Job posting

On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 09:05:53 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>On 04/09/2014 02:12 AM, Robert Baer wrote:
>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 09:14:22 -0700, RobertMacy
>>> <robert.a.macy@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 08:42:38 -0700, Jim Thompson
>>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@on-my-web-site.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Job posting...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Synaptics - Phoenix, AZ
>>>>> ... Ph.D. program in E.E. Analog circuit coursework and hands-on lab
>>>>> experience a must Hands-on experience with digital multi-meter,
>>>>> oscilloscope, etc...."
>>>>>
>>>>> Bwahahahaha>:-}
>>>>>
>>>>>                                          ...Jim Thompson
>>>>
>>>> aren't they HQ'd in Santa Clara, CA?
>>>
>>> I don't know, I think so.
>>>
>>>> Jim Tiernan still president?
>>>
>>> I don't know the management structure.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> have you done work for them?
>>>
>>> Yes.  The Rochester (NY) group... touch screens.
>>>
>>> I thought the job posting rather hilarious... needed, a PhD, but must
>>> be able to handle a multimeter...>:-}
>>>
>>>                                          ...Jim Thompson
>>    Once upon a time, a long time ago, at SLAC, there was this Physics
>> PHD that literally did not know what an oscilloscope looked like, the
>> difference between a capacitor and a variac, was appalled to discover
>> that TEST EQUIPMENT was necessary as a part of any physics experiment.
>>    After he "learned" about the PHAs, coincidence detectors, etc he
>> proceeded to destroy a few hundred thousand dollars worth of electronics.
>>
>>    Bottom line, numerous schools teach theory ONLY and give worthless
>> PHDs; NO PRACTICE - not even a hint.
>>
>
>I've had to teach a theoretician how to hammer a nail into a 2x4 without 
>bending it.  But some of them are great--I used to work with one of the 
>gurus of quantum computing theory, and he was a thoroughly practical 
>character.
>
>Cheers
>
>Phil Hobbs

There is hardly any experimental science left that doesn't involve a lot of
electronics. A couple of courses along the lines of AoE should be mandatory for
any science education.


-- 

John Larkin                  Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com   jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com   

Precision electronic instrumentation

On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 11:30:10 AM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> On 04/09/2014 10:58 AM, Joerg wrote:
>=20
<Big snip>
Sorry just sticking this on the end of the thread... going through my email=
s I had this from a professor.. which is typical of small schools these day=
s.
Everyone is fighting to get grants.

Quote follows,
George H.

"As a faculty myself, I am just as guilty of ignoring our teaching for rese=
arch. In fact, we are stressed out by the research and funding activities, =
which are increasingly difficult and sporadic in recent years (what is new?=
). I am working on some proposals currently and won't have much time to tak=
e care the instrument. If the instructions are clear, would you send them t=
o me? "

On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 07:48:34 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>krw@attt.bizz wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 13:50:00 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 08:42:38 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Job posting...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Synaptics - Phoenix, AZ ... Ph.D. program in E.E. Analog circuit
>>>>> coursework and hands-on lab experience a must Hands-on experience with
>>>>> digital multi-meter, oscilloscope, etc...."
>>>> They must have hired some of the other kind.
>>>>
>>>> My uncle used to work for Boeing.  When he interviewed engineering 
>>>> candidates he'd make sure to have a soldering iron in his drawer.  At 
>>>> some point he'd casually pick it up and hand it, point-first, to the 
>>>> candidate, with a "here".
>>>>
>>>> If you grabbed it by the point (which, apparently, many did), your 
>>>> interview was polite and short, and you didn't get hired.
>>>>
>>> I do similar things when tasked with interviewing people, although on
>>> the whiteboard instead of with tools. Well, I did place some folks in
>>> front of a scope and asked them to make something visible without using
>>> the granny button.
>> 
>> My first day at IBM, I was shown a bench with a nice pretty new 7904
>> on a cart in front of it.  After five minutes I had to ask where the
>> power switch was.  For those of you kids unfamiliar with the 7904, the
>> power switch was a *big* bat handled switch right in the middle of the
>> front panel.  I was looking at all the other controls trying to figure
>> out where they hid the power switch.  ;-)
>> 
>
>It's on the left and sez "Power" on it :-)
>
>http://www.ebay.com/itm/Working-Tektronix-7904A-500MHz-4-Slot-Oscilloscope-Mainframe-/400678543689?pt=BI_Oscilloscopes&hash=item5d4a4d6149

Older one.  The power switch was a bat-handled toggle switch.

