PhD in electronics engineering, where, why...

[onemilimeter]

I met a PhD candidate several weeks ago. He was in his 3rd year pursuing a PhD degree related to electrical/electronic engineering. He asked how to use a Tektronix TDS2024B. This, however, did not shock me. He then asked how to measure the (floating) induced voltage across the secondary winding of a transformer using the scope. I showed him... Then, he asked why both the probe signal tip and the GND tip must be used and placed across the secondary winding terminals to measure the voltage... I was  

So when you look at onemilimeter's statement I would be disappointed that a graduate at any degree level couldn't use a scope/cro or figure out how to make a voltage measurement - its just that it becomes a bit more ridiculous at the PhD level.

But there are diamonds in the ruff amongst all degree levels including the PhD level. I think that's the point. I always make a point to ask new engineers what their hobby's and interests are and this usually gives me some clues.

Several days after the "PhD candidate + scope" case, I also had a chance to speak to the dean/head of the department. The dean was very proud of his department and always went around to tell others how good and great the training his department could provide. Then, I shared the "PhD candidate + scope" story with him. He didn't believe at the beginning and asked: "Are you sure he did his EEE bachelor degree at this university?". I told him that the PhD candidate got his first degree (with decent grade) from the department, then he continued his EEE masters degree in another university before coming back to further his PhD degree. The dean was speechless... Nowadays many graduates are "made" (by the university) to think that they're great.

[onemilimeter]

Another real story to share. It occurs about 10 years ago. I met a guy (with a masters degree in mathematics) who was pursuing his PhD degree in EEE at that time. One day, we're arguing about the relationship between "1 s" and "1 ms". I told him that "1 s = 1000 ms" but he argued that the correct answer should be "1 s = 60 ms". I tried to convince him that he's wrong but he defended as following:

The guy: Since "1 hour = 60 mins" and "1 min = 60 seconds", then one second must be equal to 60 miliseconds...
1mm: What's about "1 m = 1000 mm" or "1 m = 60 mm", which one is correct?
The guy: "1 m = 1000 mm"
1mm: Why not "1 m = 60 mm" ?
The guy: No... you're wrong... it's a length unit, so it's different from time unit...
1mm: What's about "1 gram" ?
The guy: "1 gram = 1000 miligrams", again... it's not a time unit...
1mm: Emm... how many months per year?
The guy: 12 months...
1mm: How many day per month?
The guy: It could be 28, 29, 30 or 31...
1mm: Good... how many hour per day?
The guy: It's 24 hours per day...
1mm: Then, why don't you say "1 year = 60 months", "1 month = 60 days", "1 day = 60 hours" ?

The guy was silent for a while and finally admitted he was wrong... I thought this was an odd case. I raised the same question to others (all of them were doing engineering at bachelor, masters, or PhD level). Some of them were TOP student in their batch. Surprisingly, many of them gave the same answer "1 s = 60 ms" !!!  

I wonder if they're asked to design a watch using a microcontroller, then the watch they built would tick very fast...

[MrPlacid]

I had a friend who was pursuing a PhD in some science. I asked him if he like doing what he does. He said yeah, it's easy since when you move up you don't do stuffs hands on. You just come up with the ideas and hand the work to the underlings.

I didn't probe any further cause I can tell by doing that he will lose his hands on experience. Maybe that's what happen to onemilimeter's acquaintance. You can't image how much a week or two of absence can dull a person ability. Now, make that months then years.

Now, I can see why the working engineers don't worship engineers with PhD titles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have one friend, who graduated from electrical engineering school at San Jose State that went to San Francisco State for a MA/MSci. in electrical engineering.  He could not find a job and have lots of spare time and live with parents, so why not? 
Lawsen

This is why I don't go to college for EE. I am starting to hear this more often now with EE majors. I might as well enjoy electronics as my hobby.

[scrat]

They don't teach common sense at University.
Although it's normal to expect something more from a high level student/graduated, it's not fair to compare the best of non-graduated technicians to the worst graduated engineers.
 

[gregariz]

They don't teach common sense at University.
Although it's normal to expect something more from a high level student/graduated, it's not fair to compare the best of non-graduated technicians to the worst graduated engineers.
 

I think thats it Scrat, the expectations for PhD's can be somewhat unrealistic, but people get a chip on their shoulder very quickly.

I've got one myself since I've seen many twits in Universities I wouldn't hire. But as I've said I've seen it at every level. Its usually pretty rare that a Bachelors grad knows how to use a scope, what an SMA connector is, how to solder or make a PCB. I've seen pig dumb technicians apply a Mega to a cable while his buddy was putting a connector on 2 meters away. I've seen them stick their fingers in EHT cables suspecting they were dead. I've met an awful lot that are dyslexic or with other learning disabilities that can't read a document and so simply need to be shown everything. I've worked with technicians who ran around breaking equipment on purpose, another who used to steal equipment on the weekends and another who used to scare everyone with stories of his gun collection.

But regardless I believe there is value in the knowledge gained from a PhD. Particularly in the area of mathematical algorithms applied to a problem. For example, I know a PHD who stood up an RF ASIC company doing 28GHz telemetry chip design, another who implemented a MRI scanner in an FPGA, or the algorithms to decode GPS signals down to the mm level. There are otherways to get this type of experience if you end up in the right work environments, but value is there and as I said often these end up in new companies.

But the chips on shoulders are real and often in your face so I think if you are doing it you should be careful with the topic and not close your mind to ending up in somewhere like Silicon Valley.

[Alex]

In Italy a company sees a PhD like a waste of time, it's not considered as an added value.

Try a more innovation oriented company, or a smaller company. It is true that many people dont see the value, but that doesnt mean there isn't any.

I'd like to know where the researcher job is remunerative

In the UK for PhD it is a fixed (with some variation) salary (stipend) of about £13k per year tax free with several expenses (eg conferences) paid. Other postgraduate schemes (eg EngD) are much higher.

A PhD is mostly useful if you want to become a researcher or get into academia.

I tend to agree, with enough expeptions to justify a broader definition. Some do it because they cant find a job at the moment, to get a higher starting salary, improve their career prospects, get into research in a company, discover something new, just to see how it is, etc.

For example, the pay offered to a fresh PhD graduate is not much higher than a bachelor graduate.

Really depends on how you 'sell' your PhD and to who. I have seen a boost from £23k to £32k. This is significant, but it will rarely happen.

The reason Ph.D's aren't worth that much straight off is because all a Ph.D means is that you made a contribution (via a thesis project) to science/engineering/arts in a sub-field of a sub-field. Outside of their thesis area a Ph.D isn't likely to know any more then any random graduate student.

For some students that just do it because someone told them, yes, that would be correct. It is what you make of it. The potential skills, knowledge and understanding you can gain is huuuge. Dont forget, sciences are interelated. If you want to really know how to solder you need to study intermetallic bonds. Its what you want to get out of it.

A Ph.D can be a downside in the corporate world as many HR folk will see you as overqualified and hence more likely to leave for a better job

True, you need to speak to a different person or sell your PhD differently, like 'My PhD prooves I can conduct research and I will use those skills to develop product x and technology y. I anticipate this to require a long time but the economic benefits will be enermous'.

I'm not trying to offend anyone but that's what a professor in UK said: "A donkey also can get a PhD!"...

Thats how that professor got his PhD, and he had other donkeys as supervisors.

I'd say PhD is scientific research route and electronics is mostly an applied industry route not academia.  You will more likely end up flipping burgers when following academia route.

It can be. Depends what you want. If you want to be in the development team of a new high speed fet or an ultra low noise amplifier for satellite communications you are doing research, you might as well get a title from it.

Like somebody said before you can work on something that is usually very up to date, that you (supposedly) really like, get paid in the process and most of the time also get paid to go around the world to attend conferences and workshops. It doesn't get much better than that from my point of view -
Life of celebrity... You are greatly mistaken.  World is coming back to its senses.  There are just very few truly bright ones who deserve paying for playing around with ideas.  For great majority however the party is over.   

There are ample examples where supervisors really do see value in a project and in the researcher and they do want to use the funds from the university and/or sponsors. Key words: Supervisor, project, researcher, university, sponsors.

I have one friend, who graduated from electrical engineering school at San Jose State that went to San Francisco State for a MA/MSci. in electrical engineering.  He could not find a job and have lots of spare time and live with parents, so why not?  If you wrote a thesis about an electrical device, circuit, or electrical material, then an employer might hire you for your speciality, otherwise, you will wait in line like the rest of us for a job.  A Ph.D or even research experience makes you very specialized, but it will reward you with a job only if that business happens to need your speciality. 

Your friend failed to sell his PhD appropriately or he was unlucky enough to be considred by short-sighted people in the company. If you work hard in your PhD and produce results, you are allowed to say that the PhD prooves you can do research (and development), and that is independant of what you did you PhD on, which could be 'textiles' for an electronics company that develops 'smart clothes'.

There are a host of preconceived ideas out there throughout industry based on individual experience. Usually the perception is that if you have a PhD you are not a practical person or you are not big picture.

That is true, and this is the fault of some supervisors offering 'blue-sky' research (no application) and also the student for taking on that PhD. But it is not the fault of the PhD concept.

I met a PhD candidate several weeks ago. He was in his 3rd year pursuing a PhD degree related to electrical/electronic engineering. He asked how to use a Tektronix TDS2024B. This, however, did not shock me. He then asked how to measure the (floating) induced voltage across the secondary winding of a transformer using the scope. I showed him... Then, he asked why both the probe signal tip and the GND tip must be used and placed across the secondary winding terminals to measure the voltage... I was ---
thats the very thing that made the stereotype gregariz mentioned above. usually this type of people are bookworm who when finished their degree directly attend their phd, with no hands on experience. the stereotype for parents (who are not involved in engineering) is that you have to finish your study as high as you can first, then later go to work.

Thats never a bookworm. All the skills, rules of thumb and practical know-how is covered in textbooks. I repeat, all the skills, rules of thumb and practical know-how is covered in textbooks. That is just someone that doesnt care, is not enthusiastic and would rather be doing something else.

But there are diamonds in the ruff amongst all degree levels including the PhD level. I think that's the point. I always make a point to ask new engineers what their hobby's and interests are and this usually gives me some clues.

Very true, and you must focus on those.

the "PhD candidate + scope" case

Have you seen PhD graduates not knowing how to solder? The spectrum of students you can come across cannot be covered with a log scale.

Although it's normal to expect something more from a high level student/graduated, it's not fair to compare the best of non-graduated technicians to the worst graduated engineers.

Spot on.


Things to remember is that you can do whatever you want with your PhD and make it work for your benefit. The PhD is not a ticket to a higher paid job, but it will most likely lead to a higher starting salary. Very important is to find a supervisor that knows the subject, is good to work with, listens to your ideas, and most importantly, respects you and your work. Also make sure that the subject excites you, otherwise the PhD will be very hard. If you are unsure about doing a PhD at a particular university on a particular subject with a pacticular supervisor, ask other PhDs in later years in that university, they should be able to offer great and valid advice. Worst case scenario, you start your PhD and you wondt like it. You can always exit the PhD but make sure you have ver very good reason as your future employers will interrogate you about that decision.

Good luck and if you need more specific advice about UK PhDs and Engineering Doctorates (in particular at the Univerity of Manchester) I can help (on the forum so that others benefit too).

Alex

[onemilimeter]

... Very important is to find a supervisor that knows the subject, is good to work with, listens to your ideas, and most importantly, respects you and your work...

100% agree... Is it normal that we spend our own money (i.e. without stipend) to study an engineering PhD degree in UK?

[Alex]

... Very important is to find a supervisor that knows the subject, is good to work with, listens to your ideas, and most importantly, respects you and your work...

