What's the definition of a really good engineer?

[bobsmith1492]

Originally posted by: jjones123
Pay close attention to what BrownTown said. I have been an engineer for over a decade and just moved into management after getting an MBA. The bottom line is that there is not much of a difference between a competent engineer and a really good engineer. Management sets the rules and mangement favors those who play by the rules and turns a cold shoulder to those who don't, even if management is wrong (and they are wrong a lot of the time).

That's if you work in a crappy company with an overload of management overhead....

On the other hand, I'm at a small company where the managers work closely with the projects since there aren't enough people to waste entirely on just managing other people. So, they can recognize the efforts of all the team members.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492

Originally posted by: jjones123
Pay close attention to what BrownTown said. I have been an engineer for over a decade and just moved into management after getting an MBA. The bottom line is that there is not much of a difference between a competent engineer and a really good engineer. Management sets the rules and mangement favors those who play by the rules and turns a cold shoulder to those who don't, even if management is wrong (and they are wrong a lot of the time).

That's if you work in a crappy company with an overload of management overhead....

On the other hand, I'm at a small company where the managers work closely with the projects since there aren't enough people to waste entirely on just managing other people. So, they can recognize the efforts of all the team members.

In a perfect world...

 

[KIAman]

1. Common sense - duh
2. Curiosity - must be interested in their work
3. Willingness to learn and research - big one here, one who claims they need learn nothing new is an idiot
4. Process oriented - duh
5. Patience - big one here as well

Now the real question is if the hiring managers UNDERSTAND these qualities and award them appropriately or if they are just playing a political game.
From what I have seen, everything is political.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Rudy Toody

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492

Originally posted by: Rudy Toody

An optimist sees the glass as half full.

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.

An engineer sees the glass as twice the size as needed.

In 1959, when I was a highschool freshman, I discovered this book in the library. When I finished reading it, I immediatly tore apart my mother's sewing machine to see what made it work. The book is still viable today. For everyone, not just engineers.

Why did a book inspire you to take apart the machine?

I started taking stuff apart when I was six... no books required!

The book described the thought processes that came up with the sewing machine.

First, the eye of the needle was moved to the pointy end.
Second, to use a separate thread, a floating bobbin (spool) was created.

These are two things that had been around in their previous versions for many years. It just took a slightly different way of looking at things to have a great engineering feat, instead of the ordinary.

Man card please.

Just kidding.
Sewing machines are great; they make tapering your own button ups free.

 

[TecHNooB]

Originally posted by: jjones123
Pay close attention to what BrownTown said. I have been an engineer for over a decade and just moved into management after getting an MBA. The bottom line is that there is not much of a difference between a competent engineer and a really good engineer. Management sets the rules and mangement favors those who play by the rules and turns a cold shoulder to those who don't, even if management is wrong (and they are wrong a lot of the time).

That sort of reality is upsetting. Where can I go where I don't have to cut people open or suck someone's c*ck to make some good money? My professor suggested google but he says that place is a bit scary. Apparently, they allow engineers TOO much freedom

Intelligent, hardworking people should be paid more and management needs to give them the freedom to do something worthwhile.

 

[pm]

I have been at Intel for 14 years working as an engineer. I like to think I make "good money" but I suppose that depends on what your definition of "good money" is. And I can't give details about it because it is against corporate policy to discuss salary - and I've made no secret of who I am.

At Intel there's seem to be four or five paths for engineers over the very long term.
1. you can essentially be a grunt-for-life. This really isn't that bad an option - move around a bit and you can do different jobs and keep things interesting. You won't make the big bucks, but you also won't have to work crazy hours, travel a lot, or be stressed out owning risky assignments. The life of a grunt isn't high-flying, but it's also not particularly stressful. And it's not like you need to be stuck doing the exact same thing forever.

2. you can become a guru at something important but arcane. This requires a bit of luck in terms of taking on the right assigment, and a bit of political skill to hold onto this assignment over a long period. Depending on what it is, you will have the opportunity to play a large role in the company or the industry. Say you are a guru at SerDes circuitry, or long-term reliability, or high-speed cache evaluation circuitry, or any number of other things that the average engineer only has a passing knowledge of. So this differs from being a grunt because you'll be the go-to guy for this kind of stuff and if you are motivated and smart enough, you can get involved in IEEE standards and other things. The downside is you will get pidgeonholed into a role which makes it hard to move around and try different things. If you are the company's only expert on a subject you don't need great social skills... but it helps a lot.

