What do EE's do for a PhD ??

[MathWizard]

I guess IDK what anyone has to do for a PhD, and surely most people aren't discovering new things to research.

So besides doing a certain amount of courses, etc, what sort of thesis would someone do to get an EE PhD degree. I think I've heard of a master's thesis too, so again what type's of thing do people do ?

Some day I might go back to my local university or do some online EE courses, but no way do I want to do a full time course load, or get more than a bachelor's, any time soon. Plus it costs a fortune.

[radar_macgyver]

It's all applied stuff. The PhDs I work with are very deep down the signal processing rabbit hole. They're not researching a new and improved FFT or optimizer, for example, but might be figuring out how to apply an FFT or optimizer to solve a a real-world problem.

Though the few PhD defenses I've recently attended are all of the form "we used a neural network and magically solved all our problems"... 

[Slh]

In power electronics, there's lots of people doing algorithm optimisation. Usually a shed load of maths followed by a lot of simulation with too many significant figures (efficiency 99.4553%, inductance 15.656uH etc). Having done all that they spend a few months getting it to work on a piece of hardware developed a few years ago by someone else and claim great success as the efficiency improves from 65% to 80% while everyone in the market has 96%+

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong ones...

There are also people doing wide bandgap device research. Eg developing novel SiC MOSFETS and GaN HEMTs. There's a lot of time spent in cleanrooms for that sort of PhD and blowing up the devices you've just made.

Also yes, magic neural nets do often turn up. Saw one in a forensics PhD recently. It did not solve all the problems.

[SiliconWizard]

Currently, I think the most interesting PhDs would be in microelectronics, where there's still a lot of interesting stuff to explore.

[mawyatt]

Lots of effort by PhDs and Post Docs goes into developing the leading Semiconductor technology, since this is the realm where conventional physics says "You Can't Do That!!" 

What's absolutely amazing is how quick this SOTA Semiconductor Technology gets to the public, just look at the latest Apple Chips fabbed by TSMC at 3nm!!

Most PhDs want to push the SOTA envelope or teach at the university level.

What many folks don't realize is a PhD candidate must possess a broad fundamental knowledge base in the field to acquire such, otherwise they wouldn't have been credited with a PhD from a reputable university!

Wether the PhD retains this broad fundamental knowledge is another story 

Best,

[tggzzz]

While in HP Labs half a lifetime ago, a group of us pondered "why do a PhD?".

To make yourself more employable? Not really, since if you could do a PhD you were pretty employable anyway, and your PhD's subject is unlikely to be of direct interest to most employers. Plus, once they've sucked your experience out of you, they may decide they don't need an expensive specialist anymore.

To make more money? Not really; that would require directly relevant experience.

To be able to climb further up the greasy pole? Definitely necessary in an academic career, might still be necessary in some government roles.

Because you want to do it? An excellent reason, possibly the only excellent reason.

Those that hope to be able to finish/write their PhD while working in a job are probably underestimating the difficulty

EDIT: add "to be able to migrate to another country" is possibly a good reason, since it is a concrete demonstration that you have specialist skills. But the skills do have to be in demand, and the PhD has to be from an institution with an international (good!) reputation.

[coppice]

When people like AT&T, HP and IBM has substantial world famous research labs, quite a few people got a PhD in an engineering discipline and moved to those places. These days I guess they either stay in academia, or compete in the job market against someone with a masters degree and more industrial experience.

There is still plenty of R&D to do in both the core hardware (e.g. semiconductors) and applications (e.g. comms) areas of electronics, so its not hard to pick a relevant area in which to do new work.

[coppice]

While in HP Labs half a lifetime ago, a group of us pondered "why do a PhD?".

To make yourself more employable? Not really, since if you could do a PhD you were pretty employable anyway, and your PhD's subject is unlikely to be of direct interest to most employers. Plus, once they've sucked your experience out of you, they may decide they don't need an expensive specialist anymore.

To make more money? Not really; that would require directly relevant experience.

To be able to climb further up the greasy pole? Definitely necessary in an academic career, might still be necessary in some government roles.

Because you want to do it? An excellent reason, possibly the only excellent reason.

Those that hope to be able to finish/write their PhD while working in a job are probably underestimating the difficulty

When I graduated in the 70s the commonest reason for someone to go on to a PhD program was they couldn't find a job. From some things I've heard about the bad job market this year, the same thing seems to apply today.

[tggzzz]

While in HP Labs half a lifetime ago, a group of us pondered "why do a PhD?".

To make yourself more employable? Not really, since if you could do a PhD you were pretty employable anyway, and your PhD's subject is unlikely to be of direct interest to most employers. Plus, once they've sucked your experience out of you, they may decide they don't need an expensive specialist anymore.

To make more money? Not really; that would require directly relevant experience.

To be able to climb further up the greasy pole? Definitely necessary in an academic career, might still be necessary in some government roles.

