor reputation.  Those who actually created new products or solved the most intractable problems had these backgrounds far more frequently than the general (very large) engineering population.  Strangely, for the decade or so before I was gone it was impossible to hire folks from any of those categories.  Why?  The need to demonstrate equal opportunity employment made it increasingly important to have objective metrics for all hiring/retention/salary decisions.  Statements like "solved millions of dollars worth of production issues" were deemed too susceptible to bias and interpretation.  So degrees and grade point averages became very important.  In a natural desire to increase the quality of the workforce this led to minimum thresholds for GPA, and recruitment only from "top schools" (a list selected to include the obvious candidates and others with good EEO credentials).

Companies like the one free_electron works for are not under as much pressure in this area as those who service government contracts and public utilities, but the trend is there and seems likely to spread.  So the options for non degree employment will tend to be self employment and employment in small, bold private companies that value talent sufficiently to evaluate it and not merely apply an algorithm.

[SeanB]

Nonetheless, for certain tasks you really would prefer a doctor to a nurse!

But sometimes I like to hear from an expierienced nurse wich doctor is motivated, and wich one is an alcoholic.

And sometimes the things a nurse (with 10 years expierience in the bushes of afrika) does or says make more sense that what a hanger-on doctor does.

That is my neighbour Brenda, though she does have rather more than 10 years experience. Still runs a free clinic even though she is rather well past the retirement age of 65. Been there, seen it all, worked 20 years as an ER nurse, then 20 more as head matron in a large hospital.

[Galenbo]

Simple: because your point merely emphasises what I wrote - and you cut my first and third paragraphs which makes that clear.

tgzz, maybe read again the first sentence I wrote, after the first time I quoted you.
Strange that you are the guy that's complaining about selective quoting and the strawman thing.

Maybe what I posted afther that was an exception, but on the other side of the spectrum there are the overgeneralisations, something I find in your quote about the differences.

We are dealing with probability and distributions, not cherry picked data points.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Normal_Distribution_PDF.svg

Look here, some guy with a picture about basic statistics, I feel like in school again.

[CatalinaWOW]

And sometimes the things a nurse (with 10 years expierience in the bushes of afrika) does or says make more sense that what a hanger-on doctor does.

We are dealing with probability and distributions, not cherry picked data points. 

Look at the graphs below, the red and green graphs do overlap but are very different.  If you select a pair of random points from the red and green populations respectively, the probability of the red point having higher value is significantly higher than the opposite.

You are making the HR argument.  It presumes statistics which aren't available to me or most others, and which seem inconsistent with my informal sampling.  If I was stocking my company for world beating success I would far prefer the Bill Gates, Steve Wozniaks and free_electron types than just a random selection from a population that "may" have a higher mean.  It might also have a much narrower standard deviation, or a truncated distribution which is missing the top end.  One of the things I have observed is that the very best in electronic engineering/software engineering are just too impatient to get a university degree.  They dive into a subject and learn it in a few days or weeks, and can't be bothered to wait around for the end of a semester or quarter to start something else. 

[zapta]

Gates and woz are cherry picked out liars which ever normal distribution has. The probability that the OP will have similar outcome is very skim.

Prediction based on a few biased anecdotes is not a good practice.

[free_electron]

There is also all the people that developed electronics. people like Ampere, Ohm, Volta , Faraday , Lenz. They certainly didn't have a formal education in the field , as , before them , the field didn't exist !

I'm not downplaying the knowledge you will gain from following a program that leads to a degree. I'm just stating there are other routes possible to reach the same end result.

My problem with the 'traditional' educational institutes was that i had to learn the same stuff over and over again  ( plus oodles of stuff i had no interest in learning )
At age 14 i was playing with microcontrollers , at age 16 i was playing with FPGA's , and in school they try to explain ohms law and basic boolean gates ... to me that was ancient history ... i learned that years ago...
THen you go off and try to do a BSEE ( age 18 ) . Education restarts with ohms law. WTF ? well you have to understand we have people streaming in from other backgroudns so we need to get those up to speed... Make that a separate year. And combine them afterwards. Sorry guys.  And out of the 40 hours a week of lectures 20 are filled with crap that have no relevance ot the field of study. History, Geographics , languages .. i'm studying electronics. if you gonna give me history lessons make it about electronics and not about how hitler invaded poland or what the yalta accord was about. Same for mathematics. you better give applied examples to the field of electronics, not how to bend a sheet of metal to make a gutter with maximum water flow. That bears no relevance to what i am studying.

you may say : we need to teach history and geographics in order to widen your base. Fine, but keep that for 6 to 12 year's. after that FOCUS on what the student wants to learn. someone who wants to learn history and become a history mayor should not need to take physics lessons. someone who wants to do Electronics should not need to learn history. it works both ways.  I can always read a book on the history of worlds war II at a later point in my life, should i develop a craving to know more about that. ( i don't , it;s history, happened way before i was born. Prime example of how bad human society can be. Beyond that i have no interest in it. That doesn't mean i don't care about the victims , i just have no interest in the finer details.)

[tggzzz]

Gates and woz are cherry picked out liars which ever normal distribution has. The probability that the OP will have similar outcome is very skim.

Prediction based on a few biased anecdotes is not a good practice.

Especially when based on a few historical anecdotes!

People really should understand the theory and practice of team building - it is one of the few sociology concepts that you must know before anyone can consider themelves competent. (Similarly, the laws of thermodynamics, basic statistics) For example, if you have a team of >1 Steve Jobs, then nothing will get done because they they wil be continually fighting each other. And a team of 1 won't be able to accomplish much!

[CatalinaWOW]

As I said, I don't have actual statistics.  The HR department at my company either couldn't or wouldn't supply statistics to justify their approach.  I know that the vast majority of them would not know a statistic if they saw one, and would know even less about how to interpret it.

I picked Gates and Woz as names widely recognizable who succeeded in their field without a degree.  I have no opinion on their veracity or other personality characteristics.  My own informal sampling has dozens of names, none nationally known (except within certain extremely specialized circles).  I call it informal because I am quite aware of the difficulties in gathering a valid statistic on this topic.  I personally believe that it is representative in the field in which I worked, but have even less claim for validity beyond that.  To further muddy the water, my personal list of top decile performers is something like 30% non-degreed, 30% hold PhD degrees, and the remainder have one or more degrees, usually in a technical subject, but not necessarily directly related.

Finally, free_electron has responded with his own version of what I described as a reason to believe that the statistic may not be Gaussian, but is in fact truncated or attenuated in the upper tail.  There is no real reason (other than the Central Limit Theorem) to believe that the distribution is Gaussian, and very many somewhat normal distributions depart widely from the Gaussian in the tails.  As an easily observed example, the distribution of men's height is fairly close to a normal distribution.  If it were truly normal the National Basketball Association would look very different because the supply of extremely tall men would be much smaller.

[zapta]

As I said, I don't have actual statistics.  The HR department at my company either couldn't or wouldn't supply statistics to justify their approach.  I know that the vast majority of them would not know a statistic if they saw one, and would know even less about how to interpret it.

The actual distribution doesn't matter that much. It was an example of distributions that overlap and have tails which is probably the case here so a biased set of anecdotes may be misleading.

You can find here average salary statistics for various EE degree levels and in general it goes up with the degree.

http://www.payscale.com/index/US/Degree

you may say : we need to teach history and geographics in order to widen your base. Fine, but keep that for 6 to 12 year's. after that FOCUS on what the student wants to learn. someone who wants to learn history and become a history mayor should not need to take physics lessons. someone who wants to do Electronics should not need to learn history. it works both ways.  I can always read a book on the history of worlds war II at a later point in my life, should i develop a craving to know more about that. ( i don't , it;s history, happened way before i was born. Prime example of how bad human society can be. Beyond that i have no interest in it. That doesn't mean i don't care about the victims , i just have no interest in the finer details.)

That's a problem with the undergraduate STEM education in the US, a lot of non relevant fluff courses. I talked with engineers that came from India and China and it's much more focused over there.

[tggzzz]

As I said, I don't have actual statistics.  The HR department at my company either couldn't or wouldn't supply statistics to justify their approach.  I know that the vast majority of them would not know a statistic if they saw one, and would know even less about how to interpret it.

I once worked for a company that published an anonymous scattergram of age vs salary. Since most people could see they were paid roughly inline with other people, salary ceased to be a bone of contention. There were outliers and you could guess who they were - and since you knew their capabilities you didn't begrudge them their pay. (One such was a Bragg, with the obvious well-known forbears; lovely guy, very competent)

I picked Gates and Woz as names widely recognizable who succeeded in their field without a degree. 