3. you can become an expert at "firefighting". There's a certain small number of engineers who thrive under pressure, are brilliant, and love to solve problems by flying all over the place fixing things. Say some big customer's mainframe dies big time, you fly in, work crazy hours, and figure out what happened and fix it. This requires a certain type of person - not necessarily someone who communicates really well, but there's a certain type of person who thrives when everyone else is panicking and is great at troubleshooting.

4. you can become a "lead engineer" or some other form of engineer who leads a larger group of engineers... without actually having to manage the people involved. So you tell everyone what to do, and more or less how to do it, but don't have to deal with figuring out why they didn't show up to work last week for two days, or why they need a leave-of-absence, or . This requires social skills, communication skills, leadership skills and a bit of an outgoing personality - or at least the ability to fake an outgoing personality.

5. you can go the management route, or the project management route. Be an engineer for a while, switch to management. I see lots of engineers do this. If you are politically and socially adept, intelligent, willing to go back and get an MBA, you can go far.



I'm probably a mix of 2. and 4. I've got my area of expertise (high-volume structural test tehcniques), and I lead a larger group of engineers doing it.

I like my job. I enjoy what I do. I'm paid well - (I have a big house which is paid off, two cars, travel internationally on vacation every year and a decent nest-egg). I can't imagine being anything other than an engineer.

I'm not sure that this answers the original poster's question. I would say that anyone of the first four in my list constitutes a "good engineer" - including #1.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: pm
I have been at Intel for 14 years working as an engineer. I like to think I make "good money" but I suppose that depends on what your definition of "good money" is. And I can't give details about it because it is against corporate policy to discuss salary - and I've made no secret of who I am.

At Intel there's seem to be four or five paths for engineers over the very long term.
1. you can essentially be a grunt-for-life. This really isn't that bad an option - move around a bit and you can do different jobs and keep things interesting. You won't make the big bucks, but you also won't have to work crazy hours, travel a lot, or be stressed out owning risky assignments. The life of a grunt isn't high-flying, but it's also not particularly stressful. And it's not like you need to be stuck doing the exact same thing forever.

2. you can become a guru at something important but arcane. This requires a bit of luck in terms of taking on the right assigment, and a bit of political skill to hold onto this assignment over a long period. Depending on what it is, you will have the opportunity to play a large role in the company or the industry. Say you are a guru at SerDes circuitry, or long-term reliability, or high-speed cache evaluation circuitry, or any number of other things that the average engineer only has a passing knowledge of. So this differs from being a grunt because you'll be the go-to guy for this kind of stuff and if you are motivated and smart enough, you can get involved in IEEE standards and other things. The downside is you will get pidgeonholed into a role which makes it hard to move around and try different things.

3. you can become an expert at "firefighting". There's a certain small number of engineers who thrive under pressure, are brilliant, and love to solve problems by flying all over the place fixing things. Say some big customer's mainframe dies big time, you fly in, work crazy hours, and figure out what happened and fix it. This requires a certain type of person

4. you can become a "lead engineer" or some other form of engineer who leads a larger group of engineers... without actually having to manage the people involved. So you tell everyone what to do, and more or less how to do it, but don't have to deal with figuring out why they didn't show up to work last week for two days, or why they need a leave-of-absence, or . This requires social skills, communication skills, leadership skills and a bit of an outgoing personality - or at least the ability to fake it.

5. you can go the management route, or the project management route. Be an engineer for a while, switch to management. I see lots of engineers do this. If you are politically and socially adept, intelligent, willing to go back and get an MBA, you can go far.



I'm probably a mix of 2. and 4. I've got my area of expertise (high-volume structural test tehcniques), and I lead a larger group of engineers doing it.

I like my job. I enjoy what I do. I'm paid well - (I have a big house which is paid off, two cars, travel internationally on vacation every year and a decent nest-egg). I can't imagine being anything other than an engineer.

I'm not sure that this answers the original poster's question. I would say that anyone of the first four in my list constitutes a "good engineer" - including #1.

these seems like pretty much the same groups I would have said

 

[TuxDave]

Well, the first step for preventing from becoming a grunt engineer is to first realize that you don't want to be one. If you don't like making major decisions and prefer to forever punt questions to "experts" so that you won't get the blame, you're better off as a grunt. Same if you don't like to manage or would rather have someone tell you what to do as opposed to finding a problem, creating a solution and then passing this solution around, maybe you should be a grunt.

If you want to do the above, the next step is to actually do it and chances are you won't be a grunt.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: TuxDave
Well, the first step for preventing from becoming a grunt engineer is to first realize that you don't want to be one. If you don't like making major decisions and prefer to forever punt questions to "experts" so that you won't get the blame, you're better off as a grunt. Same if you don't like to manage or would rather have someone tell you what to do as opposed to finding a problem, creating a solution and then passing this solution around, maybe you should be a grunt.

If you want to do the above, the next step is to actually do it and chances are you won't be a grunt.

the "grunt" life is probably easier though, at least at the company I work at going up into middle management means 5x the headaches, 1.5x as much work for 1.2x the money.

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: pm
I have been at Intel for 14 years working as an engineer. I like to think I make "good money" but I suppose that depends on what your definition of "good money" is. And I can't give details about it because it is against corporate policy to discuss salary - and I've made no secret of who I am.

At Intel there's seem to be four or five paths for engineers over the very long term.
1. you can essentially be a grunt-for-life. This really isn't that bad an option - move around a bit and you can do different jobs and keep things interesting. You won't make the big bucks, but you also won't have to work crazy hours, travel a lot, or be stressed out owning risky assignments. The life of a grunt isn't high-flying, but it's also not particularly stressful. And it's not like you need to be stuck doing the exact same thing forever.

2. you can become a guru at something important but arcane. This requires a bit of luck in terms of taking on the right assigment, and a bit of political skill to hold onto this assignment over a long period. Depending on what it is, you will have the opportunity to play a large role in the company or the industry. Say you are a guru at SerDes circuitry, or long-term reliability, or high-speed cache evaluation circuitry, or any number of other things that the average engineer only has a passing knowledge of. So this differs from being a grunt because you'll be the go-to guy for this kind of stuff and if you are motivated and smart enough, you can get involved in IEEE standards and other things. The downside is you will get pidgeonholed into a role which makes it hard to move around and try different things. If you are the company's only expert on a subject you don't need great social skills... but it helps a lot.

3. you can become an expert at "firefighting". There's a certain small number of engineers who thrive under pressure, are brilliant, and love to solve problems by flying all over the place fixing things. Say some big customer's mainframe dies big time, you fly in, work crazy hours, and figure out what happened and fix it. This requires a certain type of person - not necessarily someone who communicates really well, but there's a certain type of person who thrives when everyone else is panicking and is great at troubleshooting.

4. you can become a "lead engineer" or some other form of engineer who leads a larger group of engineers... without actually having to manage the people involved. So you tell everyone what to do, and more or less how to do it, but don't have to deal with figuring out why they didn't show up to work last week for two days, or why they need a leave-of-absence, or . This requires social skills, communication skills, leadership skills and a bit of an outgoing personality - or at least the ability to fake an outgoing personality.

5. you can go the management route, or the project management route. Be an engineer for a while, switch to management. I see lots of engineers do this. If you are politically and socially adept, intelligent, willing to go back and get an MBA, you can go far.



I'm probably a mix of 2. and 4. I've got my area of expertise (high-volume structural test tehcniques), and I lead a larger group of engineers doing it.

I like my job. I enjoy what I do. I'm paid well - (I have a big house which is paid off, two cars, travel internationally on vacation every year and a decent nest-egg). I can't imagine being anything other than an engineer.

I'm not sure that this answers the original poster's question. I would say that anyone of the first four in my list constitutes a "good engineer" - including #1.

what's wrong with being involved with management?

 

[pm]

what's wrong with being involved with management?

Nothing is wrong with it... except I don't consider it engineering. And I tend to think it's a one-way street. Once you leave the engineer path to become a manager, it becomes hard to ever go back.

But there's nothing wrong with it. Pays well, lots of influence, interesting and challenging work... but not engineering.

 

[KIAman]

Originally posted by: pm

what's wrong with being involved with management?

Nothing is wrong with it... except I don't consider it engineering. And I tend to think it's a one-way street. Once you leave the engineer path to become a manager, it becomes hard to ever go back.

But there's nothing wrong with it. Pays well, lots of influence, interesting and challenging work... but not engineering.

What's at the core of an engineer? The ability to solve complex problems in a procedural way.

Think of management as human and resource engineering.