>Sometimes it can be weird. On my 7704 it is in the same spot but has to
>be grabbed and pulled. They made it easy for newbies though by writing
>"Power (Pull)" above it.

Hey, it didn't say "read" in the job description.  ;-)

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 07:48:34 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
> 

[...]

>> Sometimes it can be weird. On my 7704 it is in the same spot but has to
>> be grabbed and pulled. They made it easy for newbies though by writing
>> "Power (Pull)" above it.
> 
> Hey, it didn't say "read" in the job description.  ;-)


:-)

No kidding: When I was in the army there were trends to migrate
calibration instructions and the like from text to pictorials. Because
lots of folks could not properly comprehend written text. Which made me
wonder how they ever passed the written test for the driver's license.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

George Herold wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 10:58:27 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
>> George Herold wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 2:12:33 AM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:
> <snip>
>>> Well I can't speak about EE's, but I'm almost on the front lines
>>> of "practical" physics education.  And there are plenty of
>>> Physics Prof's out there who do care about the more practical
>>> aspects of their craft, and are trying hard to pass that
>>> knowledge on to their students.
>>> 
>>> And of course there are only so many hours in a day.  Sure 
>>> programming in labview and running a spectrum analyzer may help
>>> in their future careers, but there is none of that on their
>>> qualifyin exams. ...
> 
>> 
>> And that's where the problem is. In my days it was not important
>> what was on the exam or not. If it is for the new kids then the
>> exams need to change.
> 
> Well if they don't pass the qualifying exam then they are out the
> door... no degree.  (This is for Master's and PhD's)


Maybe that's how it should be for people with next to nothing in real
hands-on skills.

>> 
>> Unfortunately there are still professors out there who believe that
>> it is not the job of universities to teach what the industry needs
>> in candidates. Well, there news for them: It is!
> 
> Sure but the student's do care, and so do the Deans.  They all want
> the students to get jobs!  I was at the University of Albany
> nanofabrication facility a few weeks ago.  IBM and Semtec and maybe
> some other firms are right on campus.  The students do projects with
> the companies and then most of them move right into a job.  According
> to the professor I was meeting with the students are banging down the
> doors to get in.
> 

That's how it should be. Unfortunately I have seen way to many opposite
examples. For example, where people had become hotshot LabView
programmers but didn't have the foggiest about any of the interface stuff.


> So my take is that it's changing.  If school X has 90% of it's
> students getting jobs and school Y is only 50%, then the students
> will choose school X.
> 

That would be excellent. I liove competition becasue that fixes many
problems, most of all complacency.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Phil Hobbs wrote:
> On 04/09/2014 10:58 AM, Joerg wrote:
>> George Herold wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 2:12:33 AM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:
>>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>> <snip> ...Jim Thompson
>>>> Once upon a time, a long time ago, at SLAC, there was this Physics
>>>>   PHD that literally did not know what an oscilloscope looked like,
>>>> the difference between a capacitor and a variac, was appalled to
>>>> discover that TEST EQUIPMENT was necessary as a part of any physics
>>>> experiment. After he "learned" about the PHAs, coincidence
>>>> detectors, etc he proceeded to destroy a few hundred thousand
>>>> dollars worth of electronics.
>>>>
>>>> Bottom line, numerous schools teach theory ONLY and give worthless
>>>>   PHDs; NO PRACTICE - not even a hint.
>>>
>>> Well I can't speak about EE's, but I'm almost on the front lines of
>>> "practical" physics education.  And there are plenty of Physics
>>> Prof's out there who do care about the more practical aspects of
>>> their craft, and are trying hard to pass that knowledge on to their
>>> students.
>>>
>>> And of course there are only so many hours in a day.  Sure
>>> programming in labview and running a spectrum analyzer may help in
>>> their future careers, but there is none of that on their qualifying
>>> exams. ...
>>
>>
>> And that's where the problem is. In my days it was not important what
>> was on the exam or not. If it is for the new kids then the exams need to
>> change.
> 
> George was talking about quals, not normal course exams.  Your average
> beginning EE grad student is a Schroedinger's cat: a quantum
> superposition of a Master's and a Ph.D program, and quals are what opens
> the box. ...