You can "prove" anything by cherry picking examples, of course. OTOH, if you can reliably pick such individuals before they achieve greatness, then you are onto something.

Similarly, if you use rare examples to formulate laws, then you will make onerous ineffective laws. Classic example: Dr Harold Shipman who murdered several hundred of his patients over the years, is not a reason for imposing new laws on doctors!

[Yansi]

There is also all the people that developed electronics. people like Ampere, Ohm, Volta , Faraday , Lenz. They certainly didn't have a formal education in the field , as , before them , the field didn't exist !

I'm not downplaying the knowledge you will gain from following a program that leads to a degree. I'm just stating there are other routes possible to reach the same end result.

My problem with the 'traditional' educational institutes was that i had to learn the same stuff over and over again  ( plus oodles of stuff i had no interest in learning )
At age 14 i was playing with microcontrollers , at age 16 i was playing with FPGA's , and in school they try to explain ohms law and basic boolean gates ... to me that was ancient history ... i learned that years ago...
THen you go off and try to do a BSEE ( age 18 ) . Education restarts with ohms law. WTF ? well you have to understand we have people streaming in from other backgroudns so we need to get those up to speed... Make that a separate year. And combine them afterwards. Sorry guys.  And out of the 40 hours a week of lectures 20 are filled with crap that have no relevance ot the field of study. History, Geographics , languages .. i'm studying electronics. if you gonna give me history lessons make it about electronics and not about how hitler invaded poland or what the yalta accord was about. Same for mathematics. you better give applied examples to the field of electronics, not how to bend a sheet of metal to make a gutter with maximum water flow. That bears no relevance to what i am studying.

you may say : we need to teach history and geographics in order to widen your base. Fine, but keep that for 6 to 12 year's. after that FOCUS on what the student wants to learn. someone who wants to learn history and become a history mayor should not need to take physics lessons. someone who wants to do Electronics should not need to learn history. it works both ways.  I can always read a book on the history of worlds war II at a later point in my life, should i develop a craving to know more about that. ( i don't , it;s history, happened way before i was born. Prime example of how bad human society can be. Beyond that i have no interest in it. That doesn't mean i don't care about the victims , i just have no interest in the finer details.)

Well done! Eactly as what I think about our local school system. It's the same useless crap.

[tggzzz]

My problem with the 'traditional' educational institutes was that i had to learn the same stuff over and over again  ( plus oodles of stuff i had no interest in learning )
At age 14 i was playing with microcontrollers , at age 16 i was playing with FPGA's , and in school they try to explain ohms law and basic boolean gates ... to me that was ancient history ... i learned that years ago...

That was my experience too, except FPGAs didn't exist.

THen you go off and try to do a BSEE ( age 18 ) . Education restarts with ohms law.

I had that experience too.

Except that we had a test on it after 2 weeks, and I was shocked to get my lowest ever test result. That made me realise that even though I did know more electronics than most, there was far far more that I didn't know. A very valuable lesson, and I'm eternally grateful it came in time for me to adjust my attitude.

WTF ? well you have to understand we have people streaming in from other backgroudns so we need to get those up to speed... Make that a separate year. And combine them afterwards. Sorry guys.  And out of the 40 hours a week of lectures 20 are filled with crap that have no relevance ot the field of study. History, Geographics , languages .. i'm studying electronics. if you gonna give me history lessons make it about electronics and not about how hitler invaded poland or what the yalta accord was about. Same for mathematics. you better give applied examples to the field of electronics, not how to bend a sheet of metal to make a gutter with maximum water flow. That bears no relevance to what i am studying.

That is almost entirely different to my EE degree course, which was ~90% hardcore electronic/computing.

[IanB]

That is almost entirely different to my EE degree course, which was ~90% hardcore electronic/computing.

That is a characteristic difference between the UK and US education systems. When you embark on an undergraduate degree in the UK it is expected you will be specializing in a given domain or subject area. Your study will be almost entirely focused in your chosen field. The USA has a liberal arts tradition, where university is supposed to continue the broad education from high school.

In fact, I would suggest to any American students looking for an engineering degree program to consider studying in the UK. The fees will be relatively modest compared to many US private universities and you will get to spend much more time learning what you are interested in.

[photon]

That is almost entirely different to my EE degree course, which was ~90% hardcore electronic/computing.

That is a characteristic difference between the UK and US education systems. When you embark on an undergraduate degree in the UK it is expected you will be specializing in a given domain or subject area. Your study will be almost entirely focused in your chosen field. The USA has a liberal arts tradition, where university is supposed to continue the broad education from high school.

In fact, I would suggest to any American students looking for an engineering degree program to consider studying in the UK. The fees will be relatively modest compared to many US private universities and you will get to spend much more time learning what you are interested in.

I went to an American school for engineering and all I remember is hell. There were about ten times the number of students who wanted to major in EE than there were places for them. It was pure competition. It seemed like every class was there to weed people out. Boredom was not a problem, fear was.

[void_error]

Where I live having the knowledge to be an EE and having an EE degree are two completely different things, with the latter being more common... a lot of graduates know very little about electronics although they have an EE degree.

[photon]

Another thing I remember about American colleges is that all, and I mean every, teacher gave bad lectures. What I would have given for a Fundamental Friday lecture instead of any lecture I had there. The prof could make a test where 2/3 of the class fails but could not communicate a simple idea without making it unintelligible.

[Howardlong]

My personal opinion is that an EE degree is fairly key to getting your foot in the door at lots of places, particularly in the early to mid phase of your career. It simplifies the selection criteria, particularly for HR bods.

Do I think a 3 to 4 year EE degree _really_ adds value in terms of time to someone who is already keen and proven in designing, building and troubleshooting a board from scratch with, say, 100 parts? Rarely, and not in terms of understanding, no. You are almost certainly, though, the kind of person who is already creative and good at analytical skills as well as being technically competent and, key to this, a self-learner.

But irrespective, do I think that, given the opportunity to take a degree at an early age compared to just chancing a job right out of school who will be better off in seven or ten years' time? Regrettably, the degree holder will, in general, be better off in general than the self-taught individual. I hate it, but sadly that's the way it is.

[IanB]

Do I think a 3 to 4 year EE degree _really_ adds value in terms of time to someone who is already keen and proven in designing, building and troubleshooting a board from scratch with, say, 100 parts?

Is that really the kind of thing you are meant to learn from an engineering degree? That seems to me more like industrial practice, the kind of thing you should become adept at in the first few years after graduating. It is "hands-on" work, where you can hopefully apply the theory you have learned during your studies. Sure, you have to do practical lab work and project work to internalize the theory, but I don't think many people would allow a freshly graduated engineer to design something important without a certain amount of guidance and supervision.

[Howardlong]

Do I think a 3 to 4 year EE degree _really_ adds value in terms of time to someone who is already keen and proven in designing, building and troubleshooting a board from scratch with, say, 100 parts?

Is that really the kind of thing you are meant to learn from an engineering degree? That seems to me more like industrial practice, the kind of thing you should become adept at in the first few years after graduating. It is "hands-on" work, where you can hopefully apply the theory you have learned during your studies. Sure, you have to do practical lab work and project work to internalize the theory, but I don't think many people would allow a freshly graduated engineer to design something important without a certain amount of guidance and supervision.

I wish it was. The degree I did was almost all learning by rote. Sure, I could solve math(s) equations a gazillion different ways, but in practical terms it was almost useless. How often do I use all that math(s)? Almost never. How often do I switch on a scope and solder something? Every day. And I do think it's sad that someone coming off a three/four year course still can't be trusted to design and build something with circa 100 parts without guidance and supervision. But they can probably do some mean h parameter transistor modelling, for one of those 100 parts.

[rx8pilot]

I wish it was. The degree I did was almost all learning by rote. Sure, I could solve math(s) equations a gazillion different ways, but in practical terms it was almost useless. How often do I use all that math(s)? Almost never. How often do I switch on a scope and solder something? Every day. And I do think it's sad that someone coming off a three/four year course still can't be trusted to design and build something with circa 100 parts without guidance and supervision. But they can probably do some mean h parameter transistor modelling, for one of those 100 parts.

A few years ago I saw this first hand. Hired two new engineers fresh out of a good school and had great academic records. They were useless, requiring so much supervision that I could never get anything done. They also had a degree in egotistical arts which caused problems. When a circuit blew up, they would first blame Linear, TI, Maxim, etc....for having a defective design. The energy spent on that effort would blind them from seeing that they have no practical understanding.

I am self-taught and consider myself a modestly skilled engineer. Sadly, I can and did run circles around them over and over - until they were let go. They were hired to be better than me - way better. This story may not always be true, but it seems common.

