Electrical Engineering...a path to science?

[Nortilus (Josh)]

Im thinking of doing electrical engineering (externally via distance education because i need to keep working). After doing this (or even during), can I use this degree to then pursue further education into the realm of science...most likely into our beloved astronomy. Im really interested in what is happening with the SKA. I currentlly work in IT and I am working towards been a network administrator/network engineer and I feel that with an degree in electrical engineering could lead me into an area of science I would really love to be in and that is research...

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Originally Posted by Nortilus

Im thinking of doing electrical engineering (externally via distance education because i need to keep working). After doing this (or even during), can I use this degree to then pursue further education into the realm of science...most likely into our beloved astronomy. Im really interested in what is happening with the SKA. I currentlly work in IT and I am working towards been a network administrator/network engineer and I feel that with an degree in electrical engineering could lead me into an area of science I would really love to be in and that is research...

Hi Naut,

I currently doing a double degree Electronic Engineering and Physics. This also could lead into the SKA as well. I was talking to one of the marketing guys in Science an Engineering at Curtin mentioned that that course was specifically geared for Radio Astronomy although in Curtin they have a specific Radio Astronomy Degree.

The only issue is that I don't think they can be provided via Correspondence as there is a lot of LAB work.

[bojan]

Electrical engineering is the path I took 45+ years ago when I was faced with a choice on the crossroad - Physics or Engineering path?.. and I choose Engineering (radio-communications) because my conclusion was at that time that I will be very poor physicist or astronomer (Astronomy was studied as part of physics course on uni in my town. And I had radio-astronomy in my mind..
Today I can't say I am a rich engineer though.. and I am not radio-astronomer either.

However, it was quite rewarding career, but you have to be aware that philosophy behind engineering is TOTALLY different from the one that drives science... (except if you happen to work in the field of fundamental research - new technologies, new materials and so on)

As an engineer, you will be pressurised to put things on market - quickly, and cost effective. It was like that 40 years ago and it is much more important today.. and it will get even "worse" in the future.
The moment your gadget works well enough to satisfy the market demand, the management will decide "That's it, enough of development! Next project!" and as time goes by, you will start to live with this, sometimes frustrating concept.. starting to behave accordingly and.. you will become the lost case for science (well, I am that case, this is not the inevitable outcome for everyone of course.. These days (with one of my legs in retirement) I am trying to pick up where I stopped then, but I feel the lack the fundamentals.. and my now adopted engineering philosophy (just produce quick and good-enough outcome) is in clear conflict with the necessity of slow and detailed approach to problems that science demands..
So, be careful... and please consider

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Josh,

I think you need to think about what 'path to science' means. With your present and future skill set what would you do in science? You will wind up like me - though probably at a higher level! - a technician who works on scientific equipment. These people are skilled professionals whose contribution is vital to any scientific research. Being intelligent and engaged they often also understand the science they are involved in. However, they do not drive the research; that is the domain of people with PhDs who often have the title Prof. In fact it is often committees of profs that decide the research direction of an organisation.

In the uni system much of the hands-on research, particularly the grunt work, is done by PhD students or post-docs. Sitting beside them are the technicians who are generally attached to items of equipment or data system. Where I am, in earth sciences we have:

- curator
- GIS and spatial systems support (2 positions)
- geological section maker / XRD operator / SEM support
- lab technicians (2 permanent 2 soft money)
- drill rig operator
- field equipment and surveying equipment support

Each of these is responsible for providing service work for staff and students and/or making sure equipment or systems are working. Between us we have a broad skill set ranging from the legalities of data usage to the practicalities of hydraulic pumps. Within our domains we also generally have pretty absolute control; especially over students and post-docs - some academics are harder to control. If a student wants samples analysed on 'my' mass spectrometer it will be done when I say and how I say. I have a responsibility to the equipment and it will be looked after. I also have a responsibility to science and data that leaves my hands must be fit for publication. If that means waiting until I'm happy the instrument is working well, then the student waits. But I don't decide what samples to analyse, the driller doesn't decide from where to extract cores and neither of us write up and publish. That is done by academics and their students. The distinction is clear and and absolute.

Sorry if that sounds negative because it's not. It's a good life, you are a necessary part of something good and (in my experience) your expertise is respected. If you accept your role you can be happy there. Just don't expect to sidle into research via the back door. If you want to be a professional astronomer get a PhD and go in via the front door.