Because our high schools and other schools fail to ascertain the
qualifications? I did not have to go through any qualification exam but
simply signed on. Non-performers flew out latest after the fourth
semester, most after the second. Some resigned after just a few weeks
and typically switched to some liberal arts path with lower hurdles.

I would prefer that our high schools make sure kids know their math,
physics, English and so on when they graduate. But in many "liberal"
regions that would not be PC.


>      ...  In EE the quals tend to be tougher, because the BSEE is the
> basic professional qualification, and an MSEE is better.  In physics, a
> Ph.D. is the basic professional qualification, and a B.Sc. or master's
> degree generally gets you a job teaching high school.
> 

One reason I would never study physics :-)

It is similar in chemistry. If you don't have a Ph.D. you may not have a
real career. Not my kind of turf. I was offered a Ph.D. position at the
Institute of Measurement Technology of my university after I got my MSEE
but politely declined and instead hightailed it into industry right away.

[...]

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

George Herold wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 11:30:10 AM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>> On 04/09/2014 10:58 AM, Joerg wrote:
>> 
> <Big snip> Sorry just sticking this on the end of the thread... going
> through my emails I had this from a professor.. which is typical of
> small schools these days. Everyone is fighting to get grants.
> 
> Quote follows, George H.
> 
> "As a faculty myself, I am just as guilty of ignoring our teaching
> for research. In fact, we are stressed out by the research and
> funding activities, which are increasingly difficult and sporadic in
> recent years (what is new?). I am working on some proposals currently
> and won't have much time to take care the instrument. If the
> instructions are clear, would you send them to me? "


If they stopped nonsense such as paying for positions such as
"communications chief" $260,000 per year that would not be necessary.
This is not a joke but is actually what UC Davis pays. Ridiculous and
sad, IMHO.

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/05/5624083/ucd-pays-top-dollar-for-communications.html

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 04/09/2014 12:33 PM, Joerg wrote:
> Phil Hobbs wrote:
>> On 04/09/2014 10:58 AM, Joerg wrote:
>>> George Herold wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 2:12:33 AM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:
>>>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>> <snip> ...Jim Thompson
>>>>> Once upon a time, a long time ago, at SLAC, there was this Physics
>>>>>    PHD that literally did not know what an oscilloscope looked like,
>>>>> the difference between a capacitor and a variac, was appalled to
>>>>> discover that TEST EQUIPMENT was necessary as a part of any physics
>>>>> experiment. After he "learned" about the PHAs, coincidence
>>>>> detectors, etc he proceeded to destroy a few hundred thousand
>>>>> dollars worth of electronics.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bottom line, numerous schools teach theory ONLY and give worthless
>>>>>    PHDs; NO PRACTICE - not even a hint.
>>>>
>>>> Well I can't speak about EE's, but I'm almost on the front lines of
>>>> "practical" physics education.  And there are plenty of Physics
>>>> Prof's out there who do care about the more practical aspects of
>>>> their craft, and are trying hard to pass that knowledge on to their
>>>> students.
>>>>
>>>> And of course there are only so many hours in a day.  Sure
>>>> programming in labview and running a spectrum analyzer may help in
>>>> their future careers, but there is none of that on their qualifying
>>>> exams. ...
>>>
>>>
>>> And that's where the problem is. In my days it was not important what
>>> was on the exam or not. If it is for the new kids then the exams need to
>>> change.
>>
>> George was talking about quals, not normal course exams.  Your average
>> beginning EE grad student is a Schroedinger's cat: a quantum
>> superposition of a Master's and a Ph.D program, and quals are what opens
>> the box. ...
>
>
> Because our high schools and other schools fail to ascertain the
> qualifications? I did not have to go through any qualification exam but
> simply signed on. Non-performers flew out latest after the fourth
> semester, most after the second. Some resigned after just a few weeks
> and typically switched to some liberal arts path with lower hurdles.

No, because people take quals after the first year of grad school.


>
> I would prefer that our high schools make sure kids know their math,
> physics, English and so on when they graduate. But in many "liberal"
> regions that would not be PC.