[miguelvp]

A few years ago I saw this first hand. Hired two new engineers fresh out of a good school and had great academic records. They were useless, requiring so much supervision that I could never get anything done. They also had a degree in egotistical arts which caused problems. When a circuit blew up, they would first blame Linear, TI, Maxim, etc....for having a defective design. The energy spent on that effort would blind them from seeing that they have no practical understanding.

I am self-taught and consider myself a modestly skilled engineer. Sadly, I can and did run circles around them over and over - until they were let go. They were hired to be better than me - way better. This story may not always be true, but it seems common.

The trick is to hire them after they been in the field for a while, but they they are more expensive aren't they?

Like anything else you get what you paid for, leave the fresh out of College hiring to the companies with a large enough infrastructure to break them in first.

Or if you must hire someone fresh out, at least put more effort on the interview aspect, there are always gems out there but you have to do the work to find the right candidate.

[rx8pilot]

I learned that lesson the hard way.

[IanB]

Hired two new engineers fresh out of a good school...

But people are not going to be "engineers" fresh out of school. They are going to be greenhorns, engineers-in-training. It takes probably 3-5 years out of college to become a practiced and capable engineer.

If you try to hire fresh graduates to design circuits and products for you, then I think you are suffering from a mismatch between expectation and reality.

What would be more typical is to have a more experienced engineer on staff to handle the primary business need, and then if the workload grows to consider hiring in fresh graduates to take on some assigned tasks and share the load.

[Yansi]

Hired two new engineers fresh out of a good school...

But people are not going to be "engineers" fresh out of school. They are going to be greenhorns, engineers-in-training. It takes probably 3-5 years out of college to become a practiced and capable engineer.

If you try to hire fresh graduates to design circuits and products for you, then I think you are suffering from a mismatch between expectation and reality.

By-the-way how do employers usually take a possibility that non-degree selftaught could be way better than those greenhorns with red diploma from school? Or probably just don't care about non-degree people? Please tell me how do employers cope with that. I'd like to understand their behavior, just my interest for better understanding this strange world based on bureaucracy... Unfortunately I don't know anyone to ask that.

I am one of the selftaught group of people trying to complete a degree to get even some chance to get a stable job here. Not only a "year test" with some extensions like I have now, with uncertain result: If I get kicked from that damned school I'm fired. Like free_electron wrote about his experience with their school, exactly the same applies here. The school is useless in terms of any practicval skills (for me, not sure about others).

Last time I had an argument with a professor at exams, if you can directly rectify mains without a damn transformer. He didn't believe me that modern compact VFDs do not include any power transformers at 50Hz.  And that was one of the small group of more usable subjects at this school, I quite enjoyed compared to others. That was a "Power electronics 1" class, but not really that in general, it was focused only damn thyristor (SCR) rectifiers the whole semester, only mentioning existence of power BJTs and IGBTs - all that in a 2015!  And still it missed a lot, was quite incomplete.

Add the rest of the crap subjects like basics of economy, compulsory humanitarian subjects like history, some other crap like calculationf of steam entropy/enthalpy in a water boiler, measurements and calculations of light sources (of course manually on a paper! And then they tell ya that it's never done like that in practice, cause these methods are quite unaccurate), the whole bunch of unnecessary physics classes full everything but nothing electrical related, not even mentioning the crapload of mathematics, without any references to what are we studying here... and then think how does that entertain someone with alread moderate skills in circuit design. It is simply evil and I hate the school. It does not help me almost with anything. It only gulps amounts of my free time, to do silly schoolish things. I should have rather spent that time like practicing VHDL, but haven't any fucking chance to do that in the last two semesters - because I only switch in between a school mode or I am at work.

Sorry for my another futile rant, but I am starting to be pissed about where my life is going...  Instead of gaining useful epxperience, only spending years of time and tons of nerves for some uncertain piece of paper.

[John_ITIC]

I have a feeling that degreed EEs have been mentally acclimated to accepting a lot of pointless activities and therefore can better stand a career of wasted time doing meaningless activities a'la Dilbert-style cubicle life. Sort of how doctors are supposed to work residency for days without sleep to get "used" to real-world conditions in a hospital. The degree perhaps therefore becomes proof of tenacity rather than practical skills. However, having formal education is somewhat of a guarantee that there are not huge holes in the basic knowledge.

I myself got my formal EE education in Sweden and had little of the "fluff" they apparently teach in U.S. EE colleges. Mostly useful Digital, Analog, uControllers, Assembly, C, Pascal and the like. FPGAs started to come onto the market at the time. I do remember some not-related subjects like economics though (I still remember getting better grade in economics class than in electronics class - go figure).

[f5r5e5d]

you do get fewer of these complaints if you offer a Comp Sci degree that doesn't require learning about biasing a transistor

but in analog hardware EE it is hard to pack in even the basic tool set and required practice in 2nd courses with Linear Systems, Complex Analysis, Signals and Systems, Feedback Control math in a undergrad degree

[photon]

you do get fewer of these complaints if you offer a Comp Sci degree that doesn't require learning about biasing a transistor

but in analog hardware EE it is hard to pack in even the basic tool set and required practice in 2nd courses with Linear Systems, Complex Analysis, Signals and Systems, Feedback Control math in a undergrad degree

I don't remember fluff or meaningless stuff, but I do remember the Linear Systems, Complex Anaylsis, Feedback Control, DSP, Signals and Systems, Electromagnetism, Analog and Digital Circuits, CPU design, programming, ... The problem is not that it's a waste of time but is more stuff than you can learn in 4 years.

[Howardlong]

Hired two new engineers fresh out of a good school...

But people are not going to be "engineers" fresh out of school. They are going to be greenhorns, engineers-in-training. It takes probably 3-5 years out of college to become a practiced and capable engineer.

If you try to hire fresh graduates to design circuits and products for you, then I think you are suffering from a mismatch between expectation and reality.

Regretfully you are right. It just seems wrong, someone spends a significant chunk of their life and future earnings being educated for a vocational skill, and three or four years later still can't identify one end of a diode from the other (I am pretty darned sure many of my peers were in that group).

The point I am trying to make is that the balance is not there, and while I think my course was probably one of the bad ones in this regard with almost no practical training, I do think that at the end of their formal EE education an individual ought to be capable of at least designing, making and troubleshooting something with the complexity of, say, 100 or so parts (I hate using arbitrary numbers, but it demonstrates the point).

Perhaps it's all down to money, after all sitting students down in front of a blackboard is cheaper than having them in an expensive lab.

[photon]

Where I work the management agrees with many here that fancy degrees are meaningless  and look to replace engineers with lower cost labor, eventually machines.

[Howardlong]

Where I work the management agrees with many here that fancy degrees are meaningless  and look to replace engineers with lower cost labor, eventually machines.

I've seen my fair share of that too. In the end they appear to end up with three expensive project managers for each tech. Soul destroying.

[photon]

Engineering and science are two different professions. IMHO, an engineer does not do science but must know it. Learning science, the most powerful expression of the mind, is a life long and impossible task. Granted, most engineering jobs are driving tools and after 10 years, degree or not, anyone can learn to drive those tools. But understanding what you are doing at the deepest level is important, IMHO. Where I work, you see engineers looking to learn new things and not being satisfied with just the mechanicals of their jobs. Management hates that and call it disloyalty or labels the engineer a job hopper. Bottom line is they do not want to lose their investment and have to train another monkey. But the engineer knows that he must learn and do new things.

[IanB]

Where I work, you see engineers looking to learn new things and not being satisfied with just the mechanicals of their jobs.

Naturally.

Management hates that and call it disloyalty or labels the engineer a job hopper.

That's sad.

Bottom line is they do not want to lose their investment and have to train another monkey. But the engineer knows that he must learn and do new things.

Neither does the management where I work. But the management want to hold on to their talented people and doesn't want to see them leave. So part of that is to provide extensive internal training and learning opportunities, e.g. via a company "university" program, or via a centralized on-line learning center where you can sign up for courses and get company credits for passing them. Annual reviews emphasize growth, development and training plans.

In short, if you want to hold on to people you need to provide what they need, but enlightened management realizes that the company benefits from this and should make every effort to provide learning opportunities for its staff.

[miguelvp]

If they dont offer competitive salaries then of course people are going to move on. Sure, they trained them but in order to keep their staff they must pay them accordingly.

[photon]

Management hates that and call it disloyalty or labels the engineer a job hopper.

That's sad.

I don't think so. I understand that a company is trying to make money, not train an engineer.

[Richard Crowley]

My employer had a big problem when they opened a new plant in an Asian location. As expected, they had thousands of applicants and hired and trained them, afterwhich 100s of them promptly quit and went to work elsewhere because they had signed up only for the training and not for the job.  Apparently the name-brand recognition of the company and the reputation of the training were highly valued among other tech employers.

[tggzzz]

If you try to hire fresh graduates to design circuits and products for you, then I think you are suffering from a mismatch between expectation and reality.

A good interviewing process will enable such people to be found. Of course it takes time and energy, and expecting all fresh grads to be able to do that is unrealistic.

I was thrown into designing circuits in the second week, TTL and microcomputer circuits that nobody else in the building could design. But then I couldn't design the circuits they were making!

[rx8pilot]

As an employer, I will offer a salary based on what you can actually do. If an applicant shows up claiming various skills, experience, degrees, etc and therefore demanding a salary they think is fair. I simply tell them that if they want the big bucks, they have to earn the big bucks. No company on earth makes profits from promises or degrees. They make money for actually doing something.

What I see as a problem is not lack of experience or a problem with education, it is laziness and unrealistic expectations on the part of the employees. This is not true of everyone, but where I live it is the dominant reality. The cold hard truth from the perspective of an employer (especially in small business), is that everyone has to carry double their own weight. If you are young you may struggle because you lack practical experience - you need to work harder to make up the gap. For the older engineers, they tend to spend too much time thinking that they have so much experience that they should get paid more money. What they need to do is take that experience and use it to accomplish more than anyone else instead of just talking about what they have done in the past. Companies do not make profits on what the engineering team in the past.

I have seen this laziness streak across the US from machinists, to EE, ME, assembly, finance, marketing, etc. In the real world, companies need bottom line results just to stay in business as we live in a global economy. I am competing with China daily and cannot afford to have ANY dead weight. This is why I fired the whole company and starting all over. The re-boot is focused on automation and other tools that reduce/eliminate the need for people as much as possible. Those that I do hire may or may not have degrees, but they will be expected to be smart and clever for the 8 hours they work. They also need to be someone that chose that job because they like it and have a personal interest in it. It is not good for small businesses to have the "I got this degree because I wanted a good job" applicants. That will work at big firms where the engineering tasks get sub-divided a thousand times before the entry-level engineers ever see it. Small to medium businesses switch gears often and fast. The whole team needs to be fast a nimble, but most important is never stop learning. Self-educate on a daily basis. Your degree is merely your first step that shows you have some initiative and you test well.

Be valuable. That is how you get a job that pays well. Your interview skills may get you an entry-level job, but you will go nowhere if you are not valuable. If you get demonstrate value during your interview, you may even start with a good salary.

Side note: I am a self-educated ME and EE that has built and sold numerous small businesses during the past 20+ years. If I don't know something, I learn it. If I run into a problem, I solve it. If I cannot figure it out, I ask. Super simple. I am not in the minority of business owners that expect work out their employees. Showing up is not working.

[rx8pilot]

If you try to hire fresh graduates to design circuits and products for you, then I think you are suffering from a mismatch between expectation and reality.

A good interviewing process will enable such people to be found. Of course it takes time and energy, and expecting all fresh grads to be able to do that is unrealistic.

I was thrown into designing circuits in the second week, TTL and microcomputer circuits that nobody else in the building could design. But then I couldn't design the circuits they were making!

I agree. My expectation of ANYONE is to demonstrate that they know how to learn. If they don't walk out of college and immediately design a complicated circuit, it is not surprising. I do, however, want to see the learning process fully developed so that they can absorb the training offered. Recent grads are so used to very formal presentation of problems followed by a structured test where >70% is passing. This is not even close to how a real EE environment will work. The problems can be obscure and hard to identify, there is no one to grade your interpretation of the problem. The 'semester final exam' is delivering something to paying customers that can crush your reputation on the internet if you make less than 100% on that 'exam'

[Richard Crowley]

For those not following the other thread: "Ladyada interview with Paul Horowitz - The Art of Electronics"...
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/ladyada-interview-with-paul-horowitz-the-art-of-electronics/

Prof. Horowitz, co-author of the apparently venerated Holy Bible of modern electronics stated right up front that he had no formal electronics training. Which apparently was no barrier to holding professorial appointments at Harvard in both physics and electrical engineering.

[rx8pilot]

That was, by far, the big takeaway from the interview. Since I am self-educated, it really struck a chord. I have a chance I guess.

[IanB]

Prof. Horowitz, co-author of the apparently venerated Holy Bible of modern electronics stated right up front that he had no formal electronics training. Which apparently was no barrier to holding professorial appointments at Harvard in both physics and electrical engineering.

That's disingenuous. Paul Horowitz apparently gained B.A., M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from Harvard (in physics). I think that counts as formal training, and it certainly qualifies him to be appointed as a professor. If you try to say that a physicist can't do electronics, I have no idea where you are coming from.

[mtdoc]

Prof. Horowitz, co-author of the apparently venerated Holy Bible of modern electronics stated right up front that he had no formal electronics training. Which apparently was no barrier to holding professorial appointments at Harvard in both physics and electrical engineering.

Not exactly. What he said is that he never took an electronics course. That does not mean that in the process of getting his Bachelors, Masters, and PhD degrees in physics at Harvard he did not get electronics training. I'm sure he did.

Still, the point is well taken. He does not have an EE degree yet obviously has been doing EE work for many years.


(Oh - looks like IanB beat me to it!)

[CatalinaWOW]

As an employer, I will offer a salary based on what you can actually do. If an applicant shows up claiming various skills, experience, degrees, etc and therefore demanding a salary they think is fair. I simply tell them that if they want the big bucks, they have to earn the big bucks. No company on earth makes profits from promises or degrees. They make money for actually doing something.

What I see as a problem is not lack of experience or a problem with education, it is laziness and unrealistic expectations on the part of the employees. This is not true of everyone, but where I live it is the dominant reality. The cold hard truth from the perspective of an employer (especially in small business), is that everyone has to carry double their own weight. If you are young you may struggle because you lack practical experience - you need to work harder to make up the gap. For the older engineers, they tend to spend too much time thinking that they have so much experience that they should get paid more money. What they need to do is take that experience and use it to accomplish more than anyone else instead of just talking about what they have done in the past. Companies do not make profits on what the engineering team in the past.

I have seen this laziness streak across the US from machinists, to EE, ME, assembly, finance, marketing, etc. In the real world, companies need bottom line results just to stay in business as we live in a global economy. I am competing with China daily and cannot afford to have ANY dead weight. This is why I fired the whole company and starting all over. The re-boot is focused on automation and other tools that reduce/eliminate the need for people as much as possible. Those that I do hire may or may not have degrees, but they will be expected to be smart and clever for the 8 hours they work. They also need to be someone that chose that job because they like it and have a personal interest in it. It is not good for small businesses to have the "I got this degree because I wanted a good job" applicants. That will work at big firms where the engineering tasks get sub-divided a thousand times before the entry-level engineers ever see it. Small to medium businesses switch gears often and fast. The whole team needs to be fast a nimble, but most important is never stop learning. Self-educate on a daily basis. Your degree is merely your first step that shows you have some initiative and you test well.

Be valuable. That is how you get a job that pays well. Your interview skills may get you an entry-level job, but you will go nowhere if you are not valuable. If you get demonstrate value during your interview, you may even start with a good salary.

Side note: I am a self-educated ME and EE that has built and sold numerous small businesses during the past 20+ years. If I don't know something, I learn it. If I run into a problem, I solve it. If I cannot figure it out, I ask. Super simple. I am not in the minority of business owners that expect work out their employees. Showing up is not working.

For most of my professional career I spent some time worrying about whether my pay justified itself.  Could I see the sales that resulted from my work, in large enough quantities to pay for not only my salary but all of the other things?  I was in a large corporation which made very large sales at long intervals.  At times it was obvious that I was carrying my weight.  Other times not so obvious.  I think all engineers should think about this regularly.  At smaller organizations it can be painfully obvious that sales are not in line with wages.  Larger organizations make this harder to see, but all organizations over time have to pass this test.  Even universities, though the time frame here may be decades or even centuries.

[CatalinaWOW]

As I said, I don't have actual statistics.  The HR department at my company either couldn't or wouldn't supply statistics to justify their approach.  I know that the vast majority of them would not know a statistic if they saw one, and would know even less about how to interpret it.

I picked Gates and Woz as names widely recognizable who succeeded in their field without a degree. 

You can "prove" anything by cherry picking examples, of course. OTOH, if you can reliably pick such individuals before they achieve greatness, then you are onto something.

Similarly, if you use rare examples to formulate laws, then you will make onerous ineffective laws. Classic example: Dr Harold Shipman who murdered several hundred of his patients over the years, is not a reason for imposing new laws on doctors!

