Any engineers here in the forums who work in RnD of technology?

[bananasushi]

I graduated in 2014. There has been no jobs since then. My graduating class and the ones after me, most haven't been able to find work.

 

[bananasushi]

Get a degree in math, the sciences, or engineering from a university well-regarded in the field and apply for a job.

I got a B.Sc. in physics from Caltech, and that opened a lot of doors for me. I worked for over a decade in Research and Development, and while it wasn't glamorous, the pay and perks were fantastic.

 

[bananasushi]

Another issue is age-related, and many employers of these hot profession seem to only want to hire young people, if they don't outright state it; I suspect that some of the diversity initiatives in industry are actually subtle ploys to drive out older workers. If the OP isn't in the teens or twenties, then maybe another profession might be more satisfactory in the long term.

I'm almost 35. :-( I'll be 39 or 40 when I graduate. I will probably do the co-op program. That will ensure I'm getting work experience/internship with a company.

 

[bananasushi]

I would suggest that a strong alternative to CS is an EE/ECE degree, if you want to be more hardware-focused. Many EE/ECE programs now have a decent amount of software - although usually focusing more on embedded software (such as microcontrollers).

Sorry, I'm not familiar with ECE. What is ECE?

 

[Joofa]

Actually, almost nobody will, in a good department. Post-doc is the norm now. Again, this is a job.

Exactly, and that is the issue, and supports some of the stuff that I said from beginning. Firstly, post-doc is a low paying job compared to what people make in industry. Secondly, even taking your own numbers one is is either early 30s or mid 30s when they get an Assistant Prof. offer. So one has already wasted prime of their youthful life (20 - 35) age, and still only 50% (by your own admission) will go forward with an actual job offer of an Assistant Prof. The rest, TaTa.

TaTa is to go to the industry for a much higher pay, as you say.

And, that is exploitation. As I indicated earlier the universities can do it, because, even if we take your number of 50%, they know there is an overabundance of ph.d's That is just cruel - doing it to a highly educated individual almost at the end of his/her prime youthful age.

And, also one reason the EE / CS depts can't do it as much as Math and Physics, because the EE / CS students have better prospects in computing industry and a large number would just refuse to be on post-doc. So usually EE / CS appointments are direct Assist Prof. level.

Math and Physics depts just exploit putting 75% of new phd hire on post-docs!. Because they can - and more than EE / CS depts.

And, not all of those 50% who are lucky and go ahead will still further get tenure, in general.

Very few do not. Of the ones I know, they just move to a lower rank university.

That is possibly not what one was hoping when they started their career. Again, another low of academia again because of an over abundance of phds.

So the prime age wasted on meager pay with risks still continuing!

That is too much risk.

There is risk everywhere. About the pay - it lasts for longer and increases with age even if your productivity decreases. The total integral is comparable.

No. I don't think so.

As I said, overall, it is not a bad deal.

If one is a tenured prof.

Many of my colleagues never retire. Also, very often, you do not live in the most expensive part of the country like the Silicon Valley. If you are in an applied filed, you can make money on the side. One of my CS colleagues created a company which grew to a multi-million one, with the participation of the university, of course. Many do consulting.

See CS people will always make money.

Also, the numbers you may find online do not include summer pay which is hard to get but adds 20-30% to the salary. We travel a lot (good for photography!), etc.

Yeah, but it is still less than industry pay, in general.

--
Dj Joofa
http://www.djjoofa.com

 

[Joofa]

Yeah to be honest, I'm not interested in getting a Ph.D

If that is what I need to go into Rnd, it's out of the question. I'm still worried about the $40,000 I would incur getting my undergrad.

A PhD may offer no financial benefit over a master’s degree many times. It can even reduce earnings. See this Economist article:

https://medium.economist.com/why-doing-a-phd-is-often-a-waste-of-time-349206f9addb

I already did 2 years and didn't get a job. Luckily I have no debt. I know some ppl with Business degrees and Computer Engineering degrees with no job. My friend with a computer engineering degree graduated here about 10 or more years ago. I'm scared to go $40,000 in debt and not get a job. Nothing is guaranteed. I'd have to pay back my loan working a crappy low paying job if I couldn't get an engineering job.