 

[TecHNooB]

Originally posted by: KIAman

Originally posted by: pm

what's wrong with being involved with management?

Nothing is wrong with it... except I don't consider it engineering. And I tend to think it's a one-way street. Once you leave the engineer path to become a manager, it becomes hard to ever go back.

But there's nothing wrong with it. Pays well, lots of influence, interesting and challenging work... but not engineering.

What's at the core of an engineer? The ability to solve complex problems in a procedural way.

Think of management as human and resource engineering.

And garbage men as sanitation engineers?

 

[Knavish]

Originally posted by: Cogman
My guess is they want to be engineers because of the prestige or the fact that it can pay well.

LOL. Engineering != prestige. I remember listening to one of those "we need more science and engineering graduates" segments on the news a couple years ago. Status (or prestige) isone of the main reasons why high school students with better academic records want to go into medicine or law.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: Knavish

Originally posted by: Cogman
My guess is they want to be engineers because of the prestige or the fact that it can pay well.

LOL. Engineering != prestige. I remember listening to one of those "we need more science and engineering graduates" segments on the news a couple years ago. Status (or prestige) isone of the main reasons why high school students with better academic records want to go into medicine or law.

yeah, usually when I think "successful" I think of investment bankers, or commodities traders, or stuff like that. Or maybe high power lawyers, or respected doctors, or any of a million other things. There is really no such thing as "prestigious engineer" if you are in an engineering company the way to make money and get power is to get OUT of engineering as soon as possible and get into management. Engineers for the most part are a dime a dozen. The STARTING salaries are good, but the opportunities for more are much less so long as you still stay an engineer.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: Knavish

Originally posted by: Cogman
My guess is they want to be engineers because of the prestige or the fact that it can pay well.

LOL. Engineering != prestige. I remember listening to one of those "we need more science and engineering graduates" segments on the news a couple years ago. Status (or prestige) isone of the main reasons why high school students with better academic records want to go into medicine or law.

yeah, usually when I think "successful" I think of investment bankers, or commodities traders, or stuff like that. Or maybe high power lawyers, or respected doctors, or any of a million other things. There is really no such thing as "prestigious engineer" if you are in an engineering company the way to make money and get power is to get OUT of engineering as soon as possible and get into management. Engineers for the most part are a dime a dozen. The STARTING salaries are good, but the opportunities for more are much less so long as you still stay an engineer.

You may laugh, but at the college I am currently attending, there are A LOT of students that are going for engineering majors just for the sheer fact so they can say "Oh yeah, I'm so much smarter then all those business majors". Mind you, that quite a few drop into a business major after Ohm's law throws them for a loop, but enough stick around that I would say it is definitely so they can have some sort of bragging rights.

BTW, can I just say it is surprising how many drop out of engineering after the first semester or so? I have to take a freshman class (Dang changing graduation requirements) this semester, the class is about 40 students. Some of the upper level classes that I have taken, that number has been whittled down to about 10 or so. It's amazing how many people decide they can't hack it after their first programming experience, or their first calculus class.

(look at my original post as I was specifically speaking about those in my college, not every engineer in general.)

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: Cogman

BTW, can I just say it is surprising how many drop out of engineering after the first semester or so? I have to take a freshman class (Dang changing graduation requirements) this semester, the class is about 40 students. Some of the upper level classes that I have taken, that number has been whittled down to about 10 or so. It's amazing how many people decide they can't hack it after their first programming experience, or their first calculus class.

yeah, I knew several that did that. I actually took all the pre-med classes in college as well and those were even worse then the engineering classes I took (I'm sure it varies by school). They say at my school 40% of people start out saying they are pre-med and only like 5% end up there. I definitely agree that in COLLEGE getting an engineering degree makes you look hard core, but in life alot of those business majors will be making more money (but probably not the ones who dropped out of engineering because laziness won't get you far in ANY field)

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Cogman

You may laugh, but at the college I am currently attending, there are A LOT of students that are going for engineering majors just for the sheer fact so they can say "Oh yeah, I'm so much smarter then all those business majors". Mind you, that quite a few drop into a business major after Ohm's law throws them for a loop, but enough stick around that I would say it is definitely so they can have some sort of bragging rights.

Yeah I used to be one of those types that made fub of business majors. I toned back my teases after seeing how rapidly some of them moved up in salary. (became managers, consultants, etc...)