[Nortilus (Josh)]

Thanks for the heads up there with your personal life experiences. I really do like making things and have always had an interest in electronics and things of such nature. I understand that actually been part of a research team you are not always the one that writes up the findings and gets work published, but just been part of something like that would be great. If it wasn't for engineers and the lowly factory workers and position of such nature...man would never of made it to the moon...

[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

Hello Nortilus,

Most of the early radio astronomers were probably more electrical engineers than astronomers! Quite a lot of radio astronomers are still 'highly techie types' who can build and modify their own equipment, as well as knowing the relevant physics.

CSIRO Radiophysics are excellent at applying physics to engineering problems; that is why they continue to get well funded, year after year, in comparison to the more theoretical physicists.
For instance, they developed a famous Microwave Landing System for aircraft, and they are also very good at designing radio dishes and radio telescope detectors and complex communications networks. Dr John O'Sullivan of CSIRO is a very good 'radio astronomy' type of person; he invented Wi-Fi, which was originally a really difficult and original piece of physics and engineering.

Obviously, there is a lot more to analyzing radio data, and to analyzing optical or other wavelength data, than merely knowing the physics and engineering of the equipment used to detect astronomical objects.
You have to know a lot more physics than the average electrical engineer, if you want to be an astronomer.
As an astrophysicist, you won't necessarily have to actually be a creative physicist who discovers new physics, but you have to know all the relevant physics.

Most large optical telescopes employ a lot of support staff, so there are openings here for 'engineering types', in fact some of the support staff of the giant optical telescopes like to joke that 'you wouldn't trust a telescope to an astronomer'.

Also, building detectors for astronomical instruments is a very difficult and specialized and interesting field, at the juncture of physics and engineering.

cheers, madbadgalaxyman

The article 'so you want to be a professional astronomer' by Professor Duncan Forbes, can be googled up, on the internet. (it is a .pdf file)
This looks at becoming an astronomer from the more orthodox pathway of learning physics and maths for a few years, and then going on to do a PhD in astrophysics.

Howevever, I would comment that there are plenty of people who did a PhD in astronomy who then proved unable to actually do research and discover new things and write highly cited papers.
In contrast, I know of a few professional astronomers who had already written several papers during their early studies doing Bachelor of Science ; some of these people never went on to get a PhD, but they still went on to become astronomers because they knew how to do research.
(I have read a lot of astronomy PhD theses.....most are mediocre, a handful are excellent)

If you want to do research in astronomy, there is no need to wait until you get a 'qualification'. These days, a CCD camera and a 16 inch telescope would probably suffice for research on bright galaxies. (for instance, one could do broadband (UBVRI) surface photometry of galaxies). It's the knowledge that counts, not getting the qualification.

[Barrykgerdes]

Getting a tertiary degree in one of the engineering/science subjects can be helpful when choosing a career in a field that can use these talents but it will not ensure you a position in the field of your choice. You will need something more, such as a specialized interest and knowledge of the subject.

However most of the recruitment these days seems to be done by recruitment companies that work from prepared program and do not necessarily know much about the job and so pick the best person from their own parameters, using your prepared CV. Make sure your CV is complete in the knowledge of and for the prospective position and you can back up your stated talents.

In the old days when we did our own recruitment I sat on interview boards and looked for common sense and the ability to think when appraising an applicant and a tertiary education was not the prime requirement. It is surprising the number of applicants that had good degrees but could not apply the basics of their course to a simple common sense problem that I had already given them the answer to indirectly.

Barry

[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

It is surprising the number of applicants that had good degrees but could not apply the basics of their course to a simple common sense problem that I had already given them the answer to indirectly.

Barry

Too true, Barry.

For instance, a lot of astronomy PhD theses simply amount to making some observations of some objects and analyzing and presenting the data, without drawing any conclusions or saying anything new.

I think that, even these days, it is important to 'actually be able to do it'
I recall a really tedious man, when I had a spell working in the public service, who used to sit there doing nothing all day, and who was very scornful of all the paper shuffling that administrative work involved. He had a superior air, because he had a doctorate in palaeontology.
He could have been out there digging, and preparing fossils, and actually doing something, instead of sitting at a desk and being bored. Many people do research these days without being paid for it: some of them have never had a formal position in their area of research, and some of them manage to do it without formal qualifications. It ain't easy to get to the stage where you can actually solve problems in a specialized field of science, but the very large amount of required knowledge can be obtained simply through personal study.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

However most of the recruitment these days seems to be done by recruitment companies that work from prepared program and do not necessarily know much about the job and so pick the best person from their own parameters, using your prepared CV. Make sure your CV is complete in the knowledge of and for the prospective position and you can back up your stated talents.

