EEVblab #2 - Are Electronics Hobbyists Useless?

[tggzzz]

Well said!

In another field, doctors (while acknowledging nurses often save their butt) tend to say the same about nurses that think they have the same expertise as doctors.

I'll give my 2p on this based on decades of experience in EE...

A typical and keen hobbyist (but not all hobbyists so please don't be offended) tends to gain experience and knowledge in a kind of scrapbook fashion. Lots and lots of little nuggets of very useful info and experience gained over many years and this can make them appear very knowledgable and even give them delusions of grandeur.

But... and it's a huge 'but'... if you take them away from this scrapbook and give them a fresh problem then it often gets quite scary because you realise that often there is nothing inbetween the little scrapbook nuggets for them to fall back on. Often this means they can't apply basic theory to a fresh problem or they simply make up their own version of physics based on common myths. This isn't good. A little bit of knowledge can be very dangerous if there are no fundamentals to fall back on...

However, if you look at fresh graduates (decent ones) then you tend to get a fairly blank canvas. Initially they lack the skills and experience of the hobbyist but they can be groomed over time to fill in these shortcomings and eventually the hobbyist will be outclassed in nearly every department. But this can take several years.

But you can also groom a hobbyist into becoming a better EE by providing training courses or part time education and this can help fill in the gaps in their 'scrapbook' with some solid theory. Sometimes this can give a real boost to their abilities as they have more and more  'Eureka moments' as the gaps in the scrapbook get filled in. So you end up with a very capable EE but by a different path.

At the end of the day we are all human and made of the same stuff...

[Simon]

I'll give my 2p on this based on decades of experience in EE...

A typical and keen hobbyist (but not all hobbyists so please don't be offended) tends to gain experience and knowledge in a kind of scrapbook fashion. Lots and lots of little nuggets of very useful info and experience gained over many years and this can make them appear very knowledgable and even give them delusions of grandeur.

But... and it's a huge 'but'... if you take them away from this scrapbook and give them a fresh problem then it often gets quite scary because you realise that often there is nothing inbetween the little scrapbook nuggets for them to fall back on. Often this means they can't apply basic theory to a fresh problem or they simply make up their own version of physics based on common myths. This isn't good. A little bit of knowledge can be very dangerous if there are no fundamentals to fall back on...

However, if you look at fresh graduates (decent ones) then you tend to get a fairly blank canvas. Initially they lack the skills and experience of the hobbyist but they can be groomed over time to fill in these shortcomings and eventually the hobbyist will be outclassed in nearly every department. But this can take several years.

But you can also groom a hobbyist into becoming a better EE by providing training courses or part time education and this can help fill in the gaps in their 'scrapbook' with some solid theory. Sometimes this can give a real boost to their abilities as they have more and more  'Eureka moments' as the gaps in the scrapbook get filled in. So you end up with a very capable EE but by a different path.

At the end of the day we are all human and made of the same stuff...

and that is why i am often on here asking "silly" questions out of a combination of recognising a gap in my knowledge and the need to tst a theory as others will look at it differently and if it does not add up this becomes aparent and i can rethink

[EEVblog]

At the end of the day we are all human and made of the same stuff...

And at the end of the day, some people are really really good at engineering, and some people are and always will be really really crap at engineering, even if highly qualified.

[Simon]

I'll give my 2p on this based on decades of experience in EE...

A typical and keen hobbyist (but not all hobbyists so please don't be offended) tends to gain experience and knowledge in a kind of scrapbook fashion. Lots and lots of little nuggets of very useful info and experience gained over many years and this can make them appear very knowledgable and even give them delusions of grandeur.

But... and it's a huge 'but'... if you take them away from this scrapbook and give them a fresh problem then it often gets quite scary because you realise that often there is nothing inbetween the little scrapbook nuggets for them to fall back on. Often this means they can't apply basic theory to a fresh problem or they simply make up their own version of physics based on common myths. This isn't good. A little bit of knowledge can be very dangerous if there are no fundamentals to fall back on...

However, if you look at fresh graduates (decent ones) then you tend to get a fairly blank canvas. Initially they lack the skills and experience of the hobbyist but they can be groomed over time to fill in these shortcomings and eventually the hobbyist will be outclassed in nearly every department. But this can take several years.