I would only be interested in getting a masters if my employer wanted me to get it and they paid for it.

An idea is going into an emerging field like Nano engineering. It's emerging. Maybe something that is emerging is easier to find work because the market isn't flooded, or maybe it's not easy because it hasn't been established as much? I don't know.

Computer Science,

Software Engineering,

Electrical, Mechanical, or some other Engineering.

Those interest me. But why bother learning high level math if it isn't used in the workplace.

If you want to make quick and good money then learn the following programming skills (at least in US, don't know much about Canada) for a 'front end' developer. You don't need a CS degree for that. Just learn Javascript, a little bit of python or php in case you need it, and node.js. Also, a charting library such as d3, chartjs. And a Javascript framework such as React and / or AngularJS. You can suddenly start making good money after just putting a few months of effort in teaching yourself these things. And, in case you already know these skills then you are already qualified for a front end developer job.

After you start a job with these skill sets learn MongoDB, SQL (postgres or mysql) and then suddenly you can find jobs at the 'back end' also. Learn Java during this time frame. And, Python.

Ok, once you have this stage, now is the time to jump start you into 'data science' or rather more like a data engineer role. You don't need a degree in machine learning for that. There are short cuts here.

 

[Eric Fossum]

Hi, I'm interested in working in research and development with technology companies. I like math, physics, design and creation.

I'm assuming it's not that glamorous of a job, but it could be cool being part of a team developing something new or improving something.

Most of the responders so far have focused on income potential. If that is your goal, then aim for FinTech - although AI may wipe out a lot of jobs in that area in the next decade or two. But, really, for most of us, you hit the nail on the head. It is fun to create. Period. If you are lucky and informed, the creation can lead to a new venture and wealth, but you cannot take that with you as they say. Daily happiness is much more valuable than money or things.

So, pick something you like and seem to have an aptitude for. I believe the rest will work itself out over time. In my case, I was very lucky several times over. But my intention, and my intention still (despite many many other options) is to stick with what I like to do, which is image sensors.

Also, getting a PhD isn't about the pay grade you will get, it is about the kind of work you will be able get. A PhD is basically a license to do research, and getting a PhD education (4-5 yrs) is typically a paid job, albeit just a the sustenance level. It is part of your career.

Anyway, if you want to create new things that have an impact in your lifetime, engineering is the right place to be. Physics and Math are longer term ventures (the math most engineers use comes from hundreds of years ago, and the physics from a hundred+ years ago) but again, if it is about what you enjoy, really, between that and family, what else can you ask for in life?

-EF

 

[KWNJr]

computer science

That's probably good advice to an individual these days, but undoubtedly bad for industry and society as a whole.

"If all you have is a hammer," as they say, "every problem looks like a nail." Not every product needs a WiFi-connected, Cloud-enabled solution.

Does industry still need metallurgists and mechanical engineers? Does industry *know* that it still needs unglamorous professions, or will it unknowingly package its fancy electronics in poorly-designed enclosures?

The "coding" initiative in schools is very likely a push to lower wages in the computer field, especially since it does not seek "the best and brightest" but rather the Everyman, or rather, Everyperson. For those with a knowlege of history, a "coder" was the second-to lowest rung on the computer software development hierarchy, above the now-obsolete keypunch operator, but below programmers and systems analysts, and for a while, coding was also an obsolete profession. Coders of the past have lately been elevated to the status of heroes.

In the book Psychology of Computer Programming (~1973) by Weinberg, there was a large variation in the performance of programmers (10x plus). Good programmers would do 10x or more better than the "average" programmer (lines of good code/day).

The industry has managed to get more and more use out of programmers by increasing the level of abstraction in each line of code. Raw machine instrustions -> assembler -> FORTRAN -> higher and higher levels of "meaning" in each line of code. I suspect the number of lines of code/day is constant - but each does more work.