Sorry to drift a bit off topic but there was a conversation yesterday about someone's son getting into the mining industry. One of the chem techs said that he had applied and that these days applications are initially vetted by software that looks for key words. In his application he stated he had XRD and AAS experience. He had 25 years on AAS and two afternoons on XRD but they were both given the same weight by the recruitment company. I think it's fair to say that the process lacked finesse.

[Poita (Peter)]

EE is a great path and a great potential career. Just keep your skills up once you have the degree.
Mine is from 1987 and I didn't keep up with developments as my career took a very different path.

It means I don't have the skills or knowledge to understand current gear, don't let that happen to you

My comp sci degree is also rather useless now, not many people need to have their VAX systems looked after any more...

[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

There's an awful lot a person has to learn in order to become a professional astronomer. No need to wait for the start of a formal course in order to start studying!

Plenty of good books around, for instance I have reviewed (at amazon.com), nearly all of the available textbooks on galaxies at the undergraduate to graduate level.
(just search on google for: "Amazon.com: profile for R.A. Lang")
I also reviewed two high-level introductory books about star formation, and I also reviewed a more physically-oriented Star Formation textbook suitable for undergraduates and graduates.

"An Introduction to Radio Astronomy" (3rd Edition), by Bernard Burke and Francis Graham-Smith, is an excellent textbook, with very clear explanations about radio telescopes and important facts such as the different types of emission mechanisms from objects. It also covers the ISM, pulsars, radio galaxies, etc., with fairly simple physics and maths.

I also reviewed a number of high-level, but remarkably easily understandable, texts on stellar evolution and the concept of Stellar Populations.
I can also recommend some basic books on stellar evolution, which is one of the critical building blocks of astronomical knowledge.

[gary]

Hi Josh,

Or you may well ask, is pursuing a degree in the science of astronomy a possible path to
a career in engineering?

Case in point, two positions advertised by CSIRO that closed last week for
"Research Scientists - Astronomy" with a pre-requisite of a PhD in Astronomy,
Radio Astronomy or equivalent.

The advertisement listed these essential criteria:

Originally Posted by CSIRO Position Details Reference NSW12/04197

1. In depth understanding of radio interferometry calibration and imaging techniques,
demonstrated by authorship of refereed publications.
2. Experience writing production quality software for radio interferometry calibration and imaging.
3. Software development in C++, Python, Java, or other modern languages.
4. Experience working in a scientific or research software development team.
5. Excellent communication skills, including both written and oral.

So why essential requirement 3, a knowledge of programming languages?

As the ad went onto say -

CASS continues to develop capabilities for two mature world-class radio telescopes: the Parkes
Telescope, and the Australia Telescope Compact Array (as augmented recently with the Compact Array
Broadband Backend, CABB). In particular, improved imaging and calibration methods for making use of
CABB’s 2 GHz bandwidth (e.g., CASA) are needed. CASS expects to continue development and
deployment of its novel checkerboard phased array feed technology to other telescopes such as the
Parkes Telescope.

The successful candidate will therefore be involved in the development of world-class radio astronomy
facilities – ASKAP, the ATCA, and Parkes in the short to medium term, and SKA in the longer term.

Finally, there is scope to be involved in the development of software for the checkerboard phased array
feed program.

The successful candidates will work in the newly formed Software and Computing research group as part
of the Science Data Processing team.

You can read more about what a checkerboard phased array feed is in this
CSIRO presentation -
http://www.radionet-eu.org/fp7wiki/l...ough_final.pdf

Science has this time honored tradition of build the instrument, do the experiment,
report the results.

As you are aware, the science product of a large observatory is just the tip of the
iceberg. An enormous amount of engineering endeavour goes on beneath the surface.

So large is this endeavour that in the case of projects such as the SKA, it
is often a case of all hands to the pumps. One would surmise, for example, that the
expectation would be for the astronomers recruited in the above ad to be
highly involved in the design and implementation of the software algorithms
to optimize the use and extend the versatility of the checkerboard phased array feeds.
The heart of those algorithms will be highly mathematical.