Because you want to do it? An excellent reason, possibly the only excellent reason.

Those that hope to be able to finish/write their PhD while working in a job are probably underestimating the difficulty

When I graduated in the 70s the commonest reason for someone to go on to a PhD program was they couldn't find a job. From some things I've heard about the bad job market this year, the same thing seems to apply today.

I could believe that if the PhD is, in effect, a means to delay making a choice. I doubt it contradicted my points above.

Before I graduated in  '78, I made (IIRC!) 11 job applications, was offered interviews at ~16 companies(!), and received a couple of letters that I interpreted as "we are interviewing and you can have a job". I didn't bother to go to such interviews!

[coppice]

Before I graduated in  '78, I made (IIRC!) 11 job applications, was offered interviews at ~16 companies(!), and received a couple of letters that I interpreted as "we are interviewing and you can have a job". I didn't bother to go to such interviews!

Why didn't you go those interviews? Some of them are just a way to gather a bunch of deadbeats to charge to the government. Others are people building a substantial team, for a large new activity, where they almost certainly have a job for you if you have a degree from a respectable university. They only question in where in the pecking order they might put you. Those can be good opportunities to rise quickly, because there are constantly openings in a place like that.

[tggzzz]

Before I graduated in  '78, I made (IIRC!) 11 job applications, was offered interviews at ~16 companies(!), and received a couple of letters that I interpreted as "we are interviewing and you can have a job". I didn't bother to go to such interviews!

Why didn't you go those interviews? Some of them are just a way to gather a bunch of deadbeats to charge to the government. Others are people building a substantial team, for a large new activity, where they almost certainly have a job for you if you have a degree from a respectable university. They only question in where in the pecking order they might put you. Those can be good opportunities to rise quickly, because there are constantly openings in a place like that.

They were at GEC/Marconi sites that wanted as many bums on seats as they could get for, as I later discovered, government cost-plus contracts.

I rapidly determined I never wanted to work for that type of place. That was an easy decision after an experience at one site. After a days interview I was chatting to the gate security guards, and they asked what I was doing. I muttered about the milk round and seeing what places I would like to work. The guard commented "And I'm sure there will be other places". I took the hint and never regretted it!

[coppice]

Before I graduated in  '78, I made (IIRC!) 11 job applications, was offered interviews at ~16 companies(!), and received a couple of letters that I interpreted as "we are interviewing and you can have a job". I didn't bother to go to such interviews!

Why didn't you go those interviews? Some of them are just a way to gather a bunch of deadbeats to charge to the government. Others are people building a substantial team, for a large new activity, where they almost certainly have a job for you if you have a degree from a respectable university. They only question in where in the pecking order they might put you. Those can be good opportunities to rise quickly, because there are constantly openings in a place like that.

They were at GEC/Marconi sites that wanted as many bums on seats as they could get for, as I later discovered, government cost-plus contracts.

I rapidly determined I never wanted to work for that type of place. That was an easy decision after an experience at one site. After a days interview I was chatting to the gate security guards, and they asked what I was doing. I muttered about the milk round and seeing what places I would like to work. The guard commented "And I'm sure there will be other places". I took the hint and never regretted it!

1978 was kind of a special year. There were lots of jobs around that year. People were going to Australia and other countries, trying to recruit their fresh and recent engineering grads to work in the UK. A year or two before and a couple of years later you might have been glad of one of the GEC jobs to get you started.

[floobydust]

EE PhD in Canada? Extremely rare unless you want to become a prof - it contrasts with engineering as it is an applied science.
We don't have a decent technology industry here that can make use of them.
I see many thesis from developing, third-world countries that are basically garbage, just a repost of an IC datasheet. Amazing how little is needed to get one there.

If you can narrow it (thesis) down - to something "popular" where the grants and funding are, your Supervisor's lab interests, that makes it much easier than a thesis about something out on left field.

The only PhD's in engineering I've known were the guys who graduated and couldn't find a job. So they went back and got a Masters. After that couldn't find a job, so they got a PhD. In the end way too expensive and the massive debt, and then reality creeps in.
One EE PhD I know he clings to any job he has because there are no EE PhD job postings out West. They are viewed as too expensive, too specialized so employability is not there.  Ontario has some postings on Indeed etc. I'm saying also look ahead at where the PhD will take you.

If I was doing it, you should innovate, come up with something better, solve a problem instead of looking to do a thesis on a topic others give.

[Weston]

I finished my PhD last year. Some of my papers are public access, all are linked from my google scholar profile: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=H9L4UYcAAAAJ&hl=en

My research topic was on using piezoelectric resonators to replace inductors for higher power density in dc/dc converters. The work consisted of modeling and fabricating piezoelectric devices in the cleanroom and modeling and building dc/dc converters that used them. When I proposed the project to my advisor there were only a few recent papers on the topic. The research area has since received more focus and a number of research groups at different universities are working on it. It still remains to be seen if it will be a viable technology, there are a number of fundamental challenges to be overcome. I got to come up with the project idea myself and by the time I graduated the project was funded with a few students working on it and we had a collaborator at a different university, so it was cool to watch it all develop.

