I have completed my M.Tech (Power Electronics) and working in start up, i am left out with two choices Testing or PCB designing, which field will be helpfull for???

Thanks in advance.

 

Helpful for.... what?

 

Helpful for.... what?

helpfull for my future.

 

helpfull for my future.

What is it that you want to do in your future? Testing, PCB designing, or something else?

 

helpfull for my future.

Obviously both may be useful in the future depending on what final area you are in.
Why limit to one?
Max.

 

Both.

PS. Shouldn't the thread title be...." Please choose my future for me " rather than "Need a suggestion regarding testing and pcb design"

 

Do you understand what work in those two fields entails in detail?
Do you have a preference as to which you think would be more to your liking?

 

Magic 8-ball says: Designing
If you can design, you can test...but not the other way.
I've seen some testers that were little better than black box replacers.

 

Magic 8-ball says: Designing
If you can design, you can test...but not the other way.
I've seen some testers that were little better than black box replacers.

While I will agree that it is more likely that a designer can test than that a tester can design, I've seen far too many designers that never touch hardware, are a disaster in the testing lab, and that sometimes don't have a clue as to how to test even the basic functionality of their own designs, let alone whether they meet spec.

 

While I will agree that it is more likely that a designer can test than that a tester can design, I've seen far too many designers that never touch hardware, are a disaster in the testing lab, and that sometimes don't have a clue as to how to test even the basic functionality of their own designs, let alone whether they meet spec.

That's really sad. Sounds like all book learnin' and no practical experience. I was assuming, "designing" meant designing all of the product. You make a good point, it is merely unfamiliar to me and most hobbyists who do everything from wood joinery to knobs.

 

That's really sad. Sounds like all book learnin' and no practical experience. I was assuming, "designing" meant designing all of the product. You make a good point, it is merely unfamiliar to me and most hobbyists who do everything from wood joinery to knobs.

It is VERY sad. Unfortunately, the trend in engineering education for a few decades has been this ill-conceived mantra of, "We are educating engineers, not training technicians," which has led to a deemphasis of hand-on experience and skills (particularly since physical labs are resource hogs) and an emphasis on pure theory and simulation, if even that. This by itself is bad enough, but when it is coupled by the decrease in people going into engineering because they come from a passionate hobbyist background and, instead, coming from a merely, "I was told that engineers make good money, so I want the piece of paper that says I are one," the outcome is far from reassuring.

 

Unfortunately, the trend in engineering education for a few decades has been this ill-conceived mantra of, "We are educating engineers, not training technicians,"

Not unfortunate for me. That kind of thinking is why people like me will never lack job opportunities.
Signed:
Number Twelve, correcting the designs of, "real" engineers since 1973.

 

"We are educating engineers, not training technicians,"

My favorite discriminators ... education -v- training. Heard it many times.

IMHO, training answers the question "What do you want them to do?" with specificity and within a reasonable time upon completion of the training.

Education is open ended. They should be able to "do".

The last time I got into the education v training discussion with an O-5, I asked him, what do you want that O-2 to do when he grows up into one of the positions upon completing this education? Well rounded means different things for different positions.

In one of my classes, an O-3 kept repeating the phrase ... "That's what I have a Warrant Officer for." Consequently, he was failing badly at that point in the training. So, I, as an E-6, dutifully counseled him on his performance. I simply showed him the directive about his position and what performance those above him, expected from him. He did a 180 and passed the course.

Don't get me wrong, the guy was a nice guy. In fact, a couple of years later, he was still in that position when I reported to a unit under his operational control. Which leads to another story ... He was out inspecting my station. He was looking in the rear of the transmitter, as my technicians were checking the 20 kV capacitors with a Hi-Pot. He noticed a problem and went over to the technicians to report it. He did it a few times. Well, I didn't take offense to it, but my techs thought he was being annoying, point out things that they would catch when the reinstalled those capacitors. So, they charged one capacitor up and didn't warn when they were discharging it. They waited for the O-3 to have his head deep into the transmitter and then discharged it. As you can imagine, it was loud ... louder than a shotgun at close range. This O-3 come flying out of the transmitter. I looked at him before he could say anything and said ... Commander, you look like you need a cup of coffee. Let's go to the Mess Deck.

Once we were in the truck I thanked him for telling the techs about the things he discovered, and I had one suggestion. When you find stuff wrong, keep it to yourself until the technicians declare the equipment ready for operation. Then look and see if they corrected those discrepancies. If they did, you can congratulate them on doing a good job. If they didn't, then come see me as I have a problem, it might be a training problem or a personnel problem. That is my job as the Chief.

On his next visit to the unit, he asked "how's everything Chief", I said fine. He said, I'm going up to the rec deck to check out the f-flicks. I said "very well." That was two glimpses in the year of 1983 at the island in the Bering Sea where you could piss on tomorrow.

 

My favorite discriminators ... education -v- training. Heard it many times.

IMHO, training answers the question "What do you want them to do?" with specificity and within a reasonable time upon completion of the training.

Education is open ended. They should be able to "do".

I don't have any real problem with the distinction between "education" and "training" -- they are two different things with two different aims. Where I have a problem is when the attitude is taken that engineers should receive only the first and that any of the second is somehow beneath them. This attitude is absorbed by students, too. I remember one student in an electronics lab that was complaining about having to waste his time doing labs. I asked him how he planned to figure out what the problem was with a circuit he had designed if he didn't know how to make basic measurements. His response was, "I'll always have technicians to do that." Not surprisingly, this guy was a piss-poor student that didn't grasp most of the concepts -- he was there to get a piece of paper and had no interest in engineering in general or electronics in particular. I doubt he even realized it, but it was pretty evident that he expected to get that piece of paper and then expected some company to higher him and immediately supply him with a bunch of "technicians" to do his work for him.

Whether you are an "engineer" or a "technician" (I put those terms in quotes because I'm not trying to make a blanket statement about people that have either title, but more a philosophical statement about two different problem solving approaches) you need a reasonable mix of the two. Ideally, in my view, an "engineer" skill set should be a superset of a "technician" skill set; but I realize that even if that were the goal that it is not practical because you always have to make some sacrifices in obtaining one skill set to gain a deeper grounding in another since the degree of overlap between the two is finite.