No argument there.
>
>
>>       ...  In EE the quals tend to be tougher, because the BSEE is the
>> basic professional qualification, and an MSEE is better.  In physics, a
>> Ph.D. is the basic professional qualification, and a B.Sc. or master's
>> degree generally gets you a job teaching high school.
>>
>
> One reason I would never study physics :-)
>
> It is similar in chemistry. If you don't have a Ph.D. you may not have a
> real career. Not my kind of turf. I was offered a Ph.D. position at the
> Institute of Measurement Technology of my university after I got my MSEE
> but politely declined and instead hightailed it into industry right away.

When I graduated, back in 1987, I wanted to be a professor, but I was 
always quite clear that I didn't ever want to be an _assistant_ 
professor.  So I went to IBM Research, hoping to be there about 5 or 6 
years, publish a bunch of papers, and slide into a tenured position that 
way.  (Used to be quite possible, back when US industrial labs still had 
their health.)

Then the Berlin Wall came down, and the DARPA/NRL/USAF gravy train came 
to a screeching halt, so I stayed where I was.  Given how miserable it 
is being a prof these days, I'm pretty happy about that.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

-- 
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

On Thursday, 10 April 2014 01:40:01 UTC+10, John Larkin  wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 09:05:53 -0400, Phil Hobbs
> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: 
> >On 04/09/2014 02:12 AM, Robert Baer wrote: 
> >> Jim Thompson wrote: 
> >>> On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 09:14:22 -0700, RobertMacy 
> >>> <robert.a.macy@gmail.com>  wrote: 
> >>>> On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 08:42:38 -0700, Jim Thompson 
> >>>> <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@on-my-web-site.com>  wrote:

<snip> 
 
> There is hardly any experimental science left that doesn't involve a lot of 
> electronics. A couple of courses along the lines of AoE should be mandatory 
> for any science education.

AoE was written for Paul Horowitz's electronics for physicists course at Harvard.

It's used as the course text at Cambridge, UK too. Both of these institutions get to select the brightest students. AoE is a bit too much like hard work for institutions that are catering for the rejects from Harvard and the Cambridge colleges.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Thursday, 10 April 2014 02:33:11 UTC+10, Joerg  wrote:
> Phil Hobbs wrote:
> > On 04/09/2014 10:58 AM, Joerg wrote:=20
> >> George Herold wrote:=20
> >>> On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 2:12:33 AM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:=20
> >>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
> >>> <snip> ...Jim Thompson

<snip>

> >      ...  In EE the quals tend to be tougher, because the BSEE is the
> > basic professional qualification, and an MSEE is better.  In physics, a
> > Ph.D. is the basic professional qualification, and a B.Sc. or master's
> > degree generally gets you a job teaching high school. =20
>=20
> One reason I would never study physics :-)
> =20
> It is similar in chemistry. If you don't have a Ph.D. you may not have a=
=20
> real career. Not my kind of turf. I was offered a Ph.D. position at the=
=20
> Institute of Measurement Technology of my university after I got my MSEE=
=20
> but politely declined and instead hightailed it into industry right away.

A B.Sc or a Master's degree in Chemistry would have got me a job in the che=
mical industry, while my Ph.D, got me a job in the electronics industry, wo=
rking on unconventional high speed printers.

The crucial part of my job interview went "Tell us how a Xerox copier works=
". I did know, and could tell them, and they liked my answer. My future bos=
s said "Good. You've got the job", though it took them a week to get the fo=
rmal job offer into the post, which was awkward, because by that time I'd f=
inally accepted another job (at the BHP steel mills in Newcastle, a long wa=
y away, for one year, which I didn't really want, and backed out of - by te=
legram - as soon at the other offer came through).

My father - who only had a B.Sc. in Chemistry - was happy to hire Ph.D.s. T=
hey knew nothing about the paper industry, just like every other graduate h=
e could hire, but he didn't have to spend as much time getting them started=
 on solving the problems he wanted solved. He just had to point them at the=
 laboratory library (which was substantial) and they'd read up on the stuff=
 they needed to know. B.Sc.'s needed to be pointed at the right books and a=
rticles, and he had to make sure that they were comprehending what they wer=
e reading ...

--=20
Bill Sloman, Sydney