If I didn't do well in calculus will I be a lousy electrical engineer?

[kd7lee]

So I'm currently a second-year college student, and I plan to transfer into an EE program at a four-year institution next spring. Overall I've done well on my math, but I struggled a lot in calculus with series and multi-variable integration. I also just finished a linear algebra class, and it didn't feel as easy as I thought it should be. I have yet to take a course in differential equations. Will these challenges reduce my effectiveness as an electrical engineer?

 

[Simon Bridge]

Welcome to PF.
Your difficulty with math will make it more difficult to become qualified as an electrical engineer - and will affect your grades and thus the kinds of work you can get.

Once you are qualified, you should be able to practice effectively as an electrical engineer by making intelligent use of your strengths and compensating for your weaknesses. You also have to be prepared to continue learning both the science and professionally. That depends on your character as a person - something the training you are in is trying to help you develop while you also develop your skills.

The entry into the profession is quite hard specifically to keep anyone actually incompetent (at the time of entry) out. So if you squeak by, you are probably OK. We can't all be genius overachievers.

 

[yungman]

You are going to have a hard time in Electromagnetics. To be honest, it is not the end of the world. I actually went the other way around. I had a good career for 30 years as an EE, senior EE and manager of EE. I never have a degree in EE and I did not even get to series, or multi-variables. In fact I have been in analog and particularly RF that suppose to need strong EM knowledge. I managed to learn and design without even knowing EM and I did it.

Only after I retired that I decided to study all the math including MV, ODE and PDE. I studied the EM back and fore a few times also. It gave me a lot more insight about what I did before.

But to answer your question. I think it is important for you the study back the calculus as you are going to need it. BUT if I can survive without all these, so can you!

Also if you are more into embedded processors, or even design ICs, you hardly need all the math. I faked it, so can you.

 

[DragonPetter]

It sounds like you've managed to get through the math even if you had difficulty which is actually a good thing. As long as you can pass and can manage to be competent, you should be ok. Many EE jobs actually require little day-to-day calculus calculations if any, but it is more important for understanding the general concepts that you want to make sure you carry with you from calculus.

But to be honest, having higher math abilities will make you a much better engineer and give you insight where others cannot see and enable you to take on more interesting positions or go on further in your education. I worked in electronics design with an EET who didn't have the same level of math requirements, and there were some instances that we were not looking at the same problem in the same way because it was over simplified for him without the math. An example is that I tried to talk about an integrator opamp in terms of a low pass filter, but he could not accept that they are two ways of describing the same thing.

Also, if you haven't started EE courses, you will have a hard time with signals/systems, DSP, control theory, and electromagnetics because they are heavily based on differential equations. It takes time to get good at calc/diff eq and these courses may actually help you get a lot better at it, so don't let your past experience hold you back as a pure math course can sometimes be too abstract for a first time learner, and the constant reinforcement improves your understanding greatly.

So, if you still have trouble with the required EE courses for math reasons, but manage to pass, then you should look at specializing in an EE field that is less math intensive(unless you want to challenge yourself to conquer the math) and take courses and apply for jobs that fit to your strengths. And if you actually can't get past the math, you should consider an EET degree if you still want to work with electronics.

 

[jim hardy]

i too struggled with math. Vector calculus was simply beyond my ability, i learned to manipulate the equations enough to squeak by.. to this day my antenna work comes from ARRL handbook's "how to" , not from higher math.

but differential equations was a genuine joy - it describes how natural things work and i loved every minute of that course... rate problems YES!

integrals and derivatives describe how many circuit elements work and you'll become adept at tossing about the Laplace transforms that describe commonly encountered configurations.

control theory will open your eyes to how many natural phenomena work, for Mother Nature loves a balance...


i suggest you read Robert Pirsig's "Zen and Motorcycle Maintenance" - as a former professor, he observes : 'watch your c students. the A student alumni might donate a few books to your library, but it'll be a C student who donates a library building.'


always be kind, for everybody is fighting a hard battle.
you will have to work harder than the more mathematically gifted engineers.
just stay honest and you'll do fine.

old jim

 

[yungman]

I forgot to mention. Calculus etc. are useful for understanding EM and other classes in school...which by itself is important. BUT...BUT...In my 30 years of heavy duty analog and RF designs, I never once...I repeat...never once use any calculus that I remember. I might use it to explain the people, and that only happened once or twice!