However, anyone who has ever worked on a project where there is any very large software
component will be aware of the phenomena that software development can be
a black hole that sucks in any who ventures too close near it and that they rarely
emerge.

Hence my little joke at the beginning questioning whether pursuing a degree
in astronomy can lead to a career in engineering.

When you look at the SKA specifically, the electronics hardware and the computer
is essentially the telescope.

To push that instrument further and further will often come down to areas such as
software refinement. It would not surprise me if those two astronomers ended
up spending their entire professional careers involved in just the software engineering for
radiotelescopes.

Here is a personal anecdote.

Both myself and Mai are professional Electrical Engineers.

Several years ago our company, Wildcard Innovations, had the pleasure of being contracted to
work on one small aspect of the software development for the AAT's IRIS2 infrared
camera. The AAO's instrumentation team at North Ryde here in Sydney
is among the best in the world.

IRIS2 team leader, Chris Tinney, said this of the project at the time -

Originally Posted by Chris Tinney, AAO Newsletter, Feb 2002

The intervening 5 years was filled with hard work: from
the astronomers who tried to define the scientific priorities
for IRIS2 and then turn these into a functional
specification for the instrument; from the engineers who
tried to turn those specifications into something useful,
and then into designs for new hardware and software;
from the mechanical, electronics and software teams
who had to build and integrate all these components;
and from the project managers who had to keep all the
above happening at the right times and in the right places.
I can't speak highly enough of the professionalism with
which everyone in the IRIS2 Team approached their
tasks

Reference - http://www.aao.gov.au/library/newsle...eb02/feb02.pdf

It characterizes nicely the amount of work that goes on beneath the surface before
a single observation is made or a science paper is submitted for review.

Designed for studying stars and galaxies at infrared wavelengths, that particular
project was one of 63 entered in the annual Engineering Excellence Awards of the
Institution of Engineers, Australia (Sydney Division) and won top honors and
received the prestigious JJC Bradfield Award.

We were pleased to see Wildcard Innovations was "mentioned in dispatches"
by way of the AAO's official submission for the award. I must emphasize that
our contribution to the project was only very small and I'll sometimes joke today that
my contribution probably helped refine the known age of the Universe by another
second.

But it was also enormously satisfying and fun to work on and where else do you
get the chance to ask someone such as Brian Boyle anything you want to know
about astronomy over a sandwich on the outdoor benches at lunch time?

Best Regards

Gary Kopff
IEEE Member 35 years.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

A very interesting story Gary, but I'll comment on one aspect.

Originally Posted by gary

...

Science has this time honored tradition of build the instrument, do the experiment, report the results....

This is true but it isn't the whole story. At the 'top end' instruments may be built for one specific purpose and the developers are closely integrated to the science. However a lot of very useful instruments are so versatile and their use so widespread that the inventors and service technicians have very little idea of the uses to which they are put. I'm thinking of things like GC, HPLC, UV-Vis spectroscopy, FTIR, ICP-MS and even IRMS. One GC might be doing quality control in a production facility, another assisting in chemical synthesis while ours is quantifying biomarkers in sediment profiles to assist in palaeoenvironment reconstruction. Our compound-specific IRMS rig was installed by a technician who had used one at the Athens olympics for drug screening whereas our was used to quantify residence time for terrestrial carbon in rivers and estuaries.

Sometimes it's; build instrument with one or two uses in mind and then watch as more and more uses are found for your 'child'.

[Barrykgerdes]

Hi Gary

That is an interesting ad. It is obvious from the duty statement that the position has been tailored around the person they have alread selected for the job.

I was a public servant from the old days when the head of the department could give a job to a person who had something to offer. I got a top job without any qualifications, something that doesn't happen today.

To day to be seen as transparent (no jobs for the boys) all positions must be advertised and duty statements are the order of the day. So to get the person you want you must tailor the duty statement to suit the person you want.

So if you want a job as an astronomer you will need to be the one they want and all the degrees in the world won't make much difference.

Barry

[Dave2042 (Dave)]

Thought I'd add a bit on my own experience.

• Back before the dawn of time I started a law degree. Absolutely hated it and dropped out after one year.
  
• Transferred to science. Behaved like a teenager, failed, had a major car accident and dropped out after one year.
  
• Three enjoyable years in retail.
  
• Back to science first year, no longer a teenager. Loved it to bits, worked hard and eventually got Honours in Astrophysics.
  
• Immediately left for finance and have had a long, interesting and happy career, while still enjoying science and astronomy as an amateur.