Another issue is age-related, and many employers of these hot profession seem to only want to hire young people, if they don't outright state it; I suspect that some of the diversity initiatives in industry are actually subtle ploys to drive out older workers. If the OP isn't in the teens or twenties, then maybe another profession might be more satisfactory in the long term.

This has been endemic in several fields of Enginnering; since at least the 1960s; especially to keep salary's low. The EETIMES had many an article in the late 1960s and 1970s about mass layoffs in the federal contractiong world, every a contract went up for rebid. The existing company's contract would be taken over buy a lower bid. All the people laid off were offered employment again, but at "beginning" salary's. You could not build a career easily. (classic example: Cape Canaveral - Kennedy Space Center)

--
http://therefractedlight.blogspot.com

 

[J A C S]

Actually, almost nobody will, in a good department. Post-doc is the norm now. Again, this is a job.

Exactly, and that is the issue, and supports some of the stuff that I said from beginning. Firstly, post-doc is a low paying job compared to what people make in industry. Secondly, even taking your own numbers one is is either early 30s or mid 30s when they get an Assistant Prof. offer. So one has already wasted prime of their youthful life (20 - 35) age, and still only 50% (by your own admission) will go forward with an actual job offer of an Assistant Prof. The rest, TaTa.

TaTa is to go to the industry for a much higher pay, as you say.

And, that is exploitation. As I indicated earlier the universities can do it, because, even if we take your number of 50%, they know there is an overabundance of ph.d's That is just cruel - doing it to a highly educated individual almost at the end of his/her prime youthful age.

No, this is how a selective system works and should work.

And, also one reason the EE / CS depts can't do it as much as Math and Physics, because the EE / CS students have better prospects in computing industry and a large number would just refuse to be on post-doc. So usually EE / CS appointments are direct Assist Prof. level.

Math and Physics depts just exploit putting 75% of new phd hire on post-docs!. Because they can - and more than EE / CS depts.

Not that simple. You need more training in math to be independent. Post-doc is an opportunity to go to a different environment or to go to a place where you will never get a job like some of the top institutions.

And, not all of those 50% who are lucky and go ahead will still further get tenure, in general.

Very few do not. Of the ones I know, they just move to a lower rank university.

That is possibly not what one was hoping when they started their career. Again, another low of academia again because of an over abundance of phds.

Nothing wrong with that. I can assure you that this is how it worked even in the former Soviet Union and block; maybe even in Cuba or NK now. The supply must be higher than the demand and since this is the top of the academic pyramid, somebody must roll down.

So the prime age wasted on meager pay with risks still continuing!

That is too much risk.

There is risk everywhere. About the pay - it lasts for longer and increases with age even if your productivity decreases. The total integral is comparable.

No. I don't think so.

As I said, overall, it is not a bad deal.

If one is a tenured prof.

Unfortunately, it is almost guaranteed that you will get tenure somewhere unless you leave the system yourself. All those horror stories you may have heard are a thing of the past mostly.

Many of my colleagues never retire. Also, very often, you do not live in the most expensive part of the country like the Silicon Valley. If you are in an applied filed, you can make money on the side. One of my CS colleagues created a company which grew to a multi-million one, with the participation of the university, of course. Many do consulting.

See CS people will always make money.

They do. Almost everybody makes more money in the sciences or engineering. But then football players make even more. We are not there for the money. If somebody is hesitating whether to go to math or CS based on such criteria, my advice would be to go to CS, and that would be disservice to my CS colleagues.

Also, the numbers you may find online do not include summer pay which is hard to get but adds 20-30% to the salary. We travel a lot (good for photography!), etc.

Yeah, but it is still less than industry pay, in general.

Not when you are 75 if you can still walk then. And again, if that is what is important, you should not be even asking.

BTW, the OP is very far from all that. He is even wondering why he needs calculus.

 

[Mark S Abeln]

Another issue is age-related, and many employers of these hot profession seem to only want to hire young people, if they don't outright state it; I suspect that some of the diversity initiatives in industry are actually subtle ploys to drive out older workers. If the OP isn't in the teens or twenties, then maybe another profession might be more satisfactory in the long term.