But you can also groom a hobbyist into becoming a better EE by providing training courses or part time education and this can help fill in the gaps in their 'scrapbook' with some solid theory. Sometimes this can give a real boost to their abilities as they have more and more  'Eureka moments' as the gaps in the scrapbook get filled in. So you end up with a very capable EE but by a different path.

At the end of the day we are all human and made of the same stuff...

 

sometimes it is so frustrating to know what you wish to do, but only know so much lesser than is required

try sitting there having to let an "expert" get it all wrong knowing that he is allowed to just because of a peice of paper for frustration. Try staying calm and professional when a guy wants a better sensor because he does not know how to use the one he has for frustration...... Like I said on a sample of 5 people I have had dealings with "professionally" 80% were not fit for purpose, I'm not saying tnat is across the board but it shows there are plenty of places available for incompetent wielders of pieces of paper, and some of them get to make mistakes that could kill. Never said I was all knowledgeable but it's painful to have to correct other peoples work when they are supposed to be better at you and probably better paid.

[miguelvp]

try sitting there having to let an "expert" get it all wrong knowing that he is allowed to just because of a peice of paper for frustration. Try staying calm and professional when a guy wants a better sensor because he does not know how to use the one he has for frustration...... Like I said on a sample of 5 people I have had dealings with "professionally" 80% were not fit for purpose, I'm not saying tnat is across the board but it shows there are plenty of places available for incompetent wielders of pieces of paper, and some of them get to make mistakes that could kill. Never said I was all knowledgeable but it's painful to have to correct other peoples work when they are supposed to be better at you and probably better paid.

What is more staggering is that you are no expert either by looking at the questions you post in the forum, although you know way more than I do in electronics, but I'm just a programmer after all.

I also find it surprising that those people are even less qualified and I find it alarming by the description of the devices your employer works on (life and death), doesn't sound like an ISO 9001 environment at all.

[Simon]

Well sadly when one has to step in at the last minute to save the day because the paper wielding expert totally screwed it up or can't be trusted and won't do it in a reasonable time frame and with the required flexibility. As i said we are working with a new subcontractor. The idea is not that at the moment that I design these things, but then we have seen what some experts produce it's 50/50 really. As i said I am not too proud to ask and often ask a level slightly below my knowledge as it's nice to have 2 plus people come back and answer as expected and often is develops into collateral discussion that I learn more from and fill those "hobbyist gaps". Ultimately the equipment we work on has a plan B but you need to know a problem is occurring so that you have time to implement plan B. If a system fails outright with no warning because some berk with a piece of paper drove a 10V mosfet with 28V despite being warned it was a really silly idea there is not really much hope.

[tggzzz]

At the end of the day we are all human and made of the same stuff...

And at the end of the day, some people are really really good at engineering, and some people are and always will be really really crap at engineering, even if highly qualified.

Engineering is not a single indivisible concept. There are many aspects to engineering, and all are necessary.

No one individual will ever be good at all aspects. If can restrict you requirements thenyou can find them in a single individual. To cover all of engineering you need multiple individuals.

[G0HZU]

Engineering is not a single indivisible concept. There are many aspects to engineering, and all are necessary. No one individual will ever be good at all aspects. If can restrict you requirements thenyou can find them in a single individual. To cover all of engineering you need multiple individuals.

Yup, that's it...

Back in 1990 I was incredibly lucky to be able to join a fledgling startup company that was set up by a group of very talented (middle aged) engineers that broke away from a well known UK defence/TEqpt company. These guys were amongst the most talented engineers you can imagine and I learned a lot from being able to sit with them and watch how they designed stuff and how they dealt with problems or new concepts etc.

BUT... I also quickly learned that everyone has holes in their knowledge base including these guys and sometimes the existence of these holes in their knowledge came as a surprise even to a comparative novice like myself at the time. But then nobody can know it all. 

However, I also quickly learned that the key to (company) success is to have a team of engineers across all disciplines within EE and to create an environment where nobody cares about these individual holes. The only important thing is to debate the issue as a team and to find the correct answer. Sometimes it pays to have quite a few people in  the room across all disciplines eg HW/SW/DSP/RF/Mech/Test/Production.

It's a great way to do things because it helps fill in the holes for everyone in the room.

If you fast forward to 2014 (nearly 2015!) you can create the same environment over the internet but the main stumbling block would be if you tried to do it as a text based forum. Text isn't the best way to communicate and it usually causes friction and upset and so communication and goodwill can quickly break down.

