Xiaofan wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:34 AM, William Chops Westfield > wrote: >> Perhaps it's one of those "legacy educational" things; the Powers >> That Be are so intrenched in teaching EE in the old ways (calculus, >> physics, more calculus, etc) that no one has even tried to do it >> differently... Every once in a while you find someone who is "self- >> taught" and effective without that background. but it's rare... > > Maybe it has more to do with typical corporate HR policy and > career ladder. It is difficult for a self-taught to enter the > door of a company as an engineer... Yes - I'm an IT manager, so in IT, not EE, but the same applies. I hire developers, and I am much more likely to hire one with a "proper" CS degree, than someone who is self-taught. Why? Because I don't want a talented cowboy, who thinks he knows it all. I want someone who thinks in a structured way about problems. Specific skills are easily enough learned - if someone has the right approach, I can send them on a course to bring them up to date on language XYZ. I just find that those with a formal education produce better results (quality), in the long run, particularly when working as a team. > As for education, I think that is the right way to teach EE. > You need some calculus and physics to understand EE. > If you compare young European students and US students, > European students often have better theoretical background > but they still can catch up with the practical aspect very fast > with the training in the university. Yes - I agree that some things (like a 555 timer) can be used quite well, most of the time, with only a "block-level" view of them. But - how would you ever understand how inductors behave, without knowing what di/dt means? Or, speaking of 'i' (but let's make it 'j') - I remember being impressed, in 2nd year (Americans call it sophomore, I think?), how useful complex numbers are - how elegant the concept of complex impedances is, and how nicely it all works out. Or seeing how useful Laplace and Fourier transforms were. Never mind the horrors of control theory, from 3rd year... The maths (math, for Americans) provides a basis that makes it much easier to understand what's going on. There is a difference between being an engineer and a technician - it's about depth of knowledge. And, as I wrote about developers above, approach. The neat thing ("cool", these days?) about engineering is being able to actually calculate the right answer from available data, instead of randomly trying stuff until it works, and hoping for the best. While of course understanding that practice often doesn't match the theory - but also, hopefully, also appreciating why it doesn't (as in the comments about earth loops and such). David Meiklejohn -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist