Electronic and Electronic Engineering in UCC

-asdfgh-

Im thinkings of doing electronic and electronic engineering next year in UCC and im just woundering if anyone has done it and whats the course like?

mawk

well, its really really hard. like crazy work. if you hate maths and arent driven, dont do it.

if you can cope, its a good course.

-asdfgh-

mawk wrote: »

well, its really really hard. like crazy work. if you hate maths and arent driven, dont do it.

if you can cope, its a good course.

Well i do like maths, maths and applied maths are my favourite subjects. Does the workload effect your social life? Are you able to go out as much as every other student?

Shiny

Get all your assignments started and finished early and you will have as much time as any other student.

fitzyfish

It's a difficult course but if you like maths, applied maths, physics and have an interest in technology you should enjoy it. The course didnt affect my social life in first year at all as I went out more than most people. As you get further into the course though it does become more difficult and you'll find yourself working late nights doing projects more than most people in college.If you have any particular questions I'l try answer them for you!

CathalMc

fitzyfish wrote: »

It's a difficult course but if you like maths, applied maths, physics and have an interest in technology you should enjoy it. The course didnt affect my social life in first year at all as I went out more than most people. As you get further into the course though it does become more difficult and you'll find yourself working late nights doing projects more than most people in college.

What he said, but easier I think. If you have interest and gain enough intuitive understanding of the basics (transforms, circuits, comms theory...) before they start getting built upon, it's not terribly hard at all. I think the course built up a bit of a stiff reputation over the years when the points were so high, and really superb academic people were taking it - with corresponding levels of exam difficulty. Of course, your mileage may vary - some people had a rough time with the tougher concepts. But I do think the EEE course is so broad, if you've any aptitude, you'll find an area you'll enjoy.

arcalzo

i wouldnt recommend doing this course in UCC or in most (if not all) irish universities. theres very little practical element to the course, and youll basically come out after 4 years with no practical skills whatsoever. If youre doing the course cause youre interested in electronics and the thought of being able to design, fix and experiment with electronics, motors, electrical systems etc, youre going to come out very disillusioned after 4 years.

What you will be exposed to is a mish-mash collection of badly presented lectures, presented by mostly bored lecturers (many of whom have just progressed from grad degrees to post grad to lecturing positions - seeing the job as a handy number, and have little experience out in the real world of building and designing exceptions - there was one or 2 exceptions such as the guy doing the power electronics courses - who was well up on his stuff, and built his own company - but very much the exception).

The lack of enthusiasm and practicality (which is what engineering is about - the application of science to realworld solutions) in irish universities can be soul-destroying for a person that has keen aspirations to follow a career in something that really interests them.

youll discover that the course is a badly co-ordinated jumble of modules - physics, maths, chemistry etc, that are presented for a few months or semesters, and then let drop, and some other aspect will be presented the following year. there is no continuity or depth to anything. youll have no more knowledge of any area, than could be garnered in a few days by any person that spent a few days reading on the area. What should be developed continuously across the years are a a deep knowledge of relevant mathematics (linear algebra, calculus), physics (exploring a couple of relevant areas such as electromagnetism deeply, rather than presenting one course in 2nd year and then forgetting about it). and practical things that are required in actual job descriptions that youll be looking at in despair when you graduate after 4 years - there should be training in electronic circuit CAD software, Mathlab etc - not for a week here or there, but progressively over the course of 4 years - then you might actually be able to do something!

Theyll waffle it off, as thats what an engineer requires - an ability to hop from area to area and put things together.
However they misunderstand whats really going on. What you need is a thorough knowledge of how applied science works. you can only develop this by concentrating on a few areas, and seeing how people developed their theories, applied them to working solutions in the realworld and opened to different ideas.
So while an engineer may end up drawing on many different areas of knowledge, he should have a good knowledge of a few areas when graduating, and know how science/engineering works, and then open to whatever area he'll eventually pursue.

If you're interestd in electronics/electrical, id give serious thought to becoming an electrician. They earn more than any graduate elec engineers that I know, and youll be earning from day one. Youll be able to do practical things in your own house and life, and you can progress onto industry electrics, or avionics or whatever.
Alternatively if you have the backing to go to a real university with a culture of electronic and electrical engineering, whos lecturers will inspire you, go for it: MIT in the states etc.
As for UCC and elec eng - go down and see what last years grads are doing and where theyre working. Theyll tell you - "oh its a great course, you could get into anything: finance, management, IT". Dont buy this. The reason most of the grads end up in these areas is because they have no clue whatsoever about electronics or electrical afte 4 years, secondly any passion or hopes they entertained before entering college have long since been lost, and thirdly if youre in ireland, there's little or no history or culture of electronic/electrical industry. You can confirm this by going onto any irish job site such as gradireland.com, moster.ie, and looking for entry level graduate positions without experience and looking for available jobs - IN ELECTRONICS OR ELECTRICAL. there's little or nothing.

Then repeat the same thing going to an australian site such as seek.com.au or UK monster.co.uk - and youll begin to wonder who are these morons that write articles in irish daily papers, talking about the great shortage of electrical/electronic engineers in ireland - its no wonder - unless youve 10 years experience in some small area, there are practically no jobs. besides Intel, theres little else - and they put a freeze on recruitment anyway.

another feature of irish universities, is the big business of increasing turnover by peddling post-grad courses such as masters and phd. they're doing a good job of it, as their course at the bachelors graduate level are so pathetic, youll probably have no choice but to go on and do a masters or phd if you want to be able to do anyting - so figure on spending 6-8 years in uni doing elec eng, if you wanna have any skills in the field.
This is not the case in good US universities and technical colleges- friends who have attended there, have done a lot better, and surprise surprise, are still interested in science and engineering by the time they finish college.

As other people on the forum have noted, there is little practical info in the university courses. however i would go further and say that the theory that is presented is often done so poorly, and is often only tenuously related to the areas that you should be working on. If the theory was discussed in a logical and indepth manner, especially looking at how some guy came up with the theory in the first place, then youd have a real knowledge of the methodologies of science and engineering, of theory creation and testing, that could be applied and would enable you to think in a more scientific manner.
However the line youll get in UCC, is "there's the formula", 2 or 3 lines of derivation that probably arent explained or required, learn the formula off, plug in a few values, and get good marks in your exam - who cares about the whole thought process and culture off science. Get a few past papers, learn what questions come up. practice doing permutations of these questions around 10 times, plug in more values, and progress to year 2 to repeat the process - amazing! Yah, UCC is churning out the einsteins and faradays!

Thomas_S_Hunterson

arcalzo wrote: »

i wouldnt recommend doing this course in UCC or in most (if not all) irish universities. theres very little practical element to the course, and youll basically come out after 4 years with no practical skills whatsoever. If youre doing the course cause youre interested in electronics and the thought of being able to design, fix and experiment with electronics, motors, electrical systems etc, youre going to come out very disillusioned after 4 years.

A degree isn't supposed to be a practical career-centric thing. It's supposed to be academic. You don't get a degree in being an electrician, you get a degree in the field of electronics, so as such, I wouldn't see a lack of practical elements to be a flaw in itself.

In the end it comes down to what you are looking for in your education. If you're looking for a practical grounding and to go straight into a career, by all means take the practical option (diploma/apprenticeship).

However if you want an in depth academic perspective of a subject, and a few years to make up your mind where you would like to go career-wise, then a degree is probably the best option.

arcalzo

sean, i totally agree with you, and had this reasoning in mind when i orignially signed up for my degree programme.i still agree with you, at this stage (after wasting 4 years doing a badly structured, visionless degree), and if the academic institute properly delivered on presenting a high-level theory based course, that genuinely educated the participants, I would happily sign up again.
The reality falls a long way short of what one is exposed to. Ideally you'd be exposed to scientific culture, thought processes, methodologies, and as an engineer, Design - the integration of the whole into a working product/service.
Even the differentiation between practical and theoretical is a sham at some level and not clear cut in any case. There was a guy in the mech eng department of UCD (since deceased) who made several great innovations in industry - but he was a hands on type - who was as keen to talk to mechanics in the workshop about problems they encountered, as explore some theory in a book.
Engineering, by definition, is applied science. Science is a repeatable and verifiable group of laws that work in the world to produce a repeatable consistent result, and is valid until the latest theory discovers a new state of things - that more universally encompasses what is occuring, or challenges our initial perception of what is occuring.
So science is not cast in stone - it is a set of human laws that work for us at any given time - and are open to question, challenge and replacement. The supplantation of newtonian concepts by more univeral einsteinian concepts is an obvious and often quoted example.
Rather than practical versus theory, my main gripe is that the theory that is presented in many college courses is often irrelevant to the end goal of the course, and more frequently insufficiently indepth and formative at a creative and intellectual level.
For the real scientist and engineer, there is a continuum between the practical and theoretical. you can theorise forever about how something shoudl be, but until you have applied the empirical trial and error methodolgy of experiment (practical realisation), you will still be just a bookworm that is merely intellectualising what life and reality are realy about - this has practical applications in ones own life, as well is in the realm of scientific work.
The original greek idea was to observe events, form a hypothesis (theory) to explain them, and using the theory create an experiment to see if the events can be predictably replicated. Hence the true scientist and engineer will be practical and theoretical.
However if he is, he will not be focussed on plugging values into formulae that he has to learn off, repetitively practising questions on past papers ad nauseum, and so bored and fed up with his idea of "science and engineering" that the only thing that wakens him up from his state of torpor is the thought of getting drunk to the point of unconsciousness on a thursday night - not my own foible - but a reality ubiquitous and unchallenged by most.
So all id say to anyone that has graduated and thinks that it was a great course, is what have you designed, created or implemented in the area of electronics and electrics since you have graduated.
How many realworld electrical/electronic problems have you solved. Most of them wont know what youre talking about - they were doing an academic degree - but really they know nothing of academia. 50-100 years ago the university education was the privilege of the upper classes, but since then has been proletarianised, and is being gobbled up by low and middle income people that dont have the resources to fund the intellectual luxury of the former university generations. dont get me wrong, im not categorising peoples intellectual abilities according to their economic background, but if one were to observe what has happened, it could be summarised as follows.
University education has now become proletarianised in many institutions. The endgame is not to produce graduates with formidable insight and intellectual ability but rather robots that will bang out their boring tasks routinely and consistently in industry. Hence courses like elec eng at UCC fulfill the role of producing automatons that will be able to follow orders and routines and not upset their american and english directors. Rather than open the schoolboy to the world of possibility and creativity, design and innovation, they'll build upon the irish schoolboy education and further work to produce mindless robots that will bang out tasks and manage according to orders or anything predictable and deadening, and contrary to the great world of innovation, and challenge and change, that makes the process of science intriguing and fulfilling. I remain open to different opinions however, and do realise that many great people have survived the stifliing effect of the irish education system - but a great many havent either, and thats the genuinely sad side of the affair.

-asdfgh-

arcalzo wrote: »

i wouldnt recommend doing this course in UCC or in most (if not all) irish universities. theres very little practical element to the course, and youll basically come out after 4 years with no practical skills whatsoever. If youre doing the course cause youre interested in electronics and the thought of being able to design, fix and experiment with electronics, motors, electrical systems etc, youre going to come out very disillusioned after 4 years.

What you will be exposed to is a mish-mash collection of badly presented lectures, presented by mostly bored lecturers (many of whom have just progressed from grad degrees to post grad to lecturing positions - seeing the job as a handy number, and have little experience out in the real world of building and designing exceptions - there was one or 2 exceptions such as the guy doing the power electronics courses - who was well up on his stuff, and built his own company - but very much the exception).

The lack of enthusiasm and practicality (which is what engineering is about - the application of science to realworld solutions) in irish universities can be soul-destroying for a person that has keen aspirations to follow a career in something that really interests them.

youll discover that the course is a badly co-ordinated jumble of modules - physics, maths, chemistry etc, that are presented for a few months or semesters, and then let drop, and some other aspect will be presented the following year. there is no continuity or depth to anything. youll have no more knowledge of any area, than could be garnered in a few days by any person that spent a few days reading on the area. What should be developed continuously across the years are a a deep knowledge of relevant mathematics (linear algebra, calculus), physics (exploring a couple of relevant areas such as electromagnetism deeply, rather than presenting one course in 2nd year and then forgetting about it). and practical things that are required in actual job descriptions that youll be looking at in despair when you graduate after 4 years - there should be training in electronic circuit CAD software, Mathlab etc - not for a week here or there, but progressively over the course of 4 years - then you might actually be able to do something!

Theyll waffle it off, as thats what an engineer requires - an ability to hop from area to area and put things together.
However they misunderstand whats really going on. What you need is a thorough knowledge of how applied science works. you can only develop this by concentrating on a few areas, and seeing how people developed their theories, applied them to working solutions in the realworld and opened to different ideas.
So while an engineer may end up drawing on many different areas of knowledge, he should have a good knowledge of a few areas when graduating, and know how science/engineering works, and then open to whatever area he'll eventually pursue.

If you're interestd in electronics/electrical, id give serious thought to becoming an electrician. They earn more than any graduate elec engineers that I know, and youll be earning from day one. Youll be able to do practical things in your own house and life, and you can progress onto industry electrics, or avionics or whatever.
Alternatively if you have the backing to go to a real university with a culture of electronic and electrical engineering, whos lecturers will inspire you, go for it: MIT in the states etc.
As for UCC and elec eng - go down and see what last years grads are doing and where theyre working. Theyll tell you - "oh its a great course, you could get into anything: finance, management, IT". Dont buy this. The reason most of the grads end up in these areas is because they have no clue whatsoever about electronics or electrical afte 4 years, secondly any passion or hopes they entertained before entering college have long since been lost, and thirdly if youre in ireland, there's little or no history or culture of electronic/electrical industry. You can confirm this by going onto any irish job site such as gradireland.com, moster.ie, and looking for entry level graduate positions without experience and looking for available jobs - IN ELECTRONICS OR ELECTRICAL. there's little or nothing.

Then repeat the same thing going to an australian site such as seek.com.au or UK monster.co.uk - and youll begin to wonder who are these morons that write articles in irish daily papers, talking about the great shortage of electrical/electronic engineers in ireland - its no wonder - unless youve 10 years experience in some small area, there are practically no jobs. besides Intel, theres little else - and they put a freeze on recruitment anyway.

another feature of irish universities, is the big business of increasing turnover by peddling post-grad courses such as masters and phd. they're doing a good job of it, as their course at the bachelors graduate level are so pathetic, youll probably have no choice but to go on and do a masters or phd if you want to be able to do anyting - so figure on spending 6-8 years in uni doing elec eng, if you wanna have any skills in the field.
This is not the case in good US universities and technical colleges- friends who have attended there, have done a lot better, and surprise surprise, are still interested in science and engineering by the time they finish college.

As other people on the forum have noted, there is little practical info in the university courses. however i would go further and say that the theory that is presented is often done so poorly, and is often only tenuously related to the areas that you should be working on. If the theory was discussed in a logical and indepth manner, especially looking at how some guy came up with the theory in the first place, then youd have a real knowledge of the methodologies of science and engineering, of theory creation and testing, that could be applied and would enable you to think in a more scientific manner.
However the line youll get in UCC, is "there's the formula", 2 or 3 lines of derivation that probably arent explained or required, learn the formula off, plug in a few values, and get good marks in your exam - who cares about the whole thought process and culture off science. Get a few past papers, learn what questions come up. practice doing permutations of these questions around 10 times, plug in more values, and progress to year 2 to repeat the process - amazing! Yah, UCC is churning out the einsteins and faradays!

I only saw this post today and i already accepted the course last monday. Oh well, it looks like im in for a boring few years.

Ya i read somewhere that elec eng in MIT is one of the most prostigious and sought after there. Have you actually been there or know people who went there? Is it really that much better?

I suppose you did the course in UCC. What did you do once you finished the course? Are you working anywhere?

dragonkin

This is fundamentally about what you expect from an undergraduate engineering degree.

arcalzo wrote: »

The reality falls a long way short of what one is exposed to. Ideally you'd be exposed to scientific culture, thought processes, methodologies, and as an engineer, Design - the integration of the whole into a working product/service.

I had no expectation of any of this when I entered my undergraduate degree in fact my primary motivation was to reach a level of education from which I could understand the problems faced by engineers and the technical language on which most engineering texts are based most importantly the mathematical base behind these problems calculus, probability etc. My end game was to be able to open a reasonably advanced text book or engineering manual and understand it. The scientific culture, thought process and methodologies is largely the domain of the postgraduate courses in Ireland.

Even the differentiation between practical and theoretical is a sham at some level and not clear cut in any case. There was a guy in the mech eng department of UCD (since deceased) who made several great innovations in industry - but he was a hands on type - who was as keen to talk to mechanics in the workshop about problems they encountered, as explore some theory in a book.

Not clear cut but there is big difference between understanding how to build an arch and the theoretical concepts on which it is based. Understanding the theoretical background allows the basic idea to be expaned and improved surely the basic premise behind engineering? The example you quote does not mean that this hands on man had not internalised the theoretical concepts on which he was working otherewise improvement often corresponds to blind luck and brute force experimentation. A useful experiment normally requires a hypothesis.

Engineering, by definition, is applied science. Science is a repeatable and verifiable group of laws that work in the world to produce a repeatable consistent result, and is valid until the latest theory discovers a new state of things - that more universally encompasses what is occuring, or challenges our initial perception of what is occuring.
So science is not cast in stone - it is a set of human laws that work for us at any given time - and are open to question, challenge and replacement. The supplantation of newtonian concepts by more univeral einsteinian concepts is an obvious and often quoted example.

Your point being?

Rather than practical versus theory, my main gripe is that the theory that is presented in many college courses is often irrelevant to the end goal of the course, and more frequently insufficiently indepth and formative at a creative and intellectual level.

What do you consider the end goal? I would like to think that the engineering course would equip you with the necessary critical thinking and essential mathematical skills to allow your continued exploration of an interesting subject. That for me is the end goal.

For the real scientist and engineer, there is a continuum between the practical and theoretical. you can theorise forever about how something shoudl be, but until you have applied the empirical trial and error methodolgy of experiment (practical realisation), you will still be just a bookworm that is merely intellectualising what life and reality are realy about - this has practical applications in ones own life, as well is in the realm of scientific work.

I agree but don't know how this adds to the discussion.

The original greek idea was to observe events, form a hypothesis (theory) to explain them, and using the theory create an experiment to see if the events can be predictably replicated. Hence the true scientist and engineer will be practical and theoretical.

If you understand the theory then you should also try to begin to develop experiments to prove it. This is essentially what research is all about and is in fact most of the university's staffs primary focus.

However if he is, he will not be focussed on plugging values into formulae that he has to learn off, repetitively practising questions on past papers ad nauseum, and so bored and fed up with his idea of "science and engineering" that the only thing that wakens him up from his state of torpor is the thought of getting drunk to the point of unconsciousness on a thursday night - not my own foible - but a reality ubiquitous and unchallenged by most.
So all id say to anyone that has graduated and thinks that it was a great course, is what have you designed, created or implemented in the area of electronics and electrics since you have graduated.

The formulas you talk about are the theoretical scientific representation of the underlying physical system and you are applying them to solve a problem. Therefore you are engineering a solution to a problem although it may feel stupid at the time it is none the less important as most engineering problems are solved this way. I agree though there is an over emphasis on solving equations and not enough emphasis on creating equations but certainty in my course (elec eng) we did both.

How many realworld electrical/electronic problems have you solved. Most of them wont know what youre talking about - they were doing an academic degree - but really they know nothing of academia. 50-100 years ago the university education was the privilege of the upper classes, but since then has been proletarianised, and is being gobbled up by low and middle income people that dont have the resources to fund the intellectual luxury of the former university generations. dont get me wrong, im not categorising peoples intellectual abilities according to their economic background, but if one were to observe what has happened, it could be summarised as follows.
University education has now become proletarianised in many institutions. The endgame is not to produce graduates with formidable insight and intellectual ability but rather robots that will bang out their boring tasks routinely and consistently in industry. Hence courses like elec eng at UCC fulfill the role of producing automatons that will be able to follow orders and routines and not upset their american and english directors. Rather than open the schoolboy to the world of possibility and creativity, design and innovation, they'll build upon the irish schoolboy education and further work to produce mindless robots that will bang out tasks and manage according to orders or anything predictable and deadening, and contrary to the great world of innovation, and challenge and change, that makes the process of science intriguing and fulfilling. I remain open to different opinions however, and do realise that many great people have survived the stifliing effect of the irish education system - but a great many havent either, and thats the genuinely sad side of the affair.

I agree that Irish education certainly has a stifling effect and one that I have been negatively affected by but I never expected to enter some kind of dreamland where my intellectual ability was harnessed in full both creatively and logically I went to college to get the piece of paper, meet new people and hopefully develop intellectual enough that I could understand reasonably high level engineering problems and their solutions and maybe in places like MIT and abroad they do it better but I've had a quick look here and I've covered a reasonable percentage of it and can follow all the notes I looked at so I imagine their advantages lie more in the engineering culture prevalent in such an institution and the well funded labs. I've experienced European universities which are far worse then Irish ones. Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world and I never expected much of my third level education possibly a cynical view.

In general I follow the view that if we really want something we will do it ourselves. Did you buy electronics magazines and try to understand the circuits did you look on the internet for people with similar views and opinions? Or did you just complain about the deficiencies present in the system? I'm afraid that you are blaming your failings on the system when in reality it is up to you to take control of your education and try to work within the bounds of a system that is not individually tailored to each unique individual but rather tries to fit an imperfect medium.

I think based on your comments you could be well suited to a PHD.

CathalMc

"theres very little practical element to the course, and you'll basically come out ... with no practical skills whatsoever"
I came out with a fine assortment of analytical and design abilities, apparently your mileage might vary.

"design, fix and experiment with electronics, motors, electrical systems etc"
If you desire a 12 year course fiddling with bits and bobs, that's okay, but some might want the core theories that will lead to tackling the details later on, you know, when you get paid for it. They show you how to design and analyse. Fixing and experimenting is for the researchers and technicians - both directions which you are, incidentally, qualified to take.

"mish-mash collection of badly presented lectures... mostly bored lecturers"
Ah they are varied, for sure. But generally, from 3rd year on, the courses were good. They don't have any significant leg-up on undergraduate quality in the States either by the way. The list of courses is misleading, they have to choose a small subset for their major.

"badly co-ordinated jumble of modules - physics, maths, chemistry etc, that are presented for a few months or semesters, and then let drop"
What about the right balance of these to give an understanding, in the relatively unlikely event they'll become necessary later on. What is the point of doing 4 physics courses when a large proportion of people end up in comms, circuits, digital design etc.. That effort would be wasted, I think the material distribution is appropriate for a broad EE course.

"What should be developed continuously across the years are a a deep knowledge of relevant mathematics (linear algebra, calculus), physics"
Linear algebra, and calculus are certainly critical, but only in certain sub-disciplines of EE. Circuits and digital designers often haven't seen a matrix or integration for decades. If the entire class got together in first year and told the professors that you'd all end up as Communication theorists, I'm sure you'd get as much linear algebra as you want. You're screwed if that industry goes south though. Might be nice to have some diversity...

"there should be training in electronic circuit CAD software".
I seem to have seen quite a number of packages, certainly enough to hold my own in industry. There is always on the job training for new software in any job anyway, they expect nothing of undergraduates expect enough theoretical knowledge to understand the details.

"the backing to go to a real university with a culture of electronic and electrical engineering, whos lecturers will inspire you, go for it: MIT in the states etc."
Only the top few percentage of all EE get to attend the top tier schools in the US, and pay accordingly. Most attend schools comparable to our own. European schools graduates compare quite favorably with Americans, it is post-graduate where they pull ahead significantly.

"the great shortage of electrical/electronic engineers in ireland".
My theory is that there is a shortage of *quality* EEs in Ireland. I've seen the state of some of those toting degrees, it's not pretty.

"Theyll tell you - "oh its a great course, you could get into anything: finance, management, IT".
Another tell-tail sign, a lot of people with no great aptitude, interest or desire for EE got in after the points went down since it has/had a reputation for good jobs. They then get punished for 4 years in a course that doesn't tolerate those seeking an easy ride. They get out, and seem to be well accepted in many of other fields. Which in-itself must say something for the course.

" my main gripe is that the theory that is presented in many college courses is often irrelevant to the end goal of the course, and more frequently insufficiently indepth and formative at a creative and intellectual level."
In college, you are supposed to educate yourself. The lectures are the tip of the iceberg, projects and homeworks exist to practice basic problem solving skills, and create familiarity with the terrain. That the unwashed masses around you did not take advantage of the opportunity to learn in depth is no reflection on the course. Specifically, what theories did you find irrelevant?

"further work to produce mindless robots that will bang out tasks and manage according to orders or anything predictable and deadening"
You haven't had a job recently have you? Following orders is precisely what most of the population does in that whole post-college era. We're quite lucky that we get to work in an area with opportunity to innovate and create. We have been educated in a way that allows us to change careers in a huge number of directions, even strictly within the EE domain itself.

"For the real scientist and engineer, there is a continuum between the practical and theoretical. you can theorise forever about how something shoudl be, but until you have applied the empirical trial and error methodolgy of experiment (practical realisation), you will still be just a bookworm that is merely intellectualising what life and reality are realy about - this has practical applications in ones own life, as well is in the realm of scientific work."
I imagine you should have done a science. In engineering, we want to get the job done. We want to build things. We are business oriented. We do not want to wait around in college learning every nuance of theories, or worse, trying out endless experiments, when a grounding in both will be enough to extrapolate, because we are - supposed to be - self-reliant, independent, self-teaching professionals. If you want specialization, you need to take a post-graduate course, or merely work in that area. That's not a failure of the degree, the ability to take these steps is the success of the degree.

" what have you designed, created or implemented in the area of electronics and electrics since you have graduated."
Quite a lot: various integrated circuits, RF, analog, mixed signal and digital, communication models and I'm currently setting up a biomedical company.

keane2097

fitzyfish wrote: »

It's a difficult course but if you like maths, applied maths, physics and have an interest in technology you should enjoy it. The course didnt affect my social life in first year at all as I went out more than most people. As you get further into the course though it does become more difficult and you'll find yourself working late nights doing projects more than most people in college.If you have any particular questions I'l try answer them for you!

Fitzy will back me up here in saying it's quite possible to enjoy a great (read: reckless) social life and still get through the course fine.

I went to less than 15 lectures last year (3rd year) and still passed all my exams first time round. This included at least five nights out during the three weeks our exams were on. I got a great Work Placement position with Intel as well, so don't worry about it from a social life aspect.

The real secret is the continuous assessment. Try hard in the labs. Do good reports and get stuff in on time. This has often meant all-nighters for me the night before a project is due, but you'll get through it when you have to.

If you can come out of your continuous assessment with marks considerably above 40%, say somewhere around 55%, then you'll be extremely well set up for your exams. You'll be able to pass 1st and 2nd year with relative ease if you do this.

Spend a bit more time than I did going to lectures in third year and you'll find it handy enough.

Contrary to what the lad above has said, I've found it a great course so far. Very interesting and extremely rewarding when you do decide to put in the effort. And just so you know, he doesn't speak for everyone either - just because he didn't get what he was looking for out of it doesn't make it the terrible degree he goes on about.

If you like maths and you're into electronics you'll enjoy it a lot I'll bet.

Good luck, and don't be afraid to ask for help cos you'll find most people will be glad to help out.

Just don't ask me cos I know nothing!

keane2097

CathalMc wrote: »

"theres very little practical element to the course, and you'll basically come out ... with no practical skills whatsoever"
I came out with a fine assortment of analytical and design abilities, apparently your mileage might vary.

"design, fix and experiment with electronics, motors, electrical systems etc"
If you desire a 12 year course fiddling with bits and bobs, that's okay, but some might want the core theories that will lead to tackling the details later on, you know, when you get paid for it. They show you how to design and analyse. Fixing and experimenting is for the researchers and technicians - both directions which you are, incidentally, qualified to take.

"mish-mash collection of badly presented lectures... mostly bored lecturers"
Ah they are varied, for sure. But generally, from 3rd year on, the courses were good. They don't have any significant leg-up on undergraduate quality in the States either by the way. The list of courses is misleading, they have to choose a small subset for their major.

"badly co-ordinated jumble of modules - physics, maths, chemistry etc, that are presented for a few months or semesters, and then let drop"
What about the right balance of these to give an understanding, in the relatively unlikely event they'll become necessary later on. What is the point of doing 4 physics courses when a large proportion of people end up in comms, circuits, digital design etc.. That effort would be wasted, I think the material distribution is appropriate for a broad EE course.

"What should be developed continuously across the years are a a deep knowledge of relevant mathematics (linear algebra, calculus), physics"
Linear algebra, and calculus are certainly critical, but only in certain sub-disciplines of EE. Circuits and digital designers often haven't seen a matrix or integration for decades. If the entire class got together in first year and told the professors that you'd all end up as Communication theorists, I'm sure you'd get as much linear algebra as you want. You're screwed if that industry goes south though. Might be nice to have some diversity...

"there should be training in electronic circuit CAD software".
I seem to have seen quite a number of packages, certainly enough to hold my own in industry. There is always on the job training for new software in any job anyway, they expect nothing of undergraduates expect enough theoretical knowledge to understand the details.

"the backing to go to a real university with a culture of electronic and electrical engineering, whos lecturers will inspire you, go for it: MIT in the states etc."
Only the top few percentage of all EE get to attend the top tier schools in the US, and pay accordingly. Most attend schools comparable to our own. European schools graduates compare quite favorably with Americans, it is post-graduate where they pull ahead significantly.

"the great shortage of electrical/electronic engineers in ireland".
My theory is that there is a shortage of *quality* EEs in Ireland. I've seen the state of some of those toting degrees, it's not pretty.

"Theyll tell you - "oh its a great course, you could get into anything: finance, management, IT".
Another tell-tail sign, a lot of people with no great aptitude, interest or desire for EE got in after the points went down since it has/had a reputation for good jobs. They then get punished for 4 years in a course that doesn't tolerate those seeking an easy ride. They get out, and seem to be well accepted in many of other fields. Which in-itself must say something for the course.

" my main gripe is that the theory that is presented in many college courses is often irrelevant to the end goal of the course, and more frequently insufficiently indepth and formative at a creative and intellectual level."
In college, you are supposed to educate yourself. The lectures are the tip of the iceberg, projects and homeworks exist to practice basic problem solving skills, and create familiarity with the terrain. That the unwashed masses around you did not take advantage of the opportunity to learn in depth is no reflection on the course. Specifically, what theories did you find irrelevant?

"further work to produce mindless robots that will bang out tasks and manage according to orders or anything predictable and deadening"
You haven't had a job recently have you? Following orders is precisely what most of the population does in that whole post-college era. We're quite lucky that we get to work in an area with opportunity to innovate and create. We have been educated in a way that allows us to change careers in a huge number of directions, even strictly within the EE domain itself.

"For the real scientist and engineer, there is a continuum between the practical and theoretical. you can theorise forever about how something shoudl be, but until you have applied the empirical trial and error methodolgy of experiment (practical realisation), you will still be just a bookworm that is merely intellectualising what life and reality are realy about - this has practical applications in ones own life, as well is in the realm of scientific work."
I imagine you should have done a science. In engineering, we want to get the job done. We want to build things. We are business oriented. We do not want to wait around in college learning every nuance of theories, or worse, trying out endless experiments, when a grounding in both will be enough to extrapolate, because we are - supposed to be - self-reliant, independent, self-teaching professionals. If you want specialization, you need to take a post-graduate course, or merely work in that area. That's not a failure of the degree, the ability to take these steps is the success of the degree.

" what have you designed, created or implemented in the area of electronics and electrics since you have graduated."
Quite a lot: various integrated circuits, RF, analog, mixed signal and digital, communication models and I'm currently setting up a biomedical company.

Quoted For Truth.

Great post, and a lot closer to the truth than the inexplicably embittered posts of the other lad imo.

sharkDawg

keane2097 wrote: »

I've found it a great course so far.

keane2097 wrote: »

I went to less than 15 lectures last year (3rd year)

:rolleyes:

keane2097 wrote: »

This included at least five nights out during the three weeks our exams were on.

I take it back, you have my respect, Sir.

fitzyfish

In response to the post criticising UCC elec eng I know people that have graduated from the course and gone on to do postgrad studies in colleges such as MIT, Berkeley, Stanford, Harvard and Cambridge University!!!

I think it is fair to say that these are some of the best postgraduate institutions in the world and this reflects quite positively on the quality of the UCC course considering that a number of these people did not come top of their class and yet were still accepted into such prestigious universities. I dont think places like these would accept people if their undergraduate degree wasn't of very high quality => UCC elec eng kicks ass!!!

Keane2097 must be commended for his rare ability to drink hard, attend no lectures and still pass the exams!!!!:)

keane2097

sharkDawg wrote: »

:rolleyes:




I take it back, you have my respect, Sir.

Living the dream bah!

-asdfgh-

.

-asdfgh-

-asdfgh- wrote: »

.

Good point.

keane2097

Myth wrote: »

-asdfgh- wrote: »

.

Good point.

+1

-asdfgh-

Myth wrote: »

Good point.

I'm glad someones able to appreciate it.

Jippo

arcalzo wrote: »

i wouldnt recommend doing this course in UCC or in most (if not all) irish universities. theres very little practical element to the course, and youll basically come out after 4 years with no practical skills whatsoever. If youre doing the course cause youre interested in electronics and the thought of being able to design, fix and experiment with electronics, motors, electrical systems etc, youre going to come out very disillusioned after 4 years.

What you will be exposed to is a mish-mash collection of badly presented lectures, presented by mostly bored lecturers (many of whom have just progressed from grad degrees to post grad to lecturing positions - seeing the job as a handy number, and have little experience out in the real world of building and designing exceptions - there was one or 2 exceptions such as the guy doing the power electronics courses - who was well up on his stuff, and built his own company - but very much the exception).

The lack of enthusiasm and practicality (which is what engineering is about - the application of science to realworld solutions) in irish universities can be soul-destroying for a person that has keen aspirations to follow a career in something that really interests them.

youll discover that the course is a badly co-ordinated jumble of modules - physics, maths, chemistry etc, that are presented for a few months or semesters, and then let drop, and some other aspect will be presented the following year. there is no continuity or depth to anything. youll have no more knowledge of any area, than could be garnered in a few days by any person that spent a few days reading on the area. What should be developed continuously across the years are a a deep knowledge of relevant mathematics (linear algebra, calculus), physics (exploring a couple of relevant areas such as electromagnetism deeply, rather than presenting one course in 2nd year and then forgetting about it). and practical things that are required in actual job descriptions that youll be looking at in despair when you graduate after 4 years - there should be training in electronic circuit CAD software, Mathlab etc - not for a week here or there, but progressively over the course of 4 years - then you might actually be able to do something!

Theyll waffle it off, as thats what an engineer requires - an ability to hop from area to area and put things together.
However they misunderstand whats really going on. What you need is a thorough knowledge of how applied science works. you can only develop this by concentrating on a few areas, and seeing how people developed their theories, applied them to working solutions in the realworld and opened to different ideas.
So while an engineer may end up drawing on many different areas of knowledge, he should have a good knowledge of a few areas when graduating, and know how science/engineering works, and then open to whatever area he'll eventually pursue.

If you're interestd in electronics/electrical, id give serious thought to becoming an electrician. They earn more than any graduate elec engineers that I know, and youll be earning from day one. Youll be able to do practical things in your own house and life, and you can progress onto industry electrics, or avionics or whatever.
Alternatively if you have the backing to go to a real university with a culture of electronic and electrical engineering, whos lecturers will inspire you, go for it: MIT in the states etc.
As for UCC and elec eng - go down and see what last years grads are doing and where theyre working. Theyll tell you - "oh its a great course, you could get into anything: finance, management, IT". Dont buy this. The reason most of the grads end up in these areas is because they have no clue whatsoever about electronics or electrical afte 4 years, secondly any passion or hopes they entertained before entering college have long since been lost, and thirdly if youre in ireland, there's little or no history or culture of electronic/electrical industry. You can confirm this by going onto any irish job site such as gradireland.com, moster.ie, and looking for entry level graduate positions without experience and looking for available jobs - IN ELECTRONICS OR ELECTRICAL. there's little or nothing.

Then repeat the same thing going to an australian site such as seek.com.au or UK monster.co.uk - and youll begin to wonder who are these morons that write articles in irish daily papers, talking about the great shortage of electrical/electronic engineers in ireland - its no wonder - unless youve 10 years experience in some small area, there are practically no jobs. besides Intel, theres little else - and they put a freeze on recruitment anyway.

another feature of irish universities, is the big business of increasing turnover by peddling post-grad courses such as masters and phd. they're doing a good job of it, as their course at the bachelors graduate level are so pathetic, youll probably have no choice but to go on and do a masters or phd if you want to be able to do anyting - so figure on spending 6-8 years in uni doing elec eng, if you wanna have any skills in the field.
This is not the case in good US universities and technical colleges- friends who have attended there, have done a lot better, and surprise surprise, are still interested in science and engineering by the time they finish college.

As other people on the forum have noted, there is little practical info in the university courses. however i would go further and say that the theory that is presented is often done so poorly, and is often only tenuously related to the areas that you should be working on. If the theory was discussed in a logical and indepth manner, especially looking at how some guy came up with the theory in the first place, then youd have a real knowledge of the methodologies of science and engineering, of theory creation and testing, that could be applied and would enable you to think in a more scientific manner.
However the line youll get in UCC, is "there's the formula", 2 or 3 lines of derivation that probably arent explained or required, learn the formula off, plug in a few values, and get good marks in your exam - who cares about the whole thought process and culture off science. Get a few past papers, learn what questions come up. practice doing permutations of these questions around 10 times, plug in more values, and progress to year 2 to repeat the process - amazing! Yah, UCC is churning out the einsteins and faradays!

If you want all that stuff study science, not engineering

keane2097

Jippo wrote: »

If you want all that stuff study science, not engineering

nice bump