If you can find a way to understand the subject without calculus, then it's all good. The problem is books advanced class explain in term of calculus, that's what make it hard to study.

Hey Jim, I am opposite, I find vector calculus easier than ODE. ODE was really a shocker to me. ODE was the only class I actually took the class. I spent 8 hours a day 6 days a week through out the class. I did get the top of the class, but it was a big big battle! I don't even think PDE is as hard.

 

[likephysics]

You can get by and even be a good engineer, provided you like EE a lot. But math will come back and bite you sometime in your future.
Try to figure out why exactly you are having a hard time with calculus. Get couple of different books. Look for lectures online. Try harder.

 

[yungman]

You can get by and even be a good engineer, provided you like EE a lot. But math will come back and bite you sometime in your future.
Try to figure out why exactly you are having a hard time with calculus. Get couple of different books. Look for lectures online. Try harder.

That's the reason even I retired after 30 years of EE, I decided for once, I want to fulfill this hole and studied all the math back and more. Then I studied EM. You do have a much better perspective on EE from that.

 

[jim hardy]

@ yungman:
""Hey Jim, I am opposite, I find vector calculus easier than ODE. ..""

your revisiting high math in later years is an inspiration to me. maybe there's some hope...

my school used practical texts for calculus and diff-eq, chapters alternated theory and applications. so we got practice at real world problems in the math building too...

i'd like to try vector calc again. after years rubbing elbows with reactor physics types i began to appreciate the 3-dimensional significance of del, so maybe now i could make some sense of those awful equations. In his "Mathematician's Apology", British mathematiician G H Hardy expressed a sentiment that students who simply cannot grasp pure math can still make practical societal contributions, which was quite a relief to me.

a plodder,,

old jim

 

[yungman]

@ yungman:
""Hey Jim, I am opposite, I find vector calculus easier than ODE. ..""

your revisiting high math in later years is an inspiration to me. maybe there's some hope...

my school used practical texts for calculus and diff-eq, chapters alternated theory and applications. so we got practice at real world problems in the math building too...

i'd like to try vector calc again. after years rubbing elbows with reactor physics types i began to appreciate the 3-dimensional significance of del, so maybe now i could make some sense of those awful equations. In his "Mathematician's Apology", British mathematiician G H Hardy expressed a sentiment that students who simply cannot grasp pure math can still make practical societal contributions, which was quite a relief to me.

a plodder,,

old jim

To me, as much as I keep pushing for math, I don't think most engineer use it in real life. It's really only important when you are in school. Blame it on those EM books that all explain the theories using calculus, if it is not because of that, you don't use it much. I just found through the years when I tried to study something, calculus always got in the way and it's so frustrating. That's the reason I said to myself for once, get over it.

ODE was really a shocker to me. It's has more to do with the way of thinking. Took me a long time to bend my mind to accept the way to get the solution of a differential equation and using numerical solution like series. I remember during the semester, the instructor was really like a private tutor for me. Every night I email to him and he answer me in detail. He must be spending average 45 minutes just for me through my struggle with ODE.

Regarding to multi-variables, You should look into Vector Calculus book. I have a lot of normal calculus book that cover the first three semester calculus. They are all very weak towards the end where you get into line integrals, Divergence and Stoke's theorem. The only one that is good enough to explain the subject is book by Howard Anton.

I don't mean to advice you as you are a respectable contributor here in my book. Maybe it's not you, it's the books. I have 4 or 5 and they are so bad. Maybe because it's the end of the book, even in class, they usually rush the last part at the end. The only book I think explain this good is this one:

https://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Multivariable-Howard-Anton/dp/0471482374/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1324513597&sr=8-1

Even I studied this book, when I looked back at the other few, I still don't think they make sense! That's how bad the others are.

Another free online notes are by Paul Dawkins:

http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/CalcIII/CalcIII.aspx

His stuffs are actually very good. Together with Antons I got most of my multi-variables. Check it out. Not for nothing, you can get the used Anton for $4.50 and the other one is free!

 

[kd7lee]

Thanks to everyone for your encouragement. I haven't had a grade worse than a C yet, and my overall GPA is still around 3.4, so I think I'm actually doing ok. I can probably attribute my Cs to the teacher. He taught a lot of math theory but rarely showed how to work the problems, and that didn't work well for me. I start my ODE class in a couple of weeks and plan to hit the ground running on that one...
It sounds like I will benefit a lot by going back through my books building my skills, so that's what I'll plan to do. Thanks!