The lesson I have taken out of this is to choose to do what you want or like, and see where it takes you, rather than what you think you ought to in order to get to a specific end goal.

If you do something you like, you'll probably enjoy it, work hard at it, and be good at it. Once you're good at it, all kinds of other opportunities will probably open up.

Conversely, if you do something you don't like, in order to get somewhere else, it will be very hard to enjoy it, work hard at it and get good at it.

In your situation, if you think doing EE would be interesting for its own sake, I'd go for it, and if you think it might get you to astronomy, then great, but make sure you're enjoying the EE on the way. If you have no real interest in EE, though, I'd think very carefully.

[Astro_Bot]

... and duty statements are the order of the day.

Actually, these days, it's the Selection Criteria, rather than the duty statement, on which candidates are evaluated. That becomes particularly hard when you're limited to writing 6 criteria, and at least two of them are the standard ethics and communications ability.

I applied for a job a couple of years ago that had a 6-point selection crieria and 10-point duty statement - science-related (where I have a strong interest) but the duty statement was all engineering - seriously straight from a typical electrical and systems engineers CV - the duty statement seemed to suit me perfectly. However, the selection criteria included having a PhD in science and a research background. When I enquired, I found that the selection criteria had been written mostly by HR and the duty statement by the position supervisor, but even he thought that a PhD was required to simply work next to scientists, even though the position did not perform, nor interpret, any research. It was a real shame as it was a damn-near perfect job for me.

I don't doubt that there are a lot of jobs out there, both public and private, that are poorly specified. And then there are the recruiting companies stuffing up finding the right person.

In my very humble opinion, one of the most fruitful efforts we could undertake as a nation to improve productivity would be to get the right person into the right job. It'd generally make people happier, too, I bet.

[gary]

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

Sometimes it's; build instrument with one or two uses in mind and then watch as more and more uses are found for your 'child'.

Thanks David. Indeed!

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

Hi Gary
That is an interesting ad. It is obvious from the duty statement that the position has been tailored around the person they have alread selected for the job.

Hi Barry,

I am not sure, and they were looking to fill two positions, but perhaps they had two individuals in mind.

I guess it would be more obvious if one were to have at the end of a requirements list -

6. Must answer to Barry, Bazza or Baz

You'd just have to be careful of being so confident the job was yours that
you didn't even bother reading the ad and some wag in the office slips in -

7. Must make cups of tea for everyone else in the office on demand.

[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

Originally Posted by Dave2042

Thought I'd add a bit on my own experience.

• Back to science first year, no longer a teenager. Loved it to bits, worked hard and eventually got Honours in Astrophysics.
• Immediately left for finance and have had a long, interesting and happy career, while still enjoying science and astronomy as an amateur.

The world is full of people who did qualifications in astronomy and never actually worked as astronomers afterwards.

However, a surprising number of them still work in engineering or science or information technology, though not actually in astronomy.
Others of them do interesting astronomical work in a "non paid capacity"

Also, some of the top amateur astronomers are really straining the definition of "hobbyist". For instance, the members of the BOSS supernova search team, have had their names put on as co-authors of a scientific paper. In other words, the paper written by these people will be cited by professional astronomers, and they will have a citation record, which is a defining characteristic of the professional scientist.

Years ago, I wrote to Dennis Webb (an amateur astronomer), the keeper of a magnificent website about the Arp Galaxies, saying to him that it must be wonderful for him that his website is regularly cited in astronomical papers.
However, he was not (at the time) aware that his work was being used by professional astronomers!!
He had always seen himself as "an amateur", yet his work was good enough to be cited in several scientific papers.

cheers, madbadgalaxyman

[Barrykgerdes]

When I retired my retirement speech included this phrase that I heard somewhere years ago.
"For real job satisfaction find out what you like to do and then get someone to pay you to do it"
Before I retired the manager also told me I wasn't allowed to leave because one of my sidelines was preparing his weekly progress reports (that made him look good). He ended up employing a uni-graduate that I still had to train.

Barry

[Barrykgerdes]

Originally Posted by gary

Thanks David. Indeed!

6. Must answer to Barry, Bazza or Baz

7. Must make cups of tea for everyone else in the office on demand.

In our department we were noted for our practical jokes and "****stirs" pardon the language.

So I daresay some of the draft statements had reqirements just like those.

I don't think any got to publication, but then!

Barry