I'm almost 35. :-( I'll be 39 or 40 when I graduate. I will probably do the co-op program. That will ensure I'm getting work experience/internship with a company.

That seems rather late to start in such an intellectually demanding field of study. It's not as bad as learning foreign languages late in life, but it's not going to be easy. Also, consider the youth bias widespread in the technology fields. At least in the USA, college costs have risen dramatically as easy credit for tuition became available, leading to burdensome debt for many students.

May I ask what is your education and job experience? Perhaps there is some other related field?

 

[OpticsEngineer]

"....even though engineering students all have to learn calculus, in the actual work place, most never use it."

We learn calculus as a stepping stone so we can learn about electricity, magnetism, aerodynamics, thermodynamics, dynamics, statistics, signal processing, controls, etc.... those are more visibly used directly everyday in the workplace. Calculus is like a key that unlocks understanding so much.

When I watch my fellow scientists and engineers at work, I easily see where they are applying concepts they learned through calculus every single day. Even though if you asked them, they would say they don't "use calculus."

 

[Joofa]

Actually, almost nobody will, in a good department. Post-doc is the norm now. Again, this is a job.

Exactly, and that is the issue, and supports some of the stuff that I said from beginning. Firstly, post-doc is a low paying job compared to what people make in industry. Secondly, even taking your own numbers one is is either early 30s or mid 30s when they get an Assistant Prof. offer. So one has already wasted prime of their youthful life (20 - 35) age, and still only 50% (by your own admission) will go forward with an actual job offer of an Assistant Prof. The rest, TaTa.

TaTa is to go to the industry for a much higher pay, as you say.

And, that is exploitation. As I indicated earlier the universities can do it, because, even if we take your number of 50%, they know there is an overabundance of ph.d's That is just cruel - doing it to a highly educated individual almost at the end of his/her prime youthful age.

No, this is how a selective system works and should work.

And, also one reason the EE / CS depts can't do it as much as Math and Physics, because the EE / CS students have better prospects in computing industry and a large number would just refuse to be on post-doc. So usually EE / CS appointments are direct Assist Prof. level.

Math and Physics depts just exploit putting 75% of new phd hire on post-docs!. Because they can - and more than EE / CS depts.

Not that simple. You need more training in math to be independent. Post-doc is an opportunity to go to a different environment or to go to a place where you will never get a job like some of the top institutions.

And, not all of those 50% who are lucky and go ahead will still further get tenure, in general.

Very few do not. Of the ones I know, they just move to a lower rank university.

That is possibly not what one was hoping when they started their career. Again, another low of academia again because of an over abundance of phds.

Nothing wrong with that. I can assure you that this is how it worked even in the former Soviet Union and block; maybe even in Cuba or NK now. The supply must be higher than the demand and since this is the top of the academic pyramid, somebody must roll down.

So the prime age wasted on meager pay with risks still continuing!

That is too much risk.

There is risk everywhere. About the pay - it lasts for longer and increases with age even if your productivity decreases. The total integral is comparable.

No. I don't think so.

As I said, overall, it is not a bad deal.

If one is a tenured prof.

Unfortunately, it is almost guaranteed that you will get tenure somewhere unless you leave the system yourself. All those horror stories you may have heard are a thing of the past mostly.

Many of my colleagues never retire. Also, very often, you do not live in the most expensive part of the country like the Silicon Valley. If you are in an applied filed, you can make money on the side. One of my CS colleagues created a company which grew to a multi-million one, with the participation of the university, of course. Many do consulting.

See CS people will always make money.

They do. Almost everybody makes more money in the sciences or engineering. But then football players make even more. We are not there for the money. If somebody is hesitating whether to go to math or CS based on such criteria, my advice would be to go to CS, and that would be disservice to my CS colleagues.

Also, the numbers you may find online do not include summer pay which is hard to get but adds 20-30% to the salary. We travel a lot (good for photography!), etc.