100% agree... Is it normal that we spend our own money (i.e. without stipend) to study an engineering PhD degree in UK?

It is not abnormal although it is becoming less common.

Most PhDs in the UK are moving closer and closer to the industry needs, which is great. For this reason, more and more collaborations start between universities and companies, and PhD researchers are provided with a stipend by a part of the funds the university has to spend on that research programme. It also very common for the research to be funded by goverment agencies like EPSRC (http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/about/Pages/default.aspx) and a contibution also comes from the industrial partner, if any. Funding can also vary based on your current skills, country of origin, University you apply to etc.

By the way, you can search on EPSRC for funded programmes in the UK and then track them down via the collaborating universities. There is also a wealth of information on this site: http://www.findaphd.com/ Be sure when you submit an application for a PhD via this site, the university will actually call you back, possibly with an offer!

EPSRC also offers the Engineering Doctorates, definitely worth a look into.

Alex

[scrat]

I always thought the other countries were better, but it seems in Italy we're lucky to have most of the PhD programs funded by the government or the university via industry collaborations (at my uni all the engineering PhDs get paid, in one way or another).
The government grants are 1035€/month net, and theoretically you get the national insurance contributions paid (although in the majority of cases you will not be allowed to add those three years to the other work periods, so they become useless!). Not too much for living (especially at some places, where rental costs a lot), but it's our choice, so we can't blame no one.

[onemilimeter]

I always thought the other countries were better, but it seems in Italy we're lucky to have most of the PhD programs funded by the government or the university via industry collaborations (at my uni all the engineering PhDs get paid, in one way or another).
The government grants are 1035€/month net, and theoretically you get the national insurance contributions paid (although in the majority of cases you will not be allowed to add those three years to the other work periods, so they become useless!). Not too much for living (especially at some places, where rental costs a lot), but it's our choice, so we can't blame no one.

In my opinion, PhD should get stipend as his supervisor will gain some benefits at the end too. For example, when he got paper published, his supervisor name and the university name will be included in the paper. Some professors in UK universities are terrible. I came across a case in which the student did not receive any stipend from his supervisor (e.g. he paid full international tuition fee of about £15K per year). His supervisor was not supportive, e.g. his supervisor refused to fund £30+ for some electronic components and the student paid himself for the parts at the end. When the student produced his first paper, his supervisor wanted his name to be the first author. However, the student thought his name should be first and not his supervisor's because he did all the experimental works, he solved all the problem, and he drafted the full paper. His supervisor was not very happy and did not want to read/correct the paper. The student submitted the paper himself and his paper was successfully published in a IEEE journal. For international students it's not easy for them to learn the true character of a supervisor (as suggested by Alex above) before they fly to UK. This is because some supervisors always "sound" very nice and promise many things in their emails. I've seen many similar cases in UK and the international students, especially those who were on study loan provided by or signed a contract with an institution in their home countries, could not do anything because if they quit they had to pay back all the money to whoever they got the money from. The money to them (e.g. those from poor countries) are a lot, which will be equivalent to the amount of salary they earn for working 10~20 years.

What's the practice in your university or department or research group about the author sequence in a paper?

Is there a requirement that a PhD student must have at least a journal paper to graduate in UK? In my opinion, some research projects need little luck. For example, in semiconductor material related research, the supervisor always wants his student to focus on a particular semiconductor material. If a student is given a semiconductor material which eventually known not to have a "wow" factor, then it will be very unlikely that the student will get any publication. Will the student (especially if he's an international student and he has only three years financial support from his home country) be able to graduate in this case?

Is it common in UK that a professor always criticizes his student, e.g. rubbish, stupid, useless, etc.? I thought a professor will go through his student CV or brief interview with his student before agreeing to supervise him...

[Alex]

Commonly the principal author of the paper goes first, then others that have contributed to the research and finally the project supervisor. However there might be political reasons to deviate from this norm, like industrial sponsor or honourary inclusion in the contributors. Some papers have 300+ authors on the front which is silly, but goes to show that there is no absolute rule you have to follow. Some papers only have one name on.

Journal publications are highly regarded, so they count a lot towards the award of the doctorate. In fact, if you manage to get like 5 or 6 publications you dont need to submit a thesis. However, for most people the thesis and the final viva are the main events and you dont need a journal publication. But you know, if you are doing research and getting results then you need to tell the rest of the community and the world. So you attend conferences, presentations, posters, journals etc. So if you focus on the research and results these will come. This greatly depends on your supervisor etc, but it is in their interest to publish papers, that is their currency. There is no requirement for a publication for the award of a doctorate.

No, that is very uncommon. Most have had a lot of experience with PhD researchers and know what to do/say. The vast majority is very helpful and will respect your work. However you need to show them you are interested in the subject too, remember they have spent a large part of their lives on it and the last thing they want to feel is that you dont consider the subject important. They are not much different than an employer, really. But you will not always work with/for someone you would get along as well as you would have liked, so there is a skill there to learn to get the job done anyway in a professional manner. This might make some uncomfortable, but the truth is that in the UK some supervisors have a particular interest in international students. And hey, many supervisors are not from the UK.

Yes, if the supervisor is good he will try to know as much as he can about you, just like an employer in an interview. I would walk away if the supervisor did not show interest in finding out who you are, PhDs are not as short as a summer placement.

[gregariz]

However, the student thought his name should be first and not his supervisor's because he did all the experimental works, he solved all the problem, and he drafted the full paper.

This definitely happens, I was at a uni for just a few months and this happened to me. I then ended the arrangement soon after the supervisor requested to be first author on all papers and went back home and finished uni there. Fortunately I was on a government stipend so it was neither my own or the professors cash.

You need to realize that some professors are wired this way, more students = more papers = more rewards. Rewards can sometimes be about tenure, professional fellowships or government grants. I've had others mention similar stories - paying only half stipends at the start etc. To be honest I've not come across it with locally raised professors... usually those who proclaim to have a "reputation" but maybe that's just my prejudice. There is one interesting character that does some of that stuff that dresses like a pimp every year I see him at a conference. 5 minutes with some of them can tell you whether they are infected with the "God" complex so if you are searching for a suitable supervisor its probably a bit hard to do over email (my failure) instead you really need to go and see them face to face then you can get a good idea of their personality and see how many smiles are on the faces of the students around them.

[onemilimeter]

Alex sounds like a very nice and responsible supervisor. I would suggest s.mosfet to consider working under his supervision

... but the truth is that in the UK some supervisors have a particular interest in international students. And hey, many supervisors are not from the UK.

True... many supervisors are not from UK. The professor who fights to claim to be the first author is not a British origin, although he's a British citizen now. The professor used to tell his students (non British) that he would only claim to be first author from the work done by the international students and he dared not do the same thing to British students. I'm not trying to sound racist here but in my opinion this is kind of "bullying" or "silent discrimination". If you still remember the professor who claimed a donkey also can get a PhD as I mentioned earlier, he's not a British origin too.

[onemilimeter]

This definitely happens, I was at a uni for just a few months and this happened to me. I then ended the arrangement soon after the supervisor requested to be first author on all papers and went back home and finished uni there. Fortunately I was on a government stipend so it was neither my own or the professors cash.

You need to realize that some professors are wired this way, more students = more papers = more rewards. Rewards can sometimes be about tenure, professional fellowships or government grants. I've had others mention similar stories - paying only half stipends at the start etc. ... so if you are searching for a suitable supervisor its probably a bit hard to do over email (my failure) instead you really need to go and see them face to face then you can get a good idea of their personality and see how many smiles are on the faces of the students around them.

I think "doing over email" is the only way most international students can do.

[Alex]

I think "doing over email" is the only way most international students can do.

It is very risky. If you cannot afford visiting, then you must also contact the researchers under his supervision. They are the ones that will give you the most reliable information.

Travelling to the UK from anywhere in Europe is not that expensive if you visit at some odd time. You can also combine the visit with an Open Day at the university so you can visit other departments and residence halls. You can meet the supervisor face to face, visit the labs you will be working in, discuss the project and its implications etc. The very fact that you took the plane to learn more about the project shows commitment. But plane tickets are not free so make an informed decision first by contacting other researchers.

[onemilimeter]

I think "doing over email" is the only way most international students can do.

It is very risky. If you cannot afford visiting, then you must also contact the researchers under his supervision. They are the ones that will give you the most reliable information.

This is one important point that international student must learn and be aware of. At some universities, e.g. the university which the professor I mentioned earlier resides, the contacts (e.g. email) of the postgraduate students are not put on the web.

[gregariz]

I'm not trying to sound racist here but in my opinion this is kind of "bullying" or "silent discrimination".

This type of conduct would be against the spirit and rules of most universities. If I hadn't been the wide eyed kid I was at the time I would have made an academic complaint - but then if I were more worldly at the time he probably wouldn't have tried it on. I'm sure most foreign students are in the same boat which is why they don't prey so much on local students as they know they'd be in the poo if it came to light. Having said that I've been around all sorts of academic misconduct at various times - but its usually associated with the pressures of low pay or promotion at uni's.

I have an interesting tip that I've found to work over a long time. Some of the best people you can find at uni's are adjunct staff, ie a part time lecturers or researchers as many of these are locals who like to teach and or simply want to remain involved in research, but for whom the university is not right. Some of them will be allowed, depends on uni rules, to take students and/or co-supervise a student.

[b2bsr]

Hi All,

Thanks for your useful suggestions.

[Wim_L]

Well, I just defended my PhD in chemistry this week. I'll admit to being a bit of an atypical chemist though (as are many in our lab), as I've worked much on photonic crystals and nonlinear optics. I probably spent more time in the laser lab building and using new optical measurement setups than in the chemistry lab making new compounds. Also worked together with the lab's electronics engineers and mechanical workshop guys.

Why would you do a PhD? Because you want to work on a specific subject for a few years  and do original research. To get a job? Nope, you don't need one to get most kinds of jobs. It's a requirement for some jobs in academia and relatively few outside of that, but academia is a bit of a pyramid scheme. Not all masters move on to a PhD, not all PhDs move on to a postdoc, and not all postdocs (in fact, very few) become professors. But if you have a subject you're interested in, and can get financing (some PhD grants pay quite well), you might want to do it. It's an opportunity do a research project and do a lot of independent work. Great for some people, not so great for others. The value of it for later work is not so much the specific topic you work on, unless it happens to be one that's very relevant in industry, but the techniques and skills you pick up, and the proven ability to work on and finish a multi-year project. You'll also get a chance to work with other clever people in your field (and also, unfortunately, the occasional fool who apparently got a PhD by mail order or stuff like that. Not the majority, but the occasional 'idiot with a PhD' does occur and can be a pain to deal with. Then again, you'll probably get the occasional fool in any line of business). It can be a very positive experience, and you can pick up skills that apply to more than just your narrow subject. Plus, you get to play with some really cool toys, depending on the subject of course (class IV lasers, fast scopes, electron microscope...). With any new research, there will also be setbacks and failures, so you do need to be able to deal with those. It's not always fun and games.

What you get out of it would depend on yourself. You can get a lot of opportunities to meet people, give lectures, travel to other labs, start experiments, try things, learn... How many of those opportunities appear depends on the lab, subject,... You can take the opportunities, and think of ways to do things better, come up with new experiments... Or you can do the minimum possible to get by. One option tends to give better results than the other.

One thing I do notice is that a PhD in applied sciences (engineering) is less common than in fundamental science. Engineers often move to industry before getting a PhD. But don't let what other people do stop you from doing what you want.

[djsb]

Also speak to the technician in the lab where you will be working. We can be very helpfull if asked nicely