 

[yungman]

Thanks to everyone for your encouragement. I haven't had a grade worse than a C yet, and my overall GPA is still around 3.4, so I think I'm actually doing ok. I can probably attribute my Cs to the teacher. He taught a lot of math theory but rarely showed how to work the problems, and that didn't work well for me. I start my ODE class in a couple of weeks and plan to hit the ground running on that one...
It sounds like I will benefit a lot by going back through my books building my skills, so that's what I'll plan to do. Thanks!

If you have time, review the multi variables. Look into the two I suggested, it's cheap. Those are very important for EM class. If you have time, look into cylindrical and spherical coordinates. I don't mean those in the cal III as they are still using x y z even though that use r, \theta, \;\phi\; in the scalar amplitude. Get a head start for the EM class.

 

[kd7lee]

Will do... thanks!

 

[paulfr]

BUT...In my 30 years of heavy duty analog and RF designs, I never once...I repeat...never once use any calculus that I remember.

You used it.
You just did not know it.

An RF engineer MUST go from time domain to frequency domain at all times.
The Spectrum Analyzer does this for you mechanically/electronically
But what you and it are doing is an Integration; The Fourier Transformation.
This is nothing more than a summation of the results of a multiplication/division of complex frequency with the time domain signal.

Math is a language.
Anyone can get along in many jobs and situations without knowing English.
But one is much better off being able to communicate with English.
So too you can do Science/Physics/Electronics without knowing the underlying Math.
But one is a much more competent professional if they do know it.

 

[yungman]

Yes math is the language of science. That's what I was refer about books written in calculus. But I can tell you, you don't use much calculus in RF. As long as you accept the phasor, all the smith chart, impedance, admittance etc. are represented by phasors. To even go a step farther, z, y, ABCD, s-parameters can be in form of phasors. Phasors are solution of Wave equation, if you accept the idea of forward and reverse phasors, you can get along just fine without all the calculus...Well, you do need to know complex functions...hehe! You can learn a little matrix, determinant etc. and get away in the 2 port parameters.

In fact, when you get good at Smith Chart, you really don't even need all the phasors and just normalize impedance and admittance calculation only. You can do most of the design just on the Smith Chart! That I spent a lot of time dancing on the Smith Chart to get the feel of the response.

Yes, I did got away with very little calculus!...Well I did studied Fourier Transform those days. It was just in bits and pieces. Bottom line, you can do it, just not very convenient.

I agree and I even advice op to go back and bone up on calculus. You get a lot of insight knowing calculus. I said all these because op asked where it is that important to be an EE. That is a totally different thing. In real life, I have seen RF engineer that is not even good at Smith Chart and design circuits by putting all the reference designs copied from the manufacturers together and called it their own! Then they just ran simulation using Microwave Office. That's real life work. Without all these help, they'll be loss.

 

[sophiecentaur]

With respect to others of my advanced age and long experience, I think the situation may be different, these days, in two respects, from the time when you could get a post and justify yourself later on by getting stuff to work by selectively using the Maths you managed to 'get'. This was my experience, certainly, and it was possible to teach yourself on the job, when you needed a particular Maths tool.

Qualifications and Certificates are absolutely essential now as any recruitment selection filter will just never give you an interview without one. That means that you will only be credited with your certified skills. Otoh, the actual qualifications are certainly easier to get these days - see the recent UK news concerning Exam Boards and the level of Maths for University entrance is less demanding.

 

[jim hardy]

if calculus gave you an intuitive feel for integration as a better kind of summation,

and an appreciation for transcendental functions and ability to translate between them,

then i'd say you used it perhaps not at the tip of consciousness but as guideposts in your thinking.

I used entropy as simply channel markers through the steam tables for years before coming to realize just what a neat and simple math trick it is...

for most of us "joe sixpacks" math is at best a second language. I envy those to whom it comes naturally..

it is worth the effort. in school i spent all study time on math. found if i kept up with math , Physics EE et al were do-able in class time.