Yeah, but it is still less than industry pay, in general.

Not when you are 75 if you can still walk then. And again, if that is what is important, you should not be even asking.

BTW, the OP is very far from all that. He is even wondering why he needs calculus.

Please don't justify the practise of abuse of over-abundance of Math / Physics phds in US as "how a selective system works" by citing examples of Sovient Union, Cuba, and North Korea!

It is about time US universities did some joint effort (it has to be a joint effort not a singular dept one) and address the issue of over abundance of these phds who no body wants but the schools are happy to churn out. The schools are happy because they are (1) a cheap source of TA / RA work while in school, and (2) a cheap labor in the form of post-doc, when they should have regular job at the end of their youthful life.

That is just basically, and morally, wrong at many levels.

--
Dj Joofa
http://www.djjoofa.com

 

[J A C S]

Please don't justify the practise of abuse of over-abundance of Math / Physics phds in US as "how a selective system works" by citing examples of Sovient Union, Cuba, and North Korea!

It would be a terrible system if anyone with a Ph.D. has a guaranteed academic job. That did not exist even in the former Eastern Block even though having a job was guaranteed (just not an academic one). That was my point.

AFAIK, getting an engineering degree does not guarantee you getting an engineering job either and keeping it until you can barely walk.

It is about time US universities did some joint effort (it has to be a joint effort not a singular dept one) and address the issue of over abundance of these phds who no body wants but the schools are happy to churn out. The schools are happy because they are (1) a cheap source of TA / RA work while in school, and (2) a cheap labor in the form of post-doc, when they should have regular job at the end of their youthful life.

That is just basically, and morally, wrong at many levels.

Again, you demonstrate that you do not know what you are talking about. 2:1 ratio (or so) of academics jobs in the US to degrees is not bad at all. Ph.D. degrees are not meant for future professors only. Next, many of those people get academic jobs in other countries. About half of them actually come from other countries. Some stay, some do not.

What is a "regular job"? A job in a company is anything but "regular". You can be laid off tomorrow. A post-doc has a three year contract, at least. Everybody doing Ph.D. in math knows the road to the academia, and they still do it.

 

[Joofa]

Please don't justify the practise of abuse of over-abundance of Math / Physics phds in US as "how a selective system works" by citing examples of Sovient Union, Cuba, and North Korea!

It would be a terrible system if anyone with a Ph.D. has a guaranteed academic job. That did not exist even in the former Eastern Block even though having a job was guaranteed (just not an academic one). That was my point.

AFAIK, getting an engineering degree does not guarantee you getting an engineering job either and keeping it until you can barely walk.

It is about time US universities did some joint effort (it has to be a joint effort not a singular dept one) and address the issue of over abundance of these phds who no body wants but the schools are happy to churn out. The schools are happy because they are (1) a cheap source of TA / RA work while in school, and (2) a cheap labor in the form of post-doc, when they should have regular job at the end of their youthful life.

That is just basically, and morally, wrong at many levels.

Again, you demonstrate that you do not know what you are talking about. 2:1 ratio (or so) of academics jobs in the US to degrees is not bad at all. Ph.D. degrees are not meant for future professors only. Next, many of those people get academic jobs in other countries. About half of them actually come from other countries. Some stay, some do not.

What is a "regular job"? A job in a company is anything but "regular". You can be laid off tomorrow. A post-doc has a three year contract, at least. Everybody doing Ph.D. in math knows the road to the academia, and they still do it.

I think I have said enough on this subject. How much you try to sugarcoat this issue, the reality is that there is an over abundance of Math / Physics ph.ds who no body wants. Period.

You can have your last word. But, as said, I have said enough by now.

 

[J A C S]

You can have your last word. But, as said, I have said enough by now.

You did. About a subject you are not familiar with.

 

[bananasushi]

May I ask what is your education and job experience? Perhaps there is some other related field?

I graduated from a geological technology program, in the environmental division. I would have become an 'environmental consultant'. But the entire industry is on freeze these past 3 years. Still hasn't recovered.