Back in 1990 I was incredibly priviliged to work amongst those talented engineers that started the company and I know how powerful it can be to get a group of decent engineers in a room with a whiteboard and a few design tools. It's a great environment to learn and share knowledge.

[Simon]

If you fast forward to 2014 (nearly 2015!) you can create the same environment over the internet but the main stumbling block would be if you tried to do it as a text based forum. Text isn't the best way to communicate and it usually causes friction and upset and so communication and goodwill can quickly break down.

Back in 1990 I was incredibly priviliged to work amongst those talented engineers that started the company and I know how powerful it can be to get a group of decent engineers in a room with a whiteboard and a few design tools. It's a great environment to learn and share knowledge.

And for those of us that have to go solo this forum is the closest to what you describe. Currently I am working in a similar team to what you describe, my boss is very mechanically savvy, our sub contractor very electronics and automotive electrical savvy and i sit in the middle making sure they are both talking about the same thing and keeping both up to speed on pitfalls, so I can forewarn the electronics guy about known pitfalls and limitations and I can help my mechanical minded boss over the electrical hurdles so that we can have a meeting and not an electronics and mechanical masterclass instead and get nowhere

[EEVblog]

Engineering is not a single indivisible concept. There are many aspects to engineering, and all are necessary.

The point I was trying to make is that some people are just clueless and useless at almost everything, regardless of their qualifications.

[tggzzz]

Engineering is not a single indivisible concept. There are many aspects to engineering, and all are necessary.

The point I was trying to make is that some people are just clueless and useless at almost everything, regardless of their qualifications.

... or lack of qualifications.

Qualifications and cluefulness are orthogonal concepts.

[Simon]

Engineering is not a single indivisible concept. There are many aspects to engineering, and all are necessary.

The point I was trying to make is that some people are just clueless and useless at almost everything, regardless of their qualifications.

... or lack of qualifications.

Qualifications and cluefulness are orthogonal concepts.

oh there he goes again  qualifications = your automatically clever argument, how long have you lived in the real world ?

[(In)Sanity]

Engineering is not a single indivisible concept. There are many aspects to engineering, and all are necessary.

The point I was trying to make is that some people are just clueless and useless at almost everything, regardless of their qualifications.

My father would say they lack common sense.

[Dye]

First time post, long time reader. I used to be a teaching assistant (TA) in an engineering course of 700 students and 100 teaching assistants. Mixed discipline, but a highly CS/ECE focused school. Candidates like this did exist and our course was pretty aggressive in acquiring them based on measured potential we observed in their course work before the other departments since we were in the intro to engineering course.

The hourly wage was roughly $10-$15 based on skill set. The big problem is the students that did meet this set were destined to leave the teaching assistant program within a year or two for higher paid internships $18-$23/hr range. Even I left and I was the head TA managing the 100 students. The course director just allowed me to manage and coordinate the other members remotely.

We were glad they left, they were destined to fail in their careers if they stayed since we could only offer so much experience and this young for them to only know the scope of what we did would have staggered their talent and aspirations.

One mechanism we had in place for the low retention rate of undergrad/grad students was doubling everything. Every subcommittee of this TA organization from payroll, It, lab management, video, etc had two leads. So a senior trains a junior and they are spaced apart a year or two so there is always a "Master" and "Apprentice." doing this for even your assistant might help if you start losing you new hire every year. 

[Ecklar]

Engineering is not a single indivisible concept. There are many aspects to engineering, and all are necessary.

The point I was trying to make is that some people are just clueless and useless at almost everything, regardless of their qualifications.

The likely candidate will most certainly have a full history of actual doing and making in areas important to Dave first, and then, filled out with 'qualification' as a secondary.  Electronics and making is more accessible than playing the violin but is similar in that to be practically good both need natural inner drive and a talent usually defined as " having a clue." 

In any endeavor, one ALWAYS needs to be able to visualize it in their own personal way.  They can 'see' it.  There are many engineers out there with no talent.   A frequent poster here once stated how he saw himself as a pilot flying through circuits.  Boy, I wished he'd give more insight as to how he arranges the concepts in his mind.

If they haven't been doing it, they probably won't be doing it... At least, not on the EEVBLOG.  That's my guess.

Eck

[c4757p]

... or lack of qualifications.

