How tough is it for a fresh grad to get first job in Engineering?

[jefflieu]

Hello,
How tough do you guys think for fresh grad to get a first job in Engineering?
Lots of my cohort didn't get a job in Engineering, they ended up in some non-engineering jobs such as property agents or banking trainees. I don't know if these was there choice or not.
I personally felt that it's definitely not enough just to rely on school projects to advance your skills. i.e you have to do more things on your own in your free time such as getting a dev kit and play with it. But is that true/helpful?
I spoke to a few juniors and it seems that they think school projects are enough...

What's the chance of getting first job without being in top  20% of your cohort? Of course this is very dependent on the job market and the school that you're from.
When I graduated in Singapore, it was not so difficult for me, I had like 5 interviews and landed a job.

Networking/Internship is also important. I had very limited contacts when I graduated and first job didn't come from my network.
So guys, please share your career experience!


Jeff

[CopperCone]

work cheap, be interested in what you do and your fine. otherwise you will be romancing people and sucking corporate balls

[Tomorokoshi]

Projects you do on your own are not a guarantee, and how relevant they are to an interview depends a lot on the interviewers. That said, your projects offer several opportunities.

For the show and tell that you bring in, can you explain it? Does it work? (Doesn't matter all that much). It tilts the topic and drives the discussion to where you and your projects are more in control, not the vagaries of corporate processes. You will be more comfortable and animated. It gives a way to discuss the engineering process and how you applied your education and skills to a working thing. Attempt to include several aspects of engineering: software, electronics, controls, mechanics, user interface, etc. Even manuals would be nice.

Bring the project, some printouts of code, schematics, etc.

Don't bypass internship opportunities.

[EEVblog]

How tough do you guys think for fresh grad to get a first job in Engineering?
Lots of my cohort didn't get a job in Engineering, they ended up in some non-engineering jobs such as property agents or banking trainees. I don't know if these was there choice or not.

They probably:
a) sucked at engineering
b) Had nothing to stand out from other graduates
or
c) Just didn't really want an engineering job

I personally felt that it's definitely not enough just to rely on school projects to advance your skills. i.e you have to do more things on your own in your free time such as getting a dev kit and play with it. But is that true/helpful?

100% true.

I spoke to a few juniors and it seems that they think school projects are enough...

They are wrong and will learn the hard way.

What's the chance of getting first job without being in top  20% of your cohort? Of course this is very dependent on the job market and the school that you're from.

It doesn't really matter what marks you got, where you graduate from, or how you compare to the other graduates.
You'll get judged on whether they like you or not, your personality, and your interest and eagerness.

[nctnico]

I personally felt that it's definitely not enough just to rely on school projects to advance your skills. i.e you have to do more things on your own in your free time such as getting a dev kit and play with it. But is that true/helpful?

What's the chance of getting first job without being in top  20% of your cohort?

I have never been asked about my grades. OTOH projects I made at home where greeted with great interest by job interviewers. Making projects at home and being able to talk about that at a job interview will make you standout so be sure to include that in your resume under 'hobbies'.

[Howardlong]

I remain amazed at how few of my peers at university on an Electronics Engineering course had even picked up a solderig iron, before or even during the coursework. At least half completed the course, many with top grades, without even using an oscilloscope. But they could derive any number of obscure mathematical theorems in any number of ways, and could write a simple Cobol program. God, I hope things have moved on.

My post-university career started in software for a couple of years, mostly Pascal, on Macs and PCs in 1986. There weren't many jobs in hardware which was my own favoured skill, those jobs were already being shipped out to lower cost economies. I did some embedded hardware and even some soldering for a year working for an automated test equipment manufacturer. Then a couple of years working on WAN pricing optimisation software, then a year at Olivetti working in their finance support operation, which entailed systems integration projects of 1000s of PCs into large high street banks.

That exposure in the banking world led me to technology consulting in the financial industry for the next 25+ years, but in between times I also work extensively on my own embedded mixed signal hardware projects and products. These products are more lucrative than the consulting work, but are also more risky as they often involve a lot of investment. Having two strings to your bow is pretty useful, but makes you very time poor.