I am not attempting to prove anything.  Certainly not that you should only look to non-degreed individuals for high performance.  What I am pointing out is that my personal experience with several hundred engineers over a long career, as noted above, has shown roughly 30% of the top performers were non-degreed.  In the work force that I was familiar with non-degreed engineers were a much smaller percentage, perhaps 3 to 5%.  PhDs represented another 30% of the top performers.  They also represented a much smaller percentage of the work force, though the numbers were more in the 10% ish range.  Those general statistics like observations would suggest that at the very least you should not ignore either non-degreed candidates or PhDs in your hiring decisions.  Many large organizations are rejecting non-degreed individuals.  This seems unwise, but it is true. 

As others on this thread have pointed out, selecting high performing individuals in the hiring process is tricky.  I have known people quite skilled at this.  I am not one of them, and only know that those who were good at it worked very hard at the job.  It is much more difficult than checking a degree box, or a GPA box, or extra-curricular activities boxes and so on.  I have known (and I am sure most on this forum have known) PhDs who were total duds, and folks with high GPAs in degrees at many levels at many different universities who were total duds. 

How does all this pertain to the original posters question?  In summary -No a degree is not necessary.  But as has been pointed out, there is a positive correlation between degree level and salary.  So in general you will get paid more with a degree.  You will have to do your own math to determine if the generally higher salary results in higher lifetime earnings.  And as I have pointed out, not having a degree is a very high barrier for entry in some organizations - not limited to universities.

[Richard Crowley]

"I never took a course in electronics."
Paul Horowitz  interview with Timor Fried @ 3:16  https://youtu.be/iCI3B5eT9NA?t=3m16s

[IanB]

"I never took a course in electronics."
Paul Horowitz  interview with Timor Fried @ 3:16  https://youtu.be/iCI3B5eT9NA?t=3m16s

And that, of course, is the point of a formal education. Your capacity is in no way limited to what you are taught, it is limited only by what you can learn. I don't imagine Richard Feynman ever took a course in electronics either, but I'm equally sure he could design, build and troubleshoot electronic circuits quite comfortably.

[tggzzz]

"I never took a course in electronics."
Paul Horowitz  interview with Timor Fried @ 3:16  https://youtu.be/iCI3B5eT9NA?t=3m16s

And that, of course, is the point of a formal education. Your capacity is in no way limited to what you are taught, it is limited only by what you can learn. I don't imagine Richard Feynman ever took a course in electronics either, but I'm equally sure he could design, build and troubleshoot electronic circuits quite comfortably.

Precisely!

I wish technicians could realise that.

Technician != engineer, fortunately. Both have unique characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages. Vive la difference!

[free_electron]

My employer had a big problem when they opened a new plant in an Asian location. As expected, they had thousands of applicants and hired and trained them, afterwhich 100s of them promptly quit and went to work elsewhere because they had signed up only for the training and not for the job.  Apparently the name-brand recognition of the company and the reputation of the training were highly valued among other tech employers.

That does indeed happen. We (previous job, not current one... I still use 'we'...) had the same problem.
People sign up , get a year or two of training , then jump to the next payer.
But, who's fault is that ? The fault of the guy fishing for cheap labour ! Just because he is 'bigcorp' attracts people and he can get away paying less. Well , then do t be surpirsed if they bail for smallcorp with better benefits ...

[free_electron]

Recent grads are so used to very formal presentation of problems followed by a structured test where >70% is passing. This is not even close to how a real EE environment will work. The problems can be obscure and hard to identify, there is no one to grade your interpretation of the problem. The 'semester final exam' is delivering something to paying customers that can crush your reputation on the internet if you make less than 100% on that 'exam'

That is a very interesting description of the problem.
In reality problems are not structured. Stuff changes on the fly , and any grade less than 100% means the end product is not ready for production.

May e that is the root of the problem. Students simp,y are not prepared for this reality shock. 'I got it done 80%' is not right. I am 20% from finished should be a better description.... In the i dustry somithing is 'done' at 100%

[nctnico]

"I never took a course in electronics."
Paul Horowitz  interview with Timor Fried @ 3:16  https://youtu.be/iCI3B5eT9NA?t=3m16s

And that, of course, is the point of a formal education. Your capacity is in no way limited to what you are taught, it is limited only by what you can learn. I don't imagine Richard Feynman ever took a course in electronics either, but I'm equally sure he could design, build and troubleshoot electronic circuits quite comfortably.

Getting a degree is not just learning the subject but also learning how to tackle problems and work in a structured way. If you can work in a structured way and have the ability to learn only time is limiting what you can achieve. What I see with many self-taught people is that they never learned or got mentored on how to structure their work. What results is total chaos.

[rx8pilot]

What I see with many self-taught people is that they never learned or got mentored on how to structure their work. What results is total chaos.

I saw this first hand. A few self-taught engineers that were smart and capable - but only by themselves. The work was so chaotic that no one could work with them because they would go about solving problems in such a unique way, that outsiders could not understand. In some cases, this can work. In my case, I have put very considerable effort into being able to integrate into a team. As my present business grows, I want to peel off the tasks and assign to to someone else without much loss in translation. A far off dream......

[free_electron]

they would go about solving problems in such a unique way, that outsiders could not understand.

i say the outsiders are not up to snuff...

[zerorisers]

After the time of this posting I am very surprised as to how long it has still been going! Many of you have valuable inputs, and opinions.
I have personally gotten a step closer to my goal by adding in work experience. I got lucky and somehow managed to lang myself a job at Precision Technology Inc. as a testing technician. I have been learning quite a bit. due to an article they have shared on linkedin I think I know the main reason they keep me. I have even spoke to a representative of my Local keysight office and they said to try and apply when I finish college.
You can read the article here.

So it seems to me to get started at the least you will not even need a college education. I am in my sophomore year of high-school going on to Jr. But in order to get a higher end job you will either need a portfolio with plenty of experience, or a degree. (Answered my own question after a few months after all of the debate going on in the thread.  )

[old gregg]

As an employer, I will offer a salary based on what you can actually do. If an applicant shows up claiming various skills, experience, degrees, etc and therefore demanding a salary they think is fair. I simply tell them that if they want the big bucks, they have to earn the big bucks. No company on earth makes profits from promises or degrees. They make money for actually doing something.

What I see as a problem is not lack of experience or a problem with education, it is laziness and unrealistic expectations on the part of the employees. This is not true of everyone, but where I live it is the dominant reality. The cold hard truth from the perspective of an employer (especially in small business), is that everyone has to carry double their own weight. If you are young you may struggle because you lack practical experience - you need to work harder to make up the gap. For the older engineers, they tend to spend too much time thinking that they have so much experience that they should get paid more money. What they need to do is take that experience and use it to accomplish more than anyone else instead of just talking about what they have done in the past. Companies do not make profits on what the engineering team in the past.

I have seen this laziness streak across the US from machinists, to EE, ME, assembly, finance, marketing, etc. In the real world, companies need bottom line results just to stay in business as we live in a global economy. I am competing with China daily and cannot afford to have ANY dead weight. This is why I fired the whole company and starting all over. The re-boot is focused on automation and other tools that reduce/eliminate the need for people as much as possible. Those that I do hire may or may not have degrees, but they will be expected to be smart and clever for the 8 hours they work. They also need to be someone that chose that job because they like it and have a personal interest in it. It is not good for small businesses to have the "I got this degree because I wanted a good job" applicants. That will work at big firms where the engineering tasks get sub-divided a thousand times before the entry-level engineers ever see it. Small to medium businesses switch gears often and fast. The whole team needs to be fast a nimble, but most important is never stop learning. Self-educate on a daily basis. Your degree is merely your first step that shows you have some initiative and you test well.

Be valuable. That is how you get a job that pays well. Your interview skills may get you an entry-level job, but you will go nowhere if you are not valuable. If you get demonstrate value during your interview, you may even start with a good salary.

Side note: I am a self-educated ME and EE that has built and sold numerous small businesses during the past 20+ years. If I don't know something, I learn it. If I run into a problem, I solve it. If I cannot figure it out, I ask. Super simple. I am not in the minority of business owners that expect work out their employees. Showing up is not working.

It's very nice to read that kind of things.

[XynxNet]

"I never took a course in electronics."
Paul Horowitz  interview with Timor Fried @ 3:16  https://youtu.be/iCI3B5eT9NA?t=3m16s

He is just a physics professor... not the typical example of an undegreed person mh?

[Alexei.Polkhanov]

"I never took a course in electronics."
Paul Horowitz  interview with Timor Fried @ 3:16  https://youtu.be/iCI3B5eT9NA?t=3m16s

He is just a physics professor... not the typical example of an undegreed person mh?

Exactly, I was thinking - isn't Ph.D. in physics sort of implies/includes electronics/mechanics/acoustics/optics/control systems and other sorts of engineering disciplines?

Most knowledgeable electronics engineer I have ever known had Ph.D. in Astrophysics - he spent 15 years sitting in remote areas of Chilean Andes next to radio telescopes building state of the art helium cooled radio receivers. He did not even considered electronics as a separate field - just something that he had to do to "get the stuff running". He is a superior C programmer too.

[Doc38343]

That was, by far, the big takeaway from the interview. Since I am self-educated, it really struck a chord. I have a chance I guess.

Yeah being one of those little guy self employed guys my self, i don't have a degree however I am a sponge for learning and i'm 52 now and my memory and absorption for learning things has increased exponentially. I can thank my father for being the kind of dad who stuck a wrench in my hand by the time I could walk LOL He always encouraged everyone around him to "If you want to do that, figure it out. To figure it out you've got to ask questions." He meant ask YOURSELF as much as others and boy has it served me well thru the years.

If I could have gone to school to be an EE I certainly would have. My life path took me another direction but hey you always return to things you love eventually. I probably will never design much more than perhaps a guitar stomp box or a pre-amplifier for a mic. Maybe some arduino LED controller for my bike that does something cool and original.. but mainly if I can take a board and repair it, that is one of the most satisfying things of my entire life.... next to my wife of course!
#electronicsROCK

[vk6zgo]

What I see with many self-taught people is that they never learned or got mentored on how to structure their work. What results is total chaos.

I saw this first hand. A few self-taught engineers that were smart and capable - but only by themselves. The work was so chaotic that no one could work with them because they would go about solving problems in such a unique way, that outsiders could not understand. In some cases, this can work. In my case, I have put very considerable effort into being able to integrate into a team. As my present business grows, I want to peel off the tasks and assign to to someone else without much loss in translation. A far off dream......

This has been my experience with many EE qualified Engineers.
The first bunch I worked with as a Tech back in the '60s were very clear & precise in their work,but this seemed to disappear with later graduates.

[vk6zgo]

;\14

"I never took a course in electronics."
Paul Horowitz  interview with Timor Fried @ 3:16  https://youtu.be/iCI3B5eT9NA?t=3m16s

And that, of course, is the point of a formal education. Your capacity is in no way limited to what you are taught, it is limited only by what you can learn. I don't imagine Richard Feynman ever took a course in electronics either, but I'm equally sure he could design, build and troubleshoot electronic circuits quite comfortably.

Precisely!

I wish technicians could realise that.

Technician != engineer, fortunately. Both have unique characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages. Vive la difference!

I wish Engineers would realise that real Technicians do have formal education.

They do "learn on the job" to some extent,but a Technician with just "hands on" experience will be at a loss
with more complex problems.
This is why there is a classroom component to Technician Courses,certainly of the kind which produced Techs during most of my work history.

Those who did not have the advantage of an Employer funded training course self funded their training by attending Technical Schools.

Latterly, so-called "techs" who are just taught "Core Competencies" in the "monkey see,monkey do"manner have become more common,& I would agree that these people are quite limited in their capabilities.

[tggzzz]

;\14

"I never took a course in electronics."
Paul Horowitz  interview with Timor Fried @ 3:16  https://youtu.be/iCI3B5eT9NA?t=3m16s

And that, of course, is the point of a formal education. Your capacity is in no way limited to what you are taught, it is limited only by what you can learn. I don't imagine Richard Feynman ever took a course in electronics either, but I'm equally sure he could design, build and troubleshoot electronic circuits quite comfortably.

Precisely!
I wish technicians could realise that.
Technician != engineer, fortunately. Both have unique characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages. Vive la difference!

I wish Engineers would realise that real Technicians do have formal education.

True, just as real engineers need practicla experience.

They do "learn on the job" to some extent,but a Technician with just "hands on" experience will be at a loss with more complex problems.
This is why there is a classroom component to Technician Courses,certainly of the kind which produced Techs during most of my work history.

Both engineers and technicians need theory and practice. One without the other is either "mental masturbation" or "blind fumbling".

Latterly, so-called "techs" who are just taught "Core Competencies" in the "monkey see,monkey do"manner have become more common,& I would agree that these people are quite limited in their capabilities.

That's also true for engineers, of course. It is very difficult to determine how that has changed over time - old farts are both right and wrong when they think things were better when they young.

[CatalinaWOW]

Two things have clearly changed over time.  First, the body of knowledge is continually growing, so the necessary, or at least useful core competencies has grown and will continue to grow.  To me core competencies means things that will likely be useful over an entire career.  Maths, ohms law, networks, written communication and so on.  An engineer graduating in the 1930s would not have needed or been exposed to all of the maths associated with Lebesque integration(Impulse functions, Laplace transforms and so on).  One graduating in the early 1950s would have had no exposure to programming languages etc.  Engineering level understanding of quantum mechanics has become more and more important since the 1960s/1970s.  And so on.  Addition of these skills has not generally allowed elimination of earlier skills (differential equations, Fourier transforms etc).

The second thing is that the pace of technology change has quickened.  The application like things that might have lasted an entire career in the 1930s just don't happen anymore.  Knowing how to bias and operate a vacuum tube was an application technology that was broadly useful in the field for 30 or more years.  Use of large arrays of discrete logic chips lasted 20 years or less.  Programming languages/development environments seem to have half lifes measured in months or years, not decades.  (Remember Algol, Smalltalk, APL etc?)

Both of these changes are a result of good things, but they place more pressure on trying to identify an appropriate foundation and absorb it during degree studies, and up the ante on continued learning, either through formal programs or through various independent learning methods such as this forum.

[tggzzz]

Two things have clearly changed over time.  First, the body of knowledge is continually growing, so the necessary, or at least useful core competencies has grown and will continue to grow.  To me core competencies means things that will likely be useful over an entire career.  Maths, ohms law, networks, written communication and so on.  An engineer graduating in the 1930s would not have needed or been exposed to all of the maths associated with Lebesque integration(Impulse functions, Laplace transforms and so on).  One graduating in the early 1950s would have had no exposure to programming languages etc.  Engineering level understanding of quantum mechanics has become more and more important since the 1960s/1970s.  And so on.  Addition of these skills has not generally allowed elimination of earlier skills (differential equations, Fourier transforms etc).

The second thing is that the pace of technology change has quickened.  The application like things that might have lasted an entire career in the 1930s just don't happen anymore.  Knowing how to bias and operate a vacuum tube was an application technology that was broadly useful in the field for 30 or more years.  Use of large arrays of discrete logic chips lasted 20 years or less.  Programming languages/development environments seem to have half lifes measured in months or years, not decades.  (Remember Algol, Smalltalk, APL etc?)

Both of these changes are a result of good things, but they place more pressure on trying to identify an appropriate foundation and absorb it during degree studies, and up the ante on continued learning, either through formal programs or through various independent learning methods such as this forum.

Summary: choose technology wisely, and it will remain mainstream for the majority of your career.

Most of the things I learned in my late 70s EE degree are still relevant. I did, however, take a great deal of care in choosing my degree, and there were many that I thought were worthless.

Returning to electronics after 20 years away, I am very surprised at how little has changed. Most of the changes can be classified as smaller/faster/cheaper, e.g. an Arduino class MCU is equivalent to a Z80 + memory + peripherals, plus an ICE for debugging - exactly what I was using 33 years ago. And it is still programmed in C! And the x86 is still important.

Analogue is pretty much the same, except that frequencies can now be significantly higher. You need to understand microwave circuit techniques for analogue and quantised analogue (a.k.a. digital) circuitry. The best general purpose book is still The Art Of Electronics - I have both the first and third editions, so I can compare them!

As for languages, I have used many from assemblers, HDLs, procedural, mathematical, and OO languages. If you understand their foundations and the strengths/weaknesses of each, you can pick up just about everything very quickly.

I chose carefully and ignored this month's fashionable language, which meant I have principally used C (1982-to date), Smalltalk (1988-1994), and Java (1996-to date). I ran away from monstrosities such as Delphi (= not C), C++ (if that's the answer then the question is wrong), PERL (for the same reason as APL!). As for HDLs, there's not too much difference between HiLo (early 80s) and Verilog/VHDL.

Development machines were originally PDP-11+Unix (made by Microsoft, who else), then Sun, then HP-UX, now Linux. (Still running that abortion, the XWindow system!)