Right out of college, I got hired as an assistant to a land surveyor. Long hours, out of town 21 days at a time, hard manual labor pounding sticks into rocky gravel pads, and ice all day long. Only thing that was good was the pay was enough for a small family. Land surveyors were also affected since we did surveying for oil and gas companies for new drilling pads and their respective roads. In Feb 2015, we got told to go on unemployment insurance. There was no more work.

I've also been a sushi chef for 8 years, but the pay is almost minimum wage, hence I want to get out of that.

 

[Joofa]

In the book Psychology of Computer Programming (~1973) by Weinberg, there was a large variation in the performance of programmers (10x plus). Good programmers would do 10x or more better than the "average" programmer (lines of good code/day).

I agree. I don't know the exact number (is it 10x?), but it certainly is at least 3x or 4x in my estimation. Unfortunately, many people don't realize that good programming is not an easy thing.

--
Dj Joofa
http://www.djjoofa.com

 

[Joe Pineapples II]

Most of the responders so far have focused on income potential. If that is your goal, then aim for FinTech - although AI may wipe out a lot of jobs in that area in the next decade or two. But, really, for most of us, you hit the nail on the head. It is fun to create. Period. If you are lucky and informed, the creation can lead to a new venture and wealth, but you cannot take that with you as they say. Daily happiness is much more valuable than money or things.

So, pick something you like and seem to have an aptitude for. I believe the rest will work itself out over time. In my case, I was very lucky several times over. But my intention, and my intention still (despite many many other options) is to stick with what I like to do, which is image sensors.

Also, getting a PhD isn't about the pay grade you will get, it is about the kind of work you will be able get. A PhD is basically a license to do research, and getting a PhD education (4-5 yrs) is typically a paid job, albeit just a the sustenance level. It is part of your career.

Anyway, if you want to create new things that have an impact in your lifetime, engineering is the right place to be. Physics and Math are longer term ventures (the math most engineers use comes from hundreds of years ago, and the physics from a hundred+ years ago) but again, if it is about what you enjoy, really, between that and family, what else can you ask for in life?

-EF

This is great advice. The thing that really inspired me towards Physics and Engineering was following the Apollo Moon landings as a kid. As an adult I got to design components for a NASA project, and that was a great reward in itself for me. Why study calculus, vector spaces, and complex analysis? Because then you can study theoretical physics and learn about amazing things like GR and quantum mechanics.

J.

 

[Joofa]

Hi, I'm interested in working in research and development with technology companies. I like math, physics, design and creation.

I'm curious to get input and advice from anyone in the industry on paths to take in University, companies or emerging technology to be aware of.

Just get a degree in computer science. No Math and especially not physics - despite whatever the fanciful stories people might tell you about these fields, there are hardly any jobs in math and physics. Most of these majors end up doing computer science jobs in any case, but have lower programming skills. Then why do math and physics in first place.

Machine learning and Data Science are the hype these days and will stay for some time. Take statistics courses with your regular CS courses and you are set for a good job. And, if you take a few image processing courses with computer vision then another area opens up for you - self driving cars that is hot with many big companies these days - Apple, Google, Microsoft, Uber, Lyft, etc. are all into it.

Bottom line is that a degree in computer science will open doors for you in research and / or industrial jobs. And, again, stay away from math and / or physics degrees.

I'm assuming it's not that glamorous of a job, but it could be cool being part of a team developing something new or improving something.

That is just a feeling that evaporates after a short time. Once one is older, with a family, there are other concerns that one needs including job security, etc.

I'm in Canada by the way.

Apply to the University of Texas at Austin. You will not find any other top university with a tuition so low. With the possibly exception of the University of California at Berkeley - but Austin / Dallas area is much cheaper than California. California has more and better jobs. But, the overall package of jobs, housing, and reasonable living expenses is better in Texas area.

 

[Joofa]

I've also been a sushi chef for 8 years, but the pay is almost minimum wage, hence I want to get out of that.

Here is a possible path:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60694369