 

[yungman]

I guess I started out designing microprocessor circuits and programming that don't need math. Then I was lucky enough that Walter LeCroy ( founder of LeCroy that make digital scopes, transient recorders etc.) took me under his wing to design high speed digitizer front end where I got my first analog experience. And with that, I bypass the education selection.

I think times do change. I am pretty sure in the 90s, EE jobs were booming and any Joe Blow went and got a degree, so there are plenty of people that are not supposed to be in the field are in it. With that, degree and classes might be more important. But as for me as a manager, all the degree in the resume were secondary. I deviced my own test for candidates. Just a simple inverted op-amp with DC offset, a NPN bias and gain and two D-flip flop divide by two and pipeline that I want them to draw the timing diagram. These you learn in an AA technical degree stuff! But you'll be surprised how many failed! I didn't go further if they cannot do it. All the degree, math etc. don't mean anything to me if they cannot even do those.

Yes, I have been talking over and over the importance of math if anyone saw my posts in the past. But when come to the job, I am looking for how well the person able to take a problem and analyze it. I want to see the way they think. I had seen too many people that took certain class and have no idea how to use it beyond the class. I kept talking about a very basic book by Malvino that was used by Heald College for AA degree. If anyone truly understand this book, you can go very far designing transistors and op-amps. I passed a big test and got hired into analog IC design in 84 armed with knowledge of this book! It is not just the class, it's how much you get out of the class. There is always a way to give the right answers in a test even if you don't really understand the class. I am sure people here that gone through classes in college should know that.

Yes, math is very important for EE degree. BUT the ultimate question is whether you can do the job when hired. Then math has very little to do with that until you hit the point of getting into research and development.

 

[psparky]

In my opionion...living and working in USA...

You will need the math to pass your courses Freshman, Sophomore and Junior year. Senior year I used little to no math.

Keep this in mind as well...in math, no matter how tough the problem...differential equations for example...all you can really do is add, subtract, multiply and divide.

I was at decent in math...pretty much got all B's in the undergrad classes. If you go to class, work all the homework problems...and then some...B's should be very possible...and certainly acceptable. Some people can get the steady A's in college engineering math...but they are quite rare.

As far as math on the job...for me...I have done nothing more than what I said above with the add, subtract, multiply and divide. No calculus, no intregrals, no differential equations, no matrices...none of that. 9th grade high school math (algebra) is the toughest I've seen on the job as an EE.

It's good if you do master the upper level maths...but mastering algebra is going to get you thru engineering 99% of the time on the job.

Even for the FE and PE...you can get by with just mastering algebra.

If you do find the math tough in school...simple...you study non stop until you get it. Let me repeat that...you study non stop until you get it. That means you study all day Saturday and all day Sunday. In other words...whenver you have free time...your nose is in the books. Where there's a will...there's a way.

BTW...how's your problem solving skills? In the end...that's all that will count.

 

[jim hardy]

i did use a little calculus on the job. Usually just to prove a point to some egghead far away who had no practical skill.

interviewing, i found the best question was "do you change your own sparkplugs?
if they got through school they learned some math. but i needed hands-on engineers.

same with my doctor -- i look for one who fixes his own boat motor.

nowadays spsrkplugs last ten years - what is a fellow to do?

old jim

 

[yungman]

i did use a little calculus on the job. Usually just to prove a point to some egghead far away who had no practical skill.

interviewing, i found the best question was "do you change your own sparkplugs?
if they got through school they learned some math. but i needed hands-on engineers.

same with my doctor -- i look for one who fixes his own boat motor.

nowadays spsrkplugs last ten years - what is a fellow to do?

old jim

It is so true. School and real job are different worlds. Good in math make it easier for you to understand difficult books. True understanding is when you can explain back to yourself in "simple English".

 

[jim hardy]

True understanding is when you can explain back to yourself in "simple English".

thank you, yungman...

old jim

 

[psparky]

i did use a little calculus on the job. Usually just to prove a point to some egghead far away who had no practical skill.

interviewing, i found the best question was "do you change your own sparkplugs?
if they got through school they learned some math. but i needed hands-on engineers.

same with my doctor -- i look for one who fixes his own boat motor.

nowadays spsrkplugs last ten years - what is a fellow to do?

old jim

Hey Jim, proud to say I was changing spark plugs and checking for spark when I was 5 years old. All starts with a simple "mini bike"...having the right father and brothers sure does help!