[b_force]

It all depends.

If you're someone doing a lot of side/hobby projects, being busy with other (voluntary) work and have general experience, it will be a whole lot easier.

If you're someone who only (properly) did his studies, but don't have any other experience, it's going to be difficult (even if you're cum laude)

[EEVblog]

I remain amazed at how few of my peers at university on an Electronics Engineering course had even picked up a solderig iron, before or even during the coursework.

When I went it was literally two of us, me and a mate of mine. Word quickly got around about who to talk to if you had problem or wanted your thesis project designed for you 

[Howardlong]

I remain amazed at how few of my peers at university on an Electronics Engineering course had even picked up a solderig iron, before or even during the coursework.

When I went it was literally two of us, me and a mate of mine. Word quickly got around about who to talk to if you had problem or wanted your thesis project designed for you 

This is what intrigues me: when choosing their degree, did they really have nothing more than a very cursory understanding of it before dedicating three or four years of the lives to learning it?

[Kjelt]

During college i had to help a lot of fellow students who never soldered or designed anything before starting.
The same with programming. Funny thing was that I got 8 freebies for classes because of the projects I already did at home. Luckily I documented the designs and still had them all. After graduation I found out there were not many  hardware jobs left and I started in a software company where I learned the C language in depth which was good since college only teaches the starters.
After a few years i went to a R&D corp. And could do more hardware  got an fpga course, combined with embedded programming, that was a nice time. Company after that was interesting, they wanted emb. Programmers with hardware skills since the software did real time hardware related stuff and computer science students did not understand it in their experience. The job interview they put the pcb of their product in front of me and asked me to explain as much as possible what it was, parts, etc.
From ten candidates I was hired and that was most based on that i did electronics at home and the experience from that.
So yeah IMO if you want any job you need to show enthousiasm and passion for that work. The fact that you did and do things at home which are related enforces that signal. There is more though to be honest you also need social skills, a bit of a feeling for politics and team player and if you are starting out a small ego and try to learn from your experienced colleagues.

[tszaboo]

I was employed on a 100% contact before finishing uni.
I had a 50% job from 3rd year.
In fact I had summer jobs at a Japanese PCBA factory as an engineer's assistant, when I was 16.
Its not about the degree, it is really not.

[tggzzz]

I remain amazed at how few of my peers at university on an Electronics Engineering course had even picked up a solderig iron, before or even during the coursework. At least half completed the course, many with top grades, without even using an oscilloscope. But they could derive any number of obscure mathematical theorems in any number of ways, and could write a simple Cobol program. God, I hope things have moved on.

They have... to VHDL/Verilog, Matlat/ComDisco/etc, Spice, C/C++/Java/Python.

There are many many electronic engineering jobs where being able to use a scope is of secondary importance. A few difficult tasks, off the top of my head:

• what is the expected performance of a radio channel using various different modulations and different protocols
• what are the failure modes in an IoT system, and how can they be mitigated
• what's the expected performance if you use GPS to discipline an XO
• what design patterns should be used in a hard real-time control system, to ensure continued operation in the presence of faults
• what design patterns should be used in a distributed system, to ensure continued operation in the presence of faults
• how to determine whether a control system is near to oscillating
• the customer wants to measure/do X; is it possible?
• is this piece of equipment safe?
• what IP3 specification is required to ensure interfering signals can be ignored?

And anybody that thinks that reduces the need for technicians or scope skills (etc) needs to improve their critical thinking!

[tggzzz]

I personally felt that it's definitely not enough just to rely on school projects to advance your skills. i.e you have to do more things on your own in your free time such as getting a dev kit and play with it. But is that true/helpful?

Very. Is demonstrates interest, initiative, determination, continued learning - and gives the interviewer something new to talk about!

I spoke to a few juniors and it seems that they think school projects are enough...

They are wrong. People will always invent explanations for laziness.

[Howardlong]

I remain amazed at how few of my peers at university on an Electronics Engineering course had even picked up a solderig iron, before or even during the coursework. At least half completed the course, many with top grades, without even using an oscilloscope. But they could derive any number of obscure mathematical theorems in any number of ways, and could write a simple Cobol program. God, I hope things have moved on.

They have... to VHDL/Verilog, Matlat/ComDisco/etc, Spice, C/C++/Java/Python.

There are many many electronic engineering jobs where being able to use a scope is of secondary importance. A few difficult tasks, off the top of my head:

• what is the expected performance of a radio channel using various different modulations and different protocols
• what are the failure modes in an IoT system, and how can they be mitigated
• what's the expected performance if you use GPS to discipline an XO
• what design patterns should be used in a hard real-time control system, to ensure continued operation in the presence of faults
• what design patterns should be used in a distributed system, to ensure continued operation in the presence of faults
• how to determine whether a control system is near to oscillating
• the customer wants to measure/do X; is it possible?
• is this piece of equipment safe?
• what IP3 specification is required to ensure interfering signals can be ignored?

And anybody that thinks that reduces the need for technicians or scope skills (etc) needs to improve their critical thinking!

Those are all useful skills, but you need to be able to walk before you can run: dealing with those concepts that you only have experience of in the abstract I find are always far more difficult to understand than those that are tangible. That is why, to this day, I still have such trouble with control systems, I had the formal textbook academic treatise but never a practical grounding.

Fundamentals, like soldering and the basics of using a scope, should be second nature after an electronics engineering degree, picked up by necessity as part of the coursework. Not having those skills will be like eating noodles without chopsticks or a fork, you can do it, but it'll be messy and it won't be easy.

[tggzzz]

I remain amazed at how few of my peers at university on an Electronics Engineering course had even picked up a solderig iron, before or even during the coursework. At least half completed the course, many with top grades, without even using an oscilloscope. But they could derive any number of obscure mathematical theorems in any number of ways, and could write a simple Cobol program. God, I hope things have moved on.

They have... to VHDL/Verilog, Matlat/ComDisco/etc, Spice, C/C++/Java/Python.

There are many many electronic engineering jobs where being able to use a scope is of secondary importance. A few difficult tasks, off the top of my head:

• what is the expected performance of a radio channel using various different modulations and different protocols
• what are the failure modes in an IoT system, and how can they be mitigated
• what's the expected performance if you use GPS to discipline an XO
• what design patterns should be used in a hard real-time control system, to ensure continued operation in the presence of faults
• what design patterns should be used in a distributed system, to ensure continued operation in the presence of faults
• how to determine whether a control system is near to oscillating
• the customer wants to measure/do X; is it possible?
• is this piece of equipment safe?
• what IP3 specification is required to ensure interfering signals can be ignored?

And anybody that thinks that reduces the need for technicians or scope skills (etc) needs to improve their critical thinking!

Those are all useful skills, but you need to be able to walk before you can run: dealing with those concepts that you only have experience of in the abstract I find are always far more difficult to understand than those that are tangible. That is why, to this day, I still have such trouble with control systems, I had the formal textbook academic treatise but never a practical grounding.

I've no doubt that's true for you, but other people have different skills and learning techniques.

Fundamentals, like soldering and the basics of using a scope, should be second nature after an electronics engineering degree, picked up by necessity as part of the coursework. Not having those skills will be like eating noodles without chopsticks or a fork, you can do it, but it'll be messy and it won't be easy.

I disagree.

Any company that needs a specific skill X should be prepared to pay for their employee to learn X. In the case X==soldering, that would be easy since it should only take a couple of days to learn.

Universities should be about teaching students how to learn, preferably by teaching generally useful theory that is difficult to learn outside university. One example, that I regret has passed me by, is thermodynamic theory. No company should expect to have to teach thermodynamics principles, though specific uses of the theory should be done by the company.

Get that kind of thing wrong and you end up with the state of affairs described by Asimov in his short story "Profession". Those principles impressed me as a teenager, and are still relevant today. It is worth speedreading: http://www.abelard.org/asimov.php

[cdev]

This sounds just crazy to me.

And there are so many people who love to build things who can't afford college.