To receive a PhD you need to make a novel contribution to the field, which is one of the things separating a masters degree from a PhD. However, I would say that the novel contribution can sometimes be pretty contrived.

In engineering, PhD programs play a big role in job training for some subfields. For IC design, and especially analog or mixed signal, you basically need a PhD to get hired. When I was at Tesla, most of the power electronics team had PhDs, but it seemed a bit overkill to me.

This is US centric advice, but if you are a US permanent resident the downsides of getting a PhD in terms of opportunity cost outweigh the benefits unless you are entering a top ranked program. If you are an international student looking to move to the USA any program might be worth your time. If your field is in demand you can get an O-1 visa, which is not capped or lottery based like the H-1B visa. I am not familiar with the process but I think there are also some other visa opportunities that benefit PhD holders.

In no case should anyone be paying tuition for a PhD in STEM. The stipend that is provided is not great but should be enough to live on.

[tggzzz]

If you are an international student looking to move to the USA any program might be worth your time. If your field is in demand you can get an O-1 visa, which is not capped or lottery based like the H-1B visa. I am not familiar with the process but I think there are also some other visa opportunities that benefit PhD holders.

Valid point, added to my previous list.

The PhD should be from an internationally recognised institution with a good reputation, of course. Predicting which skill will be in demand in several years time after is PhD is, as they say, left an an exercise for the student.

[coppice]

My research topic was on using piezoelectric resonators to replace inductors for higher power density in dc/dc converters. The work consisted of modeling and fabricating piezoelectric devices in the cleanroom and modeling and building dc/dc converters that used them. When I proposed the project to my advisor there were only a few recent papers on the topic. The research area has since received more focus and a number of research groups at different universities are working on it. It still remains to be seen if it will be a viable technology, there are a number of fundamental challenges to be overcome. I got to come up with the project idea myself and by the time I graduated the project was funded with a few students working on it and we had a collaborator at a different university, so it was cool to watch it all develop.

Was that in any way related to the upsurge in interest in recent years for piezo approaches to converting mechanical energy to electrical energy in energy harvesting applications?

In engineering, PhD programs play a big role in job training for some subfields. For IC design, and especially analog or mixed signal, you basically need a PhD to get hired. When I was at Tesla, most of the power electronics team had PhDs, but it seemed a bit overkill to me.

That's an exaggeration. You need a masters these days to be considered for any decent engineering job these days. A bachelors no longer cuts it. However, I don't know any areas where a PhD is the norm. I've known very few IC designers who have one.

[hans]

College courses often start teaching applications of physics, applications of math and applications with already invented circuits. We call this engineering, with the main goal of understanding and applying circuits. However many engineers will use standard building blocks, like the standard opamps circuits and off the shelf DC/DCs, and then call it a day.
A masters can go into more in depth theories or generalizations, with more comprehensive evaluations of circuits. Students will learn to read and derive new models and apply them. An average master thesis will include a literature study of state of the art research and then doing something with it. That can range from applying it or taking a stab at extending or doing something different. For many students this can be a bit of a trial to see if perhaps a PhD will fit them.. A lot of master student projects can eventually be published by either a supervisor or the student itself.
If a student likes doing research, writing it properly and making sure it collaborates within the community of research (instead of just being a tone-deaf plea), then go ahead and start a PhD.

There are plenty of topics to do a PhD in EE. Circuit design is a prime example, especially for chip design. Electrification of all industries is still not complete, so power electronics is still necessary. We also need build better amplifiers, RF mixers, frequency synthesizers and receivers for next generation modems. 5G or 6G doesn't come falling from the sky for free, and it's a collaboration between industry and academia to derive a new standard. Same goes with better ADCs, DACs, PLLs, etc. And antenna's are also designed by EEs, with lots of new stuff tried as well (new frequencies, shapes, arrays, multi-modes, etc.).

We need people to design PDKs for every new CMOS process node. EE can span well into computer engineering and embedded systems in order to understand what those sectors need to succeed well. Likewise, there is a lot of applications in signal processing, where linear system theory, probability theory and electronics is necessary to work on new DSP algorithms. This can span from a highly specialized algorithm only used by 1 application to something that is possibly generalized like approximate computing. Most research projects however do need a vehicle of research, so sometimes applications are a bit of a side effect to what the research is really about.

There is also lots of research on mixed signal designs (like partial analog, partial digital computing), or completely new architectures. System design is a giant topic in itself. Some PhDs will be about designing a single component in a new or better way, whereas other PhDs want to demonstrate novel applications by combining state-of-the-art research and extending upon it.