So what has changed significantly? More DSP. Faster ADCs/DACs. Very low power. IDEs (where modern IDEs have now caught up with early 90s Smalltalk IDEs). The net.

[CatalinaWOW]

Relevancy also depends on what you are doing.  FORTRAN is still the best language for engineering and scientific computing as it is still the only one that has built in support for complex numbers.  C++ actually has some relevance here because with operator overloading it is possible to write readable complex processing programs.    Since it is not widely used the quality of the routines still suffers relative to FORTRAN.  Other languages that support overloading have the same hope and even less support.

X86 will remain relevant for years more, just as COBOL has remained relevant.  But X86 is largely useless to the cell phone crowd and other broad swathes of our profession.

[tggzzz]

Relevancy also depends on what you are doing.  FORTRAN is still the best language for engineering and scientific computing as it is still the only one that has built in support for complex numbers. 

While true, that's not the only reason. C and C++ have pointer arithmetic that significantly reduces the ability of the compiler to optimise. Have a look at HP's Dynamo compiler report for some truely astounding results.

C++ actually has some relevance here because with operator overloading it is possible to write readable complex processing programs.   

Ha! See http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/operator.html for why that isn't quite true in practice. I'm also particularly fond of the "const correctness" section http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/const.html

Since it is not widely used the quality of the routines still suffers relative to FORTRAN. 

See above.

Other languages that support overloading have the same hope and even less support.

Operator overloading is mere syntatic sugar that is irrelevant to the real problems the HPC mob encounters daily.

X86 will remain relevant for years more, just as COBOL has remained relevant.  But X86 is largely useless to the cell phone crowd and other broad swathes of our profession.

I first used an ARM computer 30 years ago, so that's another thing where the change largely falls into the smaller/faster/cheaper category. I liked the ARM1's objectives and solution then, and continue to like the ARM family.

[void_error]

I just landed a job in the EE field and I'm a college dropout (not that college could teach me anything useful... not where I live).

At the interview I was given a task to interface a 1-wire temperature sensor to a PC via the serial port using a micro of my choice. Job done. First time I've done that. On a solderless breadboard with what I could get my hands on locally and what I had at home. This project was something they were working on and didn't find anyone to do it.

The EE who interviewed me was quite impressed (also he was one of the old school guys not so much into microcontrollers and stuff).
He also told me that the best guys in the company don't have a degree either.

I was told about the last people employed in this position too. One of them spent three months lighting up LEDs in all possible ways without getting any useful work done.

Looks like teaching myself how to use (read playing with) PICs paid off.

Since I don't have a degree I'll be employed as a technician instead of an engineer but I don't mind that as the pay is good. Signing the papers next monday

[CatalinaWOW]

Void you are living the dream and the reality of being non-degreed.  The people you are working for recognize and value your skills.  Good.  You will get to work on something that you enjoy.  Good.  Someone in your company didn't really value your skills and gave you a technician position instead of an engineering position.  Not good.  You will be paid well.  Good.  Your future promotions and pay raises may be limited by your position as a technician.  Not good.

I know more than one individual who was the go to person in their company in a technical area, who got superlative performance reviews quarterly and annually, and who literally created products that resulted in sales for their company, but were ineligible for promotion or significant pay increase due to the lack of a degree.  Time will tell if your company is like that.

[void_error]

Someone in your company didn't really value your skills and gave you a technician position instead of an engineering position.

That's not the company it's the actually the laws around here. I suspect it's because there are so many people getting an EE degree around here and they don't even know the basics. Most of them end up software developers. At least 80% of graduates electronics knowledge is below that of a hobbyist. I quit college because I realized 70% of what they teach you is pointless, the courses are a mess and meant to get you to fail an exam so you pay for re-examination. A retired army doctor I met about a year ago, who's currently teaching, called the higher education in my country an industry. The thing is it's quite profitable. I might continue my EE studies at a later time in case I'm about to hit my salary limit as a technician.

Speaking of college, the brother of a friend dropped out of college as well, his hobby was programming and his impression of college education here was that it narrows your way of thinking and prevents you to excel in what you do, steering you in a certain direction, if you understand what I mean (I tried to translate that as accurately as possible). He now has a job that he likes and pays well.

[tggzzz]

I suspect it's because there are so many people getting an EE degree around here and they don't even know the basics.

Firstly, that is an age-old complaint; some things never change.

Secondly, there are basic and there are basics. Nobody knows everything. I want your strengths to cover my weaknesses, and vice versa.

(Of course those that don't recognise their limitations are displaying their limitations for all to see)

[Galenbo]

I suspect it's because there are so many people getting an EE degree around here and they don't even know the basics. Most of them end up software developers. At least 80% of graduates electronics knowledge is below that of a hobbyist...

Can be true, there are many positions for sales engineers and HVAC managers too.

But quit the one-dimensional contrast, it's too limited.
Try to look at it in minimum 2 dimensions, there are minimum 4 guys.

                       |    Unskilled   |   Skilled   |
---------------|--------------|-----------|
EE degree        |       1           |      2         |
---------------|--------------|-----------|
no EE degree   |       3           |      4         |
---------------|--------------|-----------|


You are competing against guy number 2. Maybe he will work on things you don't know they exist, and in 15 years you will only expierience the effects of it.
Don't underestimate the guy.

[Negative-Bias]

Degree,no Degree,
Well if I owned a company I'd want a person that was passionate about it,got on with it,got the job done, not someone who walks around on air thinking he/she was something special. I know people who have degrees,in the practical field useless,and I know non degree people, who seem to have a chip on their shoulder,both bad as each other.

[tggzzz]

Degree,no Degree,
Well if I owned a company I'd want a person that was passionate about it,got on with it,got the job done, not someone who walks around on air thinking he/she was something special. I know people who have degrees,in the practical field useless,and I know non degree people, who seem to have a chip on their shoulder,both bad as each other.

Just so.

Doctors and nurses complement each other. A hospital withut doctors would be as dysfunctional as a hospital without nurses; both are necessary, neither are sufficient.

The number of lives that have been saved because nurses spotted and avoided mistakes by junior doctors is countless. I'd also rather have a nurse insert a needle into my arm, and many other day-to-day practical necessities. But I really really wouldn't be happy with a nurse diagnosing all problems, nor specifying medicines nor courses of treatment.

[george graves]

Degree,no Degree,
Well if I owned a company I'd want a person that was passionate about it

I'm always amazed when I talk someone, and they hate what they do.  That's a red flag.  Do not hire that person.  Hire the guy that eats, sleeps, dreams the profession.

The number of lives that have been saved because nurses spotted and avoided mistakes by junior doctors is countless. I'd also rather have a nurse insert a needle into my arm, and many other day-to-day practical necessities.

Medical is a bit different - but as someone that spent a month in a coma, I can tell you that nurse are key.  You could have a ward full of highly trained doctors, but none of them will spot as something as simple as a bed sore.

I know Dave has a different outlook on grad vs non-grad. 

[tggzzz]

The number of lives that have been saved because nurses spotted and avoided mistakes by junior doctors is countless. I'd also rather have a nurse insert a needle into my arm, and many other day-to-day practical necessities.

Medical is a bit different - but as someone that spent a month in a coma, I can tell you that nurse are key.  You could have a ward full of highly trained doctors, but none of them will spot as something as simple as a bed sore.

Everything is different; analogies are dangerous! Nonetheless there are sufficient parallels to cut through the facile "X is mandatory" vs "X is useless" points of contention.

Doctors and nurses have complementary skills and weaknesses, and that's just as it should be. Ditto engineers and technicians.

[Galenbo]

Doctors and nurses complement each other. A hospital withut .

Both have a degree, you don't enter that field without. Don't underestimate the degree the nurse has.
Completely other discussion.

[tggzzz]

Doctors and nurses complement each other. A hospital withut .

Both have a degree, you don't enter that field without. Don't underestimate the degree the nurse has.

What on earth leads you to believe that I am underestimating nurses' skills and contributions?

However, having relations that are doctors and relations that are nurses, you are wrong about nurses requiring a degree. Some of my relations are "high powerered" and highly respected nurses, and they don't have a degree.

Completely other discussion.

All discussions are different, nonetheless there is sufficient value in the analogy for it to show just how facile some of the comments in this conversation actually are.

[vk6zgo]

Doctors and nurses complement each other. A hospital withut .

Both have a degree, you don't enter that field without. Don't underestimate the degree the nurse has.

What on earth leads you to believe that I am underestimating nurses' skills and contributions?

However, having relations that are doctors and relations that are nurses, you are wrong about nurses requiring a degree. Some of my relations are "high powerered£ and highly respected nurses, and they don't have a degree.

Completely other discussion.