Quote from: EEVblog on Today at 02:14:33>Quote from: Howardlong on Today at 01:53:53

I remain amazed at how few of my peers at university on an Electronics Engineering course had even picked up a solderig iron, before or even during the coursework.

When I went it was literally two of us, me and a mate of mine. Word quickly got around about who to talk to if you had problem or wanted your thesis project designed for you 

[John Coloccia]

When hiring a new grad, the two things that are important to me are:

1) do you have a fire under your butt and a thirst for knowledge, because I know I'll have to train you how to do real engineering. I need to see that you have the ability and desire to learn.

2) Do I like you and will you get along with everyone...are you humble, or a know it all? All hires are judged on this, but especially new grads. If I feel like everything is going to turn into a long, drawn out argument, it'll never happen because I know I'll be spending a lot of time mentoring you and I intend to do that with someone who's pleasant to be around.

Things that will catch my eye on a resume is anything that required you figuring something out on your own and applying it. On an interview, I want to hear about how you think and how you find answers to problems. I want to see that you know enough to look things up and ask. When I ask a question you don't know the answer to, I want to see that you give me an honest "I don't know", or "Maybe...can you explain a little more?", and then I may well take a few minutes to teach you the concept and see if you can somehow apply it. Never anything difficult. If I ask you about something and you answer "Oh sure, I know all about that", you can be sure I will probe a little to see if you're lying to me. Lie and the interview's over. Be honest and you're giving me a chance to introduce you to some new stuff, and giving yourself a chance to really impress me and shine by showing how we'll interact with each other in the future and how you can pick up new concepts.

It's really not so difficult. If someone is looking for a new grad, we know what we're getting...bright young potential engineer, head full of mush, lots of training required. We're making a commitment to finish your education, and taking a chance that you'll work out. Don't take offense...we all started the same way, and it's important to understand how many employers view this so you can present yourself favorably. All you need to do is convince me that you're intelligent, you can learn and that you want to learn, and just overall be pleasant and someone that I won't mind spending time with.

GPAs, class rank, president of the glee club, etc are as unimportant to me as your middle initial or your phone number!

edit:
Incidentally, I mentioned the likability a lot, but you would be surprised how many interviews are effectively over nearly the instant they start.

[tggzzz]

Well put, Mr Coloccia. That's exactly my attitude, with one caveat... the degree and university can be relevant, depending on the job.

For example, I know from experience that if I need an engineer that can choose a modulation scheme or design an access protocol or similar, then someone from the University of the South Bank is highly unlikely to be as useful as someone from the University of Southampton. OTOH, if I want someone that will simply follow instructions, then the University of the South Bank may be preferable.

[jefflieu]

Excellent and valuable inputs guys!
Actually it is fun time being interviewed as fresh grad, you have nothing to lose
I guess marks are not important but guys with the right attitude would have decent marks anyway.

I got my first job by spamming the engineering manager directly, subsequent jobs resumes were forwarded directly to the person that I would later report to. Submitting resume and coverletter to job ads/Career page of the organization didn't work for me. During my time, those career coaching people at uni emphasized a lot on the cover letter, you must show how you would benefit the organization, blah blah blah. I did write, sent, waited, no reply . Probably my cover letter didn't make good first impression.

 

[Howardlong]

Regretably possibly the biggest problem you face particulalry with medium to large organisations is getting past the HR dragons. Line managers can't just hire, they have to have planned budget and go through a process dictated to them by HR. Many HR idiots will only take through preferred recruitment agencies (and sometimes only one!) and those agencies will almost certainly run some rudimentary filtering (usually very badly) to save HR the effort of doing their jobs.

Unless you know the unpublished HR process you unfortunately need to be prepared not to get much response. It is a numbers game, the more you apply for the better chance you have.

Having a degree will certainly help get through some of the gates, there is a mentality to not even look at someone unless they have at least a degree.

I've generally found SMEs to be far easier to deal with than larger companies, as SMEs tend not to have wasted time and money on such strict and narrow minded HR recruitment policies.

