This discussion suggests that academic performance is not necessarily an =

indicator of future success.  Many have based their predictions on measured =

academic performance.  However, I remember once when I had advertised for a =

technician (Electronics Tech) a resume came across my desk that made me =

chuckle.  I asked for a 4 year college degree and the applicant had dropped =

out in the first year, with poor grades.  Furthermore, he had none of the =

experience I was looking for.  To make a long story short, he pestered me =

until I hired him on condition he prove himself.

I was surprised to find that he was the best tech I ever hired.  He was abl=
e =

to somehow troubleshoot successfully, build prototypes successfully, and =

coordinate the installation of complex control systems.

He eventually decided that music was his passion and went off to pursue =

that.  I lost touch with him but I learned something about academic =

performance and ability.  It may be the general rule but it is not likely =

the cardinal rule.




----- Original Message ----- =

From: "Gerhard Fiedler" <lists@connectionbrazil.com>
To: <piclist@mit.edu>
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: [OT] What Makes an Engineer Succesful


G=F6khan SEVER wrote:

> Engineering is the art of applying scientific principles to solve a
> problem.

I think that engineering is about more than science. Ever heard of the
black arts of engineering? Like high-frequency PCBs or network
configuration? Having a good intuition is crucial, too :)

And this leaves out all the more mundane aspects of realization of
anything: planning, dealing with suppliers, contractors, team members,
juggling conflicting priorities etc. I'd say the process of "applying
scientific principles" is probably not more than 20% to 50% of a typical
engineer's work. It's higher for the ones that work in pure R&D jobs in big
organizations, and it's usually pretty low for the ones who try to do it on
their own.


> Engineering projects are bound by three variables: the number of problems
> to solve, the funds available to solve these problems, and the delivery
> date of the finished items. The catch is you can only fix two of the
> variables, while the third is determined by the others.

This sounds as if the author equalized e.g. available resources with
available funds. That's not the same. To paraphrase a common saying: there
are things money can't buy. It's not always only a question of money. So
I'd definitely add the non-monetary resources to the constraints.

> The real indicators for engineering performance reside in a person's
> personality traits, ability to think innovatively, and skill in
> interacting with others.

Right... this kind of contradicts the above statement about application of
scientific principles as primary activity. These here ("think
innovatively", "interact with others") don't sound like primarily being
application of scientific principles... :)

> Personnel departments (often for legal reasons) stay away from trying to
> rate these subjective areas and stick to easily quantified areas, i.e.,
> "GPA, class standing, etc." Thus, many potentially good engineers are
> turned away due to poor grades.

It's called "politically correct" for a reason (like if there was anything
that could be "political" and "correct" at the same time :). I really
wonder if there ever will be a stable balance between social peace and
individual freedom.

Gerhard

-- =

http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist =


-- =

http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist