8 ms·

Why push yourself through a degree-style path? So much of what EEs learn in their coursework is of low utility. (I'm a physicist who transitioned to working as

Why push yourself through a degree-style path? So much of what EEs learn in their coursework is of low utility. (I'm a physicist who transitioned to working as an EE. I have never had a single EE course, and yet I find myself with no obvious deficits compared to my colleagues who have.) There are two ways to learn an existing technical-ish subject: you can spend a lot of time reading textbooks, then do some projects (the "slow-fast" approach); or you can dive in to projects and refer to textbooks when you get stuck (the "start-stop" approach). In the slow-fast approach you will go slowly through a lot of textbooks for a long time, and then in theory you will be able to do projects very quickly once you are done. In the start-stop approach you will start a project, quickly get stuck and spend a while searching for and understanding the answer, then go back to your project. In my opinion electrical engineering, being a subject where fast feedback is generally possible, is very well suited to project-first learning. I would recommend grabbing a few textbooks (Horowitz and Hill's Art of Electronics holding pole position for a practically-oriented learner, in my opinion), reading their introductory material (table of contents, preface, etc.; enough that you know what each book has in it), and then setting all the books aside until you need them. Avoid books targeted at "makers"; most are fine but a sizeable fraction are written by people with no clue what they are doing, and they will actively set you back. (It is very difficult to learn from an author who does not themself understand the subject, and all the worse if they do not realize that they do not understand. Since there are plenty of better sources out there, it's little trouble to just avoid the whole class.) Trying to work on brain-computer interfaces is challenging because it blends biology with electrical engineering. The biology will naturally drive things, because you cannot really control it like you can the electronics. So learning EE in this context is about two things: 1) What can I do with circuits? and 2) What do organisms behave like and respond to electrically? Your project is then using your knowledge of circuits to solve R&D problems relating to bioelectric signals. This isn't easy (I think you know that), but the benefit is that you can quit with "just" EE skills and still come out ahead.

someguydave 6y ago
It definitely depends on what you want to do. If you really want to design RF or analog circuits, having a mastery of undergrad EE signals and systems courses would be helpful. But if you only want to make digital logic work, you only need some basic knowledge of circuitry. EE is a vast field that encompasses everything from high power transmission to designing semiconductors. Even full course work from undergrad to PhD in EE is going to be fairly specialized. All that being said, I agree that if you just want to learn how to build a catalog of reasonably simple circuits, learning academic EE is a waste of time.
- sleavey 6y ago
  > analog circuits Can you expand on how analog electronics benefits in particular from a formal EE education? I build analog circuits (amplifiers, filters, power supplies mostly) very frequently in my job as a physicist. We have to care about noise so I've picked up a knowledge of how to deal with it in analog circuits. Is there some other area of analog electronics that "hackers" like me might not get exposed to, compared to an EE undergrad? I'm thinking of moving into EE and would like to work out the gaps in my knowledge. I also ask because I can see obvious reasons why your other example - RF electronics - would benefit from formal training but none for analog electronics.
  - someguydave 6y ago
    Probably not. I'm thinking of things like Laplace transforms and their relationship to differential equations, and stability analysis for things like amp feedback. Most of that you should have gotten academically in physics, just with a more specialized application when applying it to how you model an inductor or capacitor for instance. But if you can design an amplifier or power supply, you probably already understand how to think of all the basic circuit elements and write down a differential equation modeling the circuit behavior. With respect to RF, it's also a large field. In lower frequency regimes you can model everything as a lumped circuit element. As you get into higher microwave frequencies, you start needing to worry about modeling things as a distributed circuit. If you are focusing on things like antennas then you need to know more about electromagnetics. These days practicing engineers dealing with things like antennas and feedlines typically model them with computers. In some ways RF analog circuitry is disappearing as ADCs and associated digital circuitry are becoming advanced enough to swallow large bandwidth signals. In many ways EE is pretty close to "applied physics", just focusing more on emag and less on mechanics.
    - sleavey 6y ago
      I don't tend to dig down into equations and just use the simple heuristics I've built up from examining other designs. I guess with a bit of practice I could do it though. Thanks for the info!
zxexz 6y ago
I can't recommend The Art of Electronics highly enough - it's way more intuitive and informative than any other resource on the subject I've found. It's exceptionally great when paired with the self-paced lab manual Learning the Art of Electronics[0]. [0] https://www.digikey.com/en/resources/edu/harvard-lab-kit https://www.digikey.com/en/resources/edu/harvard-lab-kit
- vvanders 6y ago
  I'll second this, despite the first version being written over 40 years ago it's still one of the best books I've seen on the subjects. The more recent versions bring it up to date well, it's a dense book but one I find myself coming back to more than any other for the incredible depth of practical engineering knowledge.
- jacobolus 6y ago
  Unfortunately these kits are unavailable from either digikey or mouser, because they include various obsolete parts which are no longer sold. Here's the website for the book https://learningtheartofelectronics.com https://learningtheartofelectronics.com
krapht 6y ago
> (I'm a physicist who transitioned to working as an EE. I have never had a single EE course, and yet I find myself with no obvious deficits compared to my colleagues who have.) Not to dunk on the rest of your reply, which I agree with, but there is a humongous overlap between your typical undergraduate physics and electrical engineering degree, and I think you're able to be successful because they're so similar. Academically, the required courses are mostly identical until your 3rd year and if you choose an RF, microwave, or semiconductor physics specialization it's just more of the same applied physics, so it would make sense you would easily be able to pick up the concepts necessary with experience.
- aj7 6y ago
  No. I disagree, and I’m a Physics SB and PhD (lasers). EE is a discipline unto itself. A stack of physicstextbooks and coursework is useless when you need to build a circuit that does what you need. Indeed, even writing down the desired circuit specs in a reasonably professional manner has zero overlap with physics.
  - krapht 6y ago
    If it's just circuit design, the difference between an EE and a physicist is 6-9 credit hours of courses. You will both share all the necessary prerequisites in mathematics (mostly Fourier analysis, linear algebra, basic statistics, and differential equations) and electromagnetics. New graduates in EE also can't do the things you listed :)
    - madengr 6y ago
      Ha ha, no way there is only a 9 credit difference. I’m an EE, and had 6 specific physics courses in undergrad. Engineering Physics 1 & 2 EM 1 & 2 Thermo Modern Physics That in no way takes me near a physics BA, in the same way it takes a physics BA a BSEE.
    - exmadscientist 6y ago
      > New graduates in EE also can't do the things you listed :) That was the spirit of my point, yes :) More than once I've heard a coworker complain that "I wish I had learned about that in school instead of [filler course so useless that I forgot what they said]."
OJFord 6y ago
I think it's way more about what suits the learner than what suits the subject. I studied EE, and got on better with the the more theoretical textbooks than I did practicals ('huh, ok.. why?!').
bucket2015 6y ago
That's a good point. The project-first approach worked very well for me when learning new software frameworks/libs/etc. My main concern with EE is that once I'll get to the brain-computer interfaces, I'll be in a situation where there aren't many off-the-shelf components/solutions available, and at the same time I'll likely need to know how I can push physics closer to the edge. I suspect I may need a better theoretical foundation to do that. That said, I definitely like the idea of focusing a lot on hands-on projects.
- exmadscientist 6y ago
  You are not going to start anywhere near the area where you have to go "full custom". That is, you won't be spinning custom ICs, you'll be assembling custom PCBs from off-the-shelf components. Possibly expensive ones. But that $1000 OTS part is an insane bargain compared to any chip fabbed just for you. First make your thing do something, anything at all. Second, make it do something useful. Third, make it do the right thing, the thing you need, your goal from the beginning. Only then should you optimize it, making it smaller or cheaper or lower power or prettier or.... This is the road to success in the "R" phase of R&D.
analog31 6y ago
I'm a physicist too, and learned electronics on my own. I don't have an engineering job title, but have done fairly extensive design work. In my workplace, I'm the go-to person for anything analog and quantitative, such as figuring out a noise budget for a measurement system, as well as for figuring out how to prove that it actually works. Horowitz and Hill had a chapter entitled "digital meets analog," and there should be another chapter, "analog meets physics." Like others have said, there's a lot of overlap, especially for experimental physicists, which is what I studied. The stuff that makes studying engineering hard for a lot of students is the math and physics. There are subjects that we don't learn in physics, such as control theory. Yes, that's worth learning. I defer to engineers for really hard feedback control problems. My approach is instead, to design the hardware so its physical characteristics make the control problem easy. That's not always possible. One reason why we can find a way to fit in, is the huge diversity within engineering itself, leaving some niches that look a lot like what physicists do. When I taught in an engineering department for one semester, the professors always had their latest papers posted outside their office doors, and I noticed that one prof seemed to publish everything in Physical Review. Out in the work world, a lot of people with engineering job titles don't really do engineering: They can be quite busy and productive, and rewarded, for basically arranging things, fitting things together, troubleshooting, dealing with vendors, and so forth. In fact, they can get so busy at that stuff that they forget their math and theory, leaving the physicist as the go-to "math person" when a quantitative problem needs to be solved. Then there are what I call the real engineers, for whom the engineering skill is accompanied by an attitude and discipline about making things safe, reliable, maintainable, and traceable to documented and published information. These are the ones who won't accept a measured value, but need to see it guaranteed on a data sheet. I'm not that kind of engineer, and I admit it. And we definitely need that kind of engineer for systems that potentially involve public safety or massive economic liability.
- crispyambulance 6y ago
  > a lot of people with engineering job titles don't really do engineering: They can be quite busy and productive, and rewarded, for basically arranging things, fitting things together, troubleshooting, dealing with vendors, and so forth. In my work, the title "manufacturing engineer" title goes to people that work all day (and at a hard pace) doing nothing other than working in the PLM system, orchestrating ECO bureaucracy, and BOM work. To them, the actual products are nothing more than a collection of part numbers and rules applied in a cumbersome framework. I almost feel sorry for them. The sad thing is, there's an increasing population of these types, along with product/project managers and supply-chain specialists, while at the same time a decrease in engineers and techs. I also have a physics educational background and make my living doing a weird mix of EE, software, and failure analysis work. I love my job, I see myself as a kind of general purpose problem-solver. Unfortunately actual hands-on technical generalists, IMHO, are in a downward spiral these days as far as status within large organizations goes. The OP, I hope, is aware of this. He might be happier specializing in his interests and teaming up with other specialists who focus on EE.
sleavey 6y ago
I'm interested in how you found the transition from physics to EE. Did you target any particular "entry" jobs in the industry that were more genial towards physicists for instance? I'm a physicist with some electronics experience and I've got the idea to move into some EE-related field one day. And +1 for Art of Electronics, it's the bible for physicists working with electronics.
apcragg 6y ago
As a practicing EE / RF comms engineer, I will say that it is very obvious when you're working with someone who thinks that their EE coursework wasn't useful for the real world.
- someguydave 6y ago
  Yeah I have run into plenty of EE's who don't understand how to model a simple filter, for instance.
  - cushychicken 6y ago
    The first interview question is always an RC filter. It's an easy leading indicator of who has their shit together.
    - panda88888 6y ago
      RC filter is like fizzbuzz for EE.
      - rasz 6y ago
        One of those is a basic building block used in pretty much everything, the other is software bullshit.
        krapht 6y ago
        I feel attacked. I'm a DSP engineer and I haven't implemented an analog filter since I graduated. If we got into detail on RC filter gain and phase shift I'd fail. Do I have to give my EE degree back?
        eigenvector 6y ago
        No, but you at least realize an analog filter is a thing that exists. You don't remember the specifics, but you could study them if you needed to.
rasz 6y ago
>or you can dive in to projects and refer to textbooks when you get stuck You dont know what you dont know. Its better to at least read all of the coursework even fast and without understanding than go green and make basic I didnt know that existed mistakes.
madengr 6y ago
> So much of what EEs learn in their coursework is of low utility. >I have never had a single EE course Enough said.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
throwaway348422 6y ago
Also, there are big differences within the field of just something like analog signal processing, which will be very important for this project. The textbook linked (Sedra&Smith) is great if one plans to pursue analog in VLSI but not so great if one wants to do it on a PCB (I think Franco’s amplifier text is way better here). Brain-computer is going to be very tough, even ignoring all the safety and physically wiring into a brain stuff. The signals are irregular, weak and fast which makes them very difficult (but not impossible obviously) to measure.

someguydave 6y ago

It definitely depends on what you want to do. If you really want to design RF or analog circuits, having a mastery of undergrad EE signals and systems courses would be helpful. But if you only want to make digital logic work, you only need some basic knowledge of circuitry. EE is a vast field that encompasses everything from high power transmission to designing semiconductors. Even full course work from undergrad to PhD in EE is going to be fairly specialized. All that being said, I agree that if you just want to learn how to build a catalog of reasonably simple circuits, learning academic EE is a waste of time.

sleavey 6y ago
> analog circuits Can you expand on how analog electronics benefits in particular from a formal EE education? I build analog circuits (amplifiers, filters, power supplies mostly) very frequently in my job as a physicist. We have to care about noise so I've picked up a knowledge of how to deal with it in analog circuits. Is there some other area of analog electronics that "hackers" like me might not get exposed to, compared to an EE undergrad? I'm thinking of moving into EE and would like to work out the gaps in my knowledge. I also ask because I can see obvious reasons why your other example - RF electronics - would benefit from formal training but none for analog electronics.
- someguydave 6y ago
  Probably not. I'm thinking of things like Laplace transforms and their relationship to differential equations, and stability analysis for things like amp feedback. Most of that you should have gotten academically in physics, just with a more specialized application when applying it to how you model an inductor or capacitor for instance. But if you can design an amplifier or power supply, you probably already understand how to think of all the basic circuit elements and write down a differential equation modeling the circuit behavior. With respect to RF, it's also a large field. In lower frequency regimes you can model everything as a lumped circuit element. As you get into higher microwave frequencies, you start needing to worry about modeling things as a distributed circuit. If you are focusing on things like antennas then you need to know more about electromagnetics. These days practicing engineers dealing with things like antennas and feedlines typically model them with computers. In some ways RF analog circuitry is disappearing as ADCs and associated digital circuitry are becoming advanced enough to swallow large bandwidth signals. In many ways EE is pretty close to "applied physics", just focusing more on emag and less on mechanics.
  - sleavey 6y ago
    I don't tend to dig down into equations and just use the simple heuristics I've built up from examining other designs. I guess with a bit of practice I could do it though. Thanks for the info!

zxexz 6y ago

I can't recommend The Art of Electronics highly enough - it's way more intuitive and informative than any other resource on the subject I've found. It's exceptionally great when paired with the self-paced lab manual Learning the Art of Electronics[0]. [0] https://www.digikey.com/en/resources/edu/harvard-lab-kit https://www.digikey.com/en/resources/edu/harvard-lab-kit

vvanders 6y ago
I'll second this, despite the first version being written over 40 years ago it's still one of the best books I've seen on the subjects. The more recent versions bring it up to date well, it's a dense book but one I find myself coming back to more than any other for the incredible depth of practical engineering knowledge.
jacobolus 6y ago
Unfortunately these kits are unavailable from either digikey or mouser, because they include various obsolete parts which are no longer sold. Here's the website for the book https://learningtheartofelectronics.com https://learningtheartofelectronics.com

krapht 6y ago

> (I'm a physicist who transitioned to working as an EE. I have never had a single EE course, and yet I find myself with no obvious deficits compared to my colleagues who have.) Not to dunk on the rest of your reply, which I agree with, but there is a humongous overlap between your typical undergraduate physics and electrical engineering degree, and I think you're able to be successful because they're so similar. Academically, the required courses are mostly identical until your 3rd year and if you choose an RF, microwave, or semiconductor physics specialization it's just more of the same applied physics, so it would make sense you would easily be able to pick up the concepts necessary with experience.

aj7 6y ago
No. I disagree, and I’m a Physics SB and PhD (lasers). EE is a discipline unto itself. A stack of physicstextbooks and coursework is useless when you need to build a circuit that does what you need. Indeed, even writing down the desired circuit specs in a reasonably professional manner has zero overlap with physics.
- krapht 6y ago
  If it's just circuit design, the difference between an EE and a physicist is 6-9 credit hours of courses. You will both share all the necessary prerequisites in mathematics (mostly Fourier analysis, linear algebra, basic statistics, and differential equations) and electromagnetics. New graduates in EE also can't do the things you listed :)
  - madengr 6y ago
    Ha ha, no way there is only a 9 credit difference. I’m an EE, and had 6 specific physics courses in undergrad. Engineering Physics 1 & 2 EM 1 & 2 Thermo Modern Physics That in no way takes me near a physics BA, in the same way it takes a physics BA a BSEE.
  - exmadscientist 6y ago
    > New graduates in EE also can't do the things you listed :) That was the spirit of my point, yes :) More than once I've heard a coworker complain that "I wish I had learned about that in school instead of [filler course so useless that I forgot what they said]."

OJFord 6y ago

I think it's way more about what suits the learner than what suits the subject. I studied EE, and got on better with the the more theoretical textbooks than I did practicals ('huh, ok.. why?!').

bucket2015 6y ago

That's a good point. The project-first approach worked very well for me when learning new software frameworks/libs/etc. My main concern with EE is that once I'll get to the brain-computer interfaces, I'll be in a situation where there aren't many off-the-shelf components/solutions available, and at the same time I'll likely need to know how I can push physics closer to the edge. I suspect I may need a better theoretical foundation to do that. That said, I definitely like the idea of focusing a lot on hands-on projects.

exmadscientist 6y ago
You are not going to start anywhere near the area where you have to go "full custom". That is, you won't be spinning custom ICs, you'll be assembling custom PCBs from off-the-shelf components. Possibly expensive ones. But that $1000 OTS part is an insane bargain compared to any chip fabbed just for you. First make your thing do something, anything at all. Second, make it do something useful. Third, make it do the right thing, the thing you need, your goal from the beginning. Only then should you optimize it, making it smaller or cheaper or lower power or prettier or.... This is the road to success in the "R" phase of R&D.

analog31 6y ago

I'm a physicist too, and learned electronics on my own. I don't have an engineering job title, but have done fairly extensive design work. In my workplace, I'm the go-to person for anything analog and quantitative, such as figuring out a noise budget for a measurement system, as well as for figuring out how to prove that it actually works. Horowitz and Hill had a chapter entitled "digital meets analog," and there should be another chapter, "analog meets physics." Like others have said, there's a lot of overlap, especially for experimental physicists, which is what I studied. The stuff that makes studying engineering hard for a lot of students is the math and physics. There are subjects that we don't learn in physics, such as control theory. Yes, that's worth learning. I defer to engineers for really hard feedback control problems. My approach is instead, to design the hardware so its physical characteristics make the control problem easy. That's not always possible. One reason why we can find a way to fit in, is the huge diversity within engineering itself, leaving some niches that look a lot like what physicists do. When I taught in an engineering department for one semester, the professors always had their latest papers posted outside their office doors, and I noticed that one prof seemed to publish everything in Physical Review. Out in the work world, a lot of people with engineering job titles don't really do engineering: They can be quite busy and productive, and rewarded, for basically arranging things, fitting things together, troubleshooting, dealing with vendors, and so forth. In fact, they can get so busy at that stuff that they forget their math and theory, leaving the physicist as the go-to "math person" when a quantitative problem needs to be solved. Then there are what I call the real engineers, for whom the engineering skill is accompanied by an attitude and discipline about making things safe, reliable, maintainable, and traceable to documented and published information. These are the ones who won't accept a measured value, but need to see it guaranteed on a data sheet. I'm not that kind of engineer, and I admit it. And we definitely need that kind of engineer for systems that potentially involve public safety or massive economic liability.

crispyambulance 6y ago
> a lot of people with engineering job titles don't really do engineering: They can be quite busy and productive, and rewarded, for basically arranging things, fitting things together, troubleshooting, dealing with vendors, and so forth. In my work, the title "manufacturing engineer" title goes to people that work all day (and at a hard pace) doing nothing other than working in the PLM system, orchestrating ECO bureaucracy, and BOM work. To them, the actual products are nothing more than a collection of part numbers and rules applied in a cumbersome framework. I almost feel sorry for them. The sad thing is, there's an increasing population of these types, along with product/project managers and supply-chain specialists, while at the same time a decrease in engineers and techs. I also have a physics educational background and make my living doing a weird mix of EE, software, and failure analysis work. I love my job, I see myself as a kind of general purpose problem-solver. Unfortunately actual hands-on technical generalists, IMHO, are in a downward spiral these days as far as status within large organizations goes. The OP, I hope, is aware of this. He might be happier specializing in his interests and teaming up with other specialists who focus on EE.

sleavey 6y ago

I'm interested in how you found the transition from physics to EE. Did you target any particular "entry" jobs in the industry that were more genial towards physicists for instance? I'm a physicist with some electronics experience and I've got the idea to move into some EE-related field one day. And +1 for Art of Electronics, it's the bible for physicists working with electronics.

apcragg 6y ago

As a practicing EE / RF comms engineer, I will say that it is very obvious when you're working with someone who thinks that their EE coursework wasn't useful for the real world.

someguydave 6y ago
Yeah I have run into plenty of EE's who don't understand how to model a simple filter, for instance.
- cushychicken 6y ago
  The first interview question is always an RC filter. It's an easy leading indicator of who has their shit together.
  - panda88888 6y ago
    RC filter is like fizzbuzz for EE.
    - rasz 6y ago
      One of those is a basic building block used in pretty much everything, the other is software bullshit.
      - krapht 6y ago
        I feel attacked. I'm a DSP engineer and I haven't implemented an analog filter since I graduated. If we got into detail on RC filter gain and phase shift I'd fail. Do I have to give my EE degree back?
        eigenvector 6y ago
        No, but you at least realize an analog filter is a thing that exists. You don't remember the specifics, but you could study them if you needed to.

rasz 6y ago

>or you can dive in to projects and refer to textbooks when you get stuck You dont know what you dont know. Its better to at least read all of the coursework even fast and without understanding than go green and make basic I didnt know that existed mistakes.

madengr 6y ago

> So much of what EEs learn in their coursework is of low utility. >I have never had a single EE course Enough said.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

throwaway348422 6y ago

Also, there are big differences within the field of just something like analog signal processing, which will be very important for this project. The textbook linked (Sedra&Smith) is great if one plans to pursue analog in VLSI but not so great if one wants to do it on a PCB (I think Franco’s amplifier text is way better here). Brain-computer is going to be very tough, even ignoring all the safety and physically wiring into a brain stuff. The signals are irregular, weak and fast which makes them very difficult (but not impossible obviously) to measure.