[coppice]

I've been involved in advertising for and recruiting engineers over the last 40 years in the UK, Hong Kong and to some extent India. Timing seems to be the biggest factor in a candidate's chances. We've advertised in a major newspaper and got zero to a very few replies. A few months later the same ad in the same paper has resulted in sackfuls (or their electronic equivalent) of replies. When we got only one or two replies, and really needed to fill the vacancy, a candidate's chances of being recruited were really good, if they just met minimum criteria. When we got sackfuls of replies we were able to be very choosy, although we could well have missed the best candidate in the deluge.

Of course, if the electronics industry in your area is dying, there might never come another tight labour market. Don't be too despondent, though. A dying industry makes lots of people completely abandon it, so the active labour market for the required skills might not be as loose as you expect.

[dmills]

Truth to that, "digital is cool, analogue is dead"... but I seldom find a CV which includes 120+dB gain range IF amps, sonar matching networks and RF bollocks from DC to daylight to cause me much trouble finding a job.

Thing is, you are not looking for loads of jobs, you are looking for one job that actually fits you, a totally different sort of problem.

We have a fairly useful question (For the sort of engineer we typically need, there are other kinds) "Tell me about something you built", could be electronics, could be automotive, could be a tree house, I really don't care what it was. Talk to me about design, sketch the architecture on a white board, talk tradeoffs, research, why you decided on that and not the other, cost Vs performance, lessons learned, but please have built SOMETHING other then a school project...... 

Regards, Dan.

[4CX35000]

Regretably possibly the biggest problem you face particulalry with medium to large organisations is getting past the HR dragons. Line managers can't just hire, they have to have planned budget and go through a process dictated to them by HR. Many HR idiots will only take through preferred recruitment agencies (and sometimes only one!) and those agencies will almost certainly run some rudimentary filtering (usually very badly) to save HR the effort of doing their jobs.

Unless you know the unpublished HR process you unfortunately need to be prepared not to get much response. It is a numbers game, the more you apply for the better chance you have.

Having a degree will certainly help get through some of the gates, there is a mentality to not even look at someone unless they have at least a degree.

I've generally found SMEs to be far easier to deal with than larger companies, as SMEs tend not to have wasted time and money on such strict and narrow minded HR recruitment policies.

I was told by a colleague a while back who graduated around 2008 that he applied for a job with a German Multinational who proudly boasted about a five stage interview process. Myself I have only ever had one or two interviews at the most and worked in many areas from high powered RF transmission; high speed low voltage upwards of 10GHz and industrial control and telemetry (SCADA).

From what he said the interview process for the German company was.
Stage 1. Telephone Interview.
Stage 2. Selection of individual tests including some type of maths and english exam.
Stage 3. Group exercise.
Stage 4. First Interview.
Stage 5. Second Interview.

[John Coloccia]

Well put, Mr Coloccia. That's exactly my attitude, with one caveat... the degree and university can be relevant, depending on the job.

For example, I know from experience that if I need an engineer that can choose a modulation scheme or design an access protocol or similar, then someone from the University of the South Bank is highly unlikely to be as useful as someone from the University of Southampton. OTOH, if I want someone that will simply follow instructions, then the University of the South Bank may be preferable.

I agree that degree is important for a new grad, because I want to have a base to work from. In the US, I don't really look at the university at all. I've had world class engineers from well known engineering schools, and I've also had new grads that couldn't engineer a ham sandwich if their lives depended on it. I meant more that I don't look at things like GPA, class rank and things like that. I know that some of the most talented people are highly intelligent, bored with the standard curriculum and simply end up not doing the work to get the grades. THAT'S the guy I want to hire!

[cdev]

The larger the organization, the more complicated their hiring process, perhaps?

Also I think engineers (or any technical specialist) if they want their work to be appreciated, is best employed in a business where their work is part of the main product sold by the business.

That usually means a smaller company, for a beginner. Smaller companies create a lot more jobs, and they tend to be better jobs, than big ones do.

[coppice]

That usually means a smaller company, for a beginner.

Small companies are a mixed bag for a beginner. The downside is there are usually a lot less experienced people to learn from, and you will probably be required to do a broad mix of things in parallel, all of which you'll be trying to get to grips with for the first time. This can overwhelm a lot of people, and you may not be able to spend enough time on any one thing to become a true master of it. The upside is you generally get to work on the entire cycle from product definition, through product development and production, to customer support. So, you get broad experience more quickly, which may be a good grounding for moving up the ladder or starting your own company.