Another great interview question...how does a car engine work?...or how does anything on a car work...?

 

[jim hardy]

thanks sparky

btw my post was not meant to demean the people whose job it is to think and analyze. they are as important as we who grease the cogs of the machinery.

Isaac Asimov wrote at length about the respective roles of thinkers and doers in science.
It is from Asimov I learned the term "Egghead" and he in no way meant it to be derogatory.. His essay "The Egg and I" comes to mind...

anyhow i often worked alongside "eggheads" and we shared our respective skills.

I like machinery too much to make it as an office worker. I just got to feel that turbine rumble to enjoy a day at work.
But i somehow envied those fellows with a nice office and clean desk.
Many of them said they envied my closeness to the machinery, which surprised me.
so i guess the grass is greenest right along the fence.. after all that's where everybody goes to "p**s and moan"...

old jim

 

[paulfr]

Knowing Math does not mean you are an Egghead which is the implication of what has been said here.
IMO you can not be a quality EE without UNDERSTANDING the Math.

Design and Analysis is the heart of all creative EE work. And that is all Math.

Professionals who do "just enough and no more" than they have to may get by.
But they are not likley to excel and be highly respected.

If you or your father needed heart surgery, would you want the doctor holding the knife to be the kind of student you got C's with the attitude you learning only what he had to ? Or would you want the person who does the best he can at all times ?

Case closed.
Find a good Math tutor who can make the simplicity and elegance of Math easy for you to see.

 

[jim hardy]

Professionals who do "just enough and no more" than they have to may get by.
But they are not likley to excel and be highly respected.

i'd say that applies to all humans, irrespective of education or vocation.

 

[jim hardy]

""Design and Analysis is the heart of all creative EE work. And that is all Math.""


Eric Hoffer suggested that a good way to judge the state of a civilization is by its attitude toward maintenance.
I believe the same holds for a design department.


a well designed machine (or computer program) is easily maintainable and insight necessary to provide for maintenance comes from practical experience operating the equipment in the real world.

if it is not designed with an eye toward maintenance, it will not be reliable and its design no matter how elegant, will be considered a bad one..

old jim

 

[yungman]

Knowing Math does not mean you are an Egghead which is the implication of what has been said here.
IMO you can not be a quality EE without UNDERSTANDING the Math.

Design and Analysis is the heart of all creative EE work. And that is all Math.

Professionals who do "just enough and no more" than they have to may get by.
But they are not likley to excel and be highly respected.

If you or your father needed heart surgery, would you want the doctor holding the knife to be the kind of student you got C's with the attitude you learning only what he had to ? Or would you want the person who does the best he can at all times ?

Case closed.
Find a good Math tutor who can make the simplicity and elegance of Math easy for you to see.

I have been very loud here telling people to be strong in math. I myself even took two years full time studying math after I retired from a 30 years of successful career. I agree math is very important in high education, that it is essential for EM and physics.

BUT I also had my successful career without anything more than the first semester and half of the calculus. I had been doing heavy duty design in a lot of fascists of analog and RF designs. Not just circuit designs, but concept and system designs. To me, it's about inspiration. Design is more from feelings, you "see" how the circuit moves. The only time that is pure theory calculation is using Smith Chart, but at that, you can still get the feel and "see" how the reflection and impedance move. There is nothing like in the books or in school that because of this theory, you do this, or that.

I felt inadequate all these years so I made up all the math and EM in the pass 6 years studying 3 hours a day six days a week. So I have been on both side. I respectably disagree with you that you need all the math to have the inspiration and creativity. You just do! Math is a very important tool, but it is only a tool. One cannot be too hung up on that.

I want to stress, I am not saying math is not important as I always advice people here to study more math. But this post is about whether you can be a good EE if you are not good in math. My answer is absolutely YES.

 

[paulfr]

As the OP says, he is not good at Math and wants to know if he can be a good EE in spite of this.
I would agree he can be an EE and get by.
BUT ...
not being "good at Math" simply means you need to work harder and longer to understand the Math.
It does not mean you do not have to learn it.
The ethic of doing the best you can is what is important here.
Those for whom Math comes less easily, must work harder.
That's all.
I was good at Math and I often had to read a topic in the book 5 times to begin to understand
what it was saying. Engineering is as tough a discipline as Medical school.
But the effort is worth it. EE is a fascinating career path.