Qualifications and cluefulness are orthogonal concepts.

oh there he goes again  qualifications = your automatically clever argument, how long have you lived in the real world ?

Well, I can't really parse that stunning specimen of language, but assuming you meant "you're", I'm going to guess you have no clue what "orthogonal" means. Your response seems rather, er, parallel to the claim he appears to be making...

[Macbeth]

... or lack of qualifications.

Qualifications and cluefulness are orthogonal concepts.

oh there he goes again  qualifications = your automatically clever argument, how long have you lived in the real world ?

Well, I can't really parse that stunning specimen of language, but assuming you meant "you're", I'm going to guess you have no clue what "orthogonal" means. Your response seems rather, er, parallel to the claim he appears to be making...

It makes no sense to substitute "you're" for "your". Simon is using the correct term here. "You are automatically clever argument" is not the Queens English, old chap. What an utter fail 

[c4757p]

I still can't make out what you seem to. I see missing quotation marks: '"qualifications = you're automatically clever" argument', as in 'the argument that if you have qualifications, you are clever'. How are you reading that...? I can almost make out "your automatically clever argument", as if he is claiming that tggzzz's argument is "automatically clever", but that doesn't really make sense and leaves the "qualifications =" bit out in front making absolutely no sense.

[Simon]

Yes i got in a linguistic twist, your, sorry you're lucky I reread and correct anything i type at least once before hitting post.

There seem to be a number of people holding on for dear life to the notion that to have gained a qualification automatically makes one competent and far more worthy of respect and the "job". As already said I have witnessed this not to be the case, there has been talk of having a qualified person in a post it much better than a non qualified one as the non qualified one must be rubbish and the qualified one must be great. This is naturally not so. Few employers carry out competence tests on job candidates that is supposedly the idea of having a qualification and it is far easier to be a paper wielder and get a place your not competent to fill than a non qualified person as a non qualified person in most jobs held usually by a qualified person will have gotten there through proving themselves over and over again.

But do hang on for dear life to your qualifications snobbery, I'm sure for some it's all they have to show for themselves and they need it to prove even to themselves that they are competent as well as qualified.

As I've always said I also value a qualification but one that actually imparts knowledge to one willing to learn. No matter what your smarts there is always something new to learn and the non qualified person with a hobbyists background can't afford the snobbery of they know it all and no one can teach them anything new, it is for this attitude that a certain subcontractor my employer used to use is out of a job!

[tggzzz]

Engineering is not a single indivisible concept. There are many aspects to engineering, and all are necessary.

The point I was trying to make is that some people are just clueless and useless at almost everything, regardless of their qualifications.

... or lack of qualifications.

Qualifications and cluefulness are orthogonal concepts.

oh there he goes again  qualifications = your automatically clever argument, how long have you lived in the real world ?

!?! My statement is the exact opposite of your interpretation!

From, for example, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/orthogonal the relevant meanings are:
orthogonal (not comparable)
    (statistics) Statistically independent, with reference to variates.
    (software engineering) Of two or more aspects of a problem, able to be treated separately.
        The content of the message should be orthogonal to the means of its delivery.
    Of two or more problems or subjects, independent of or irrelevant to each other.

[Simon]

Not wanting to be funny but how about we keep the language simple 

[tggzzz]

Not wanting to be funny but how about we keep the language simple 

But but but I enjoy discussing "high Q commutating capacitor filters", "low impedance Z0 probes", "aliasing", "metastability", "byzantine generals problem", "cascode amplifiers" etc.

[tggzzz]

So? Are electronics hobbyists useless? Other than observing the threadspace increase of this thread I haven't read it all. Has a concensus view been established?

What an elegant way of, um, "reinvigorating" the thread!

[Ecklar]

Electronics hobbyists definitely are useful in that they soak up so much surplus equipment that they provide the liquidity necessary to keep at least part of an economy moving. 

Maybe one in a million will break through and catch a wave ... Apple and now Oculus

[EEVblog]

So? Are electronics hobbyists useless? Other than observing the threadspace increase of this thread I haven't read it all. Has a concensus view been established?

The title was only designed to be provocative and get people to watch, it wasn't a genuine question.
The real question was whether or not I was asking too much of someone with hobbyist or student/hobby skills, and the resounding answer is no, I was not asking too much.
But of course the question was rhetorical because I already knew the answer anyway