Beware of personality issues in a small company. If you have a problem with someone, your supervisor or otherwise, in a large company you can usually bide your time and find a way to move out of that situation. If you have issues with someone in a small company, especially your supervisor, your only escape route in most cases is to leave.

Smaller companies create a lot more jobs, and they tend to be better jobs, than big ones do.

I think that might depend on what you consider makes a job better.

[4CX35000]

The larger the organization, the more complicated their hiring process, perhaps?

Also I think engineers (or any technical specialist) if they want their work to be appreciated, is best employed in a business where their work is part of the main product sold by the business.

That usually means a smaller company, for a beginner. Smaller companies create a lot more jobs, and they tend to be better jobs, than big ones do.

I can agree with working for a smaller company as opportunities are greater with smaller companies because there are many smaller companies around hiring at any time, but the downside of a small company is promotion opportunities to work in management or senior Engineer type positions are limited and nepotism can be used to give a family member of a director management experience to improve the individual career prospects and cast aside employees who know the job and find themselves ignored or treated badly when they ask for promotion themselves. When this happens the only option is to leave; but this can be of advantage as larger employers will be interested in the experience gained with the smaller company. That experience will be of much more value than what any graduate can bring to the table and often bypass the graduate trainee rubbish many large companies often require graduates to do.

[tggzzz]

Well put, Mr Coloccia. That's exactly my attitude, with one caveat... the degree and university can be relevant, depending on the job.

For example, I know from experience that if I need an engineer that can choose a modulation scheme or design an access protocol or similar, then someone from the University of the South Bank is highly unlikely to be as useful as someone from the University of Southampton. OTOH, if I want someone that will simply follow instructions, then the University of the South Bank may be preferable.

I agree that degree is important for a new grad, because I want to have a base to work from. In the US, I don't really look at the university at all. I've had world class engineers from well known engineering schools, and I've also had new grads that couldn't engineer a ham sandwich if their lives depended on it. I meant more that I don't look at things like GPA, class rank and things like that. I know that some of the most talented people are highly intelligent, bored with the standard curriculum and simply end up not doing the work to get the grades. THAT'S the guy I want to hire!

I don't disagree, but I'll stand by my statement even for a someone other than a new grad.

I'll add one very important reason to have a good degree from a good university: to get past the naive filters used by HR-droids and recruitment-bots. Neither of those have a technical clue, but they are the gatekeepers If they are faced with a stack of 300 CVs, their first task is (not too unreasonably) to decide which 250 to file in the wastepaper bin without reading in detail. A crappy degree or a crappy university is an easy target.

Sensible? Of course not, but that's how the world (dys)functions.

[cdev]

with the caveat that I am not an engineer (although Ive always wanted to be) I saw an interesting publication recently "Globalization, Engineering, and Creativity" by John Reader that touches on many of the issues Ive been thinking about as I surf the net and read about globalization's winners and losers.

We need to think of where we all are going and what we want to do when (if) we get there. We are all in this together. Its not a zero sum game.

[raptor1956]

One of the big problems in this day and age are that most of the hiring is first filtered through job boards or similar and they are just about 100% based on academic scores.  Back in the day a hugely talented person that lacked the academic credentials could still have a chance if they do well on the interview, but now adays you don't get an interview unless the credentials are in order.  So many talented people that used to have a chance no longer do given the system.


Brian

[cdev]

Its just the math, in the environment where little hiring is done, the fewer and fewer decisions that are made become ever more arbitrary, irregardless whether they are based on one system (there are several which could be chosen from) or another.

There are big changes being pushed hard all around the world and there has not been practically any honest discussion of them, probably because they know they will be unpopular with many people in developed countries, especially. But they are determined to go through with it. Basically its the extension of the global value chains concept made popular in manufacturing to services, which are as many as 80% of some economies. In the US, a good analogy would be - think NAFTA for the other 80% of all jobs. Office or desk jobs. Engineering is viewed as a fertile ground for these changes because of the high gradient in wages that despite 20 years of globalization, still exists between North and South. The push to harmonize is intended to lower opportunity costs and make it easier for businesses by making workers more competitive.  (See World Competition Day, etc.) 