All discussions are different, nonetheless there is sufficient value in the analogy for it to show just how facile some of the comments in this conversation actually are.

In Australia,there are two levels of nurses---one level have Degrees,the other level don't.
And a "Doctor" is normally just a Bachelor of Medicine---they are not Doctors in the University sense!

[SeanB]

The problem is you get a RN, registered Nurse, weho has been to a nursing training institution, normally attached to a University medical colledge and a hospital, for the practical and theory training and knowledge. RN is somebody who is probably as competent as a general doctor, and you often get specialised nurses as well, paediatric or oncology as an example. They are quite competent as a doctor, and can generally do the same prescription as a doctor, at least here, though they often do refer to a doctor or specialist for some cases.

Other nurse is what is called a Nurse Aide, who has a lower level of training, more aimed at the practical side of nursing, like patient care and handling.  they are whay you most often meet in general, being the majority of a hospital nursing staff.

While a RN and a Nurse Aide may dress nearly identically in white scrubs, they are very different, the RN being recognised as the equal of a doctor in most instances, and the NA being somnewhat less in the system.

Easy to tell the RN in a group, they will be the ones in charge, with even most doctors giving a very close ear to what they say.

RN's also make the worst patients, they will drive the NA's crazy doing training on them even while in a bed, and will both praise good work ( rare, you really have to have done it perfectly and to the time defined)  and explain where you are deficient.

My neighbour is a RN, and believe me you listen to her, even the Egyptian geese stop when she tells them to keep quiet, along with the local Vervet monkeys.

[Smokey]

...
My neighbour is a RN, and believe me you listen to her, even the Egyptian geese stop when she tells them to keep quiet, along with the local Vervet monkeys.

Not to derail the conversion too much but....
I love that you have to deal with wild monkeys.  And I think my neighbors dog is annoying.

[Galenbo]

What on earth leads you to believe that I am underestimating nurses' skills and contributions?

I did not

... Don't underestimate the degree the nurse has.

However, having relations that are doctors and relations that are nurses, you are wrong about nurses requiring a degree. Some of my relations are "high powerered" and highly respected nurses, and they don't have a degree.

Good for you, in your country. Never been in that place.

All discussions are different, nonetheless there is sufficient value in the analogy for it to show ...

No there is not. there even isn't an analogy.

[Galenbo]

In Australia,there are two levels of nurses---one level have Degrees,the other level don't.
And a "Doctor" is normally just a Bachelor of Medicine---they are not Doctors in the University sense!

So that's completely different from here.

The doctor/arts has an University degree (7 years)
Nurse diplomas exists in 2 major categories. Secondary and Bachelor.

People without degree do the cleaning of the rooms and transport patient beds between departments.

There exists something that could be translated as assistant-nurse, the cannot inject/give pills/other, but even that requires a diploma.

[vk6zgo]

In Australia,there are two levels of nurses---one level have Degrees,the other level don't.
And a "Doctor" is normally just a Bachelor of Medicine---they are not Doctors in the University sense!

So that's completely different from here.

The doctor/arts has an University degree (7 years)
Nurse diplomas exists in 2 major categories. Secondary and Bachelor.

People without degree do the cleaning of the rooms and transport patient beds between departments.

There exists something that could be translated as assistant-nurse, the cannot inject/give pills/other, but even that requires a diploma.

I did not mean to imply that the "Doctor" who looks after you medically doesn't have a University Degree.
He/She is usually "A Bachelor of Medicine".

Most GPs don't have a Doctorate as the title is used in other fields--"Doctor of Philosophy","Doctor of Science","Doctor of Divinity",etc.

Re Nurses:- In my home State of Western Australia,there are two levels of Nurses,both of which can add extra oroficiencies as they progress through their careers.

Enrolled Nurse:- These Nurses have a Diploma from a TAFE College or similar qualifications.
Registered Nurse:-RNs have a Bachelor of Nursing Degree from a University.


A "Nurse Practitioner" is a a RN who has achieved the Degree of "Master of Nursing" at University.

[Galenbo]

I did not mean to imply that the "Doctor" who looks after you medically doesn't have a University Degree.
He/She is usually "A Bachelor of Medicine".
Most GPs don't have a Doctorate as the title is used in other fields--"Doctor of Philosophy","Doctor of Science","Doctor of Divinity",etc.

It gets very messy with all those terms...

In our region, university degree implies a master.
All "doctors" have that, but indeed Doctorate is completely another thing.

[tggzzz]

In our region, university degree implies a master.
All "doctors" have that, but indeed Doctorate is completely another thing.

Here a "doctorate" can mean two things. The usual PhD, or a DSc which requires decades of sustained achievement  and publications.

[MagicSmoker]

...My problem with the 'traditional' educational institutes was that i had to learn the same stuff over and over again  ( plus oodles of stuff i had no interest in learning )...

This was my first problem with [a well-regarded engineering university] in the early 90's...

I went to an American school for engineering and all I remember is hell. There were about ten times the number of students who wanted to major in EE than there were places for them. It was pure competition. It seemed like every class was there to weed people out. Boredom was not a problem, fear was.

...and that was my second problem.


Thus I am self-taught (or, for a more pretentious way of saying it: an auto-didact). I am reluctant to call myself an EE - I believe that one should have the little piece of paper that goes with the title - but seeing as I've designed high power Class A & D audio amplifiers; Class C & E RF amplifiers (including a real gem - a 10kW RF exciter for a CO2 laser [that approach is now obsolete]); switchmode power supplies of all topologies up to ~2kW and motor drives up to power levels of 1.6MW (that's mega, not milli), I feel like I am fairly competent at what I do. Oh, and I can get ethernet to work inside one of those 1.6MW drives. Take that EMC bitches!

[janengelbrecht]

When you start out in the business...EE degree is helpful. Later on....when your degree is like 20-30 years old...no one cares at least about your grades

[tggzzz]

When you start out in the business...EE degree is helpful. Later on....when your degree is like 20-30 years old...no one cares at least about your grades

That depends on what type of job you are aiming at, and when.

For most of my jobs, and certainly all of the good/fun ones, a good degree was absolutely essential. I know for a fact I wouldn't have reached the interview stage without it. I know that since I was intimately involved in all aspects of the the recruitment processes for several years in several jobs.

Having a solid track record of achievement (even before my first "real" job) was also essential.

That certainly can be the case for the 10-15 years after a degree. But I will agree that near retirement (i.e. after 30 years) it is less likely to be relevant

Simple point: you are competing against people with a degree. Idiot HR-droids will use any uncontestable fact (whether or not it is relevant) to reduce the pile of CVs and enable them to protect their back against later complaints.

[CatalinaWOW]

When you start out in the business...EE degree is helpful. Later on....when your degree is like 20-30 years old...no one cares at least about your grades

Agreed.  And for many (maybe most) of those I worked with all of the courses taken are long forgotten.  But it was my observation that a majority of those who made it to the top of the heap remembered and applied everything they had been exposed to, from university on.

[tggzzz]

When you start out in the business...EE degree is helpful. Later on....when your degree is like 20-30 years old...no one cares at least about your grades

Agreed.  And for many (maybe most) of those I worked with all of the courses taken are long forgotten.  But it was my observation that a majority of those who made it to the top of the heap remembered and applied everything they had been exposed to, from university on.

Yes indeed. Very true, and probably not understood by those that have not (quite possibly through deliberate choice) made it to the top of the heap.

Nicely put.

[MT]

When you start out in the business...EE degree is helpful. Later on....when your degree is like 20-30 years old...no one cares at least about your grades

Yes, grades is like best before date on milk bottles! The real problem in the industry is the HR people and their attitudes and their backgrounds and their;
we are going to rule the world, mentality.

[old gregg]

I had an experience recently. If you can bypass the Human ressources, you've a chance otherwise you're kind of screwed. Most of them don't know what you're talking about, they want "a profil" more than anything else. Sometimes it becomes annoying and such a waste of time. 

The guy I had on the phone just wanted to have the work done and didn't care for the degree/diplomas. Do the job and do it well.

So "It depends" (that expression must be the "engineering Mantra"  ). Hope isn't lost.

[gb243]

That is almost entirely different to my EE degree course, which was ~90% hardcore electronic/computing.

In fact, I would suggest to any American students looking for an engineering degree program to consider studying in the UK. The fees will be relatively modest compared to many US private universities and you will get to spend much more time learning what you are interested in.

Personally I would avoid the UK. I got my degree in EE there but it is now a very expensive destination for education. Much of Europe degree level education is free or only a few hundred Euro per year. The courses are usually taught in english in an environment which is clean and safe. I emigrated a few years ago and nothing would entice me back.