Some of the most unfamiliar and potentially arbitrary new rules will only apply when the source of money to do some job (is in part public funds) Under FTAs, often that triggers requirements that a service RFP or similar be tendered internationally. Under some trade instruments (positive list, or bottom up) a list of whats included determines whether rules are applicable, in some other instruments, (top down, negative list or "US style") things have to be excluded, or they are included by default. Even services that have not been invented yet. This also keeps the changes out of the news media.

Anyway, apart from the "everything on by default" scenario, even in smaller regional preferential trade agreements, quite arbitrary "schedules" hashed out in back room negotiations (to see some go to bilaterals.org and look under TISA, the bracketed texts are disputed, and you can see what countries proposed what) ) by and large determine whether international trade rules have potential to be important on a service sector by service sector basis- for services contracting or subcontracting contexts when borders are crossed in any of the "four modes of supply". (Only one or two of them are what we usually think of when we think of international trade in services, so expect a shock from many people, as suddenly big chunks of their lives change.)

https://www.slideshare.net/GitanjaliMaria/four-modes-of-wto

These new rules may often apply even when no international trade is contemplated in that particular case because government policy may effect the conditions of trade, such as market access or discriminatory practices.

Those are the rules that have the potential to create confusion and difficulty. Of course, to some countries, they are also the vessel for a great many peoples hopes, they are the long delayed pay-back for globalization.

Countries are hoping that they will win more than they lose and there are definitely winners and losers. Its hardto say what the impact of the very great many changes being made by these agreements, which inflexibly lock in forever and become incredibly costly to back out of, intentionally almost impossibly costly.

Thats why I personally think they are very ill advised to make so many huge changes at the same time without any safety net for the millions of people who will lose their jobs. (Probably much less so in engineering than in many other fields)

Quote from: raptor1956 on Today at 17:36:58

One of the big problems in this day and age are that most of the hiring is first filtered through job boards or similar and they are just about 100% based on academic scores.  Back in the day a hugely talented person that lacked the academic credentials could still have a chance if they do well on the interview, but now adays you don't get an interview unless the credentials are in order.  So many talented people that used to have a chance no longer do given the system.


Brian

[IanB]

cdev, why do you keep posting all this bullshit, especially when it has nothing to do with the subject of the thread?

[R005T3r]

I'm an EE student. I am studying EE engegnering because:
1. I like it even if it's hard
2. I want to understand electronics better (and it's one of my mains hobby) even if I didn't have any background on it.

I don't know how the market will be in 5+ years ahead of now (it may well be over for electronics, or electronics may get surpassed by software engegneering). And I tell you what: I don't care. I'm not studying for profit, I'm studying for myself, it's a challenge to surpass my limits and surpass someone I know... If you want to become rich, probably university is probably not suited for you: get into entrepreneurship and investment once you have the money, if you are smart, in 15 years, you will alredy have 1 million dollars... My uncle did that, and he didn't even had a bachelor's degree!

[cdev]

These are all the best reasons to go into electronics. People who enjoy something like electronics a lot - enough to spend their "time off" doing it too, IMHO will quite likely also be successful at it.



Quote from: R005T3r on Today at 08:03:49

I'm an EE student. I am studying EE engegnering because:
1. I like it even if it's hard
2. I want to understand electronics better (and it's one of my mains hobby) even if I didn't have any background on it.

I don't know how the market will be in 5+ years ahead of now (it may well be over for electronics, or electronics may get surpassed by software engegneering). And I tell you what: I don't care. I'm not studying for profit, I'm studying for myself, it's a challenge to surpass my limits and surpass someone I know... If you want to become rich, probably university is probably not suited for you: get into entrepreneurship and investment once you have the money, if you are smart, in 15 years, you will alredy have 1 million dollars... My uncle did that, and he didn't even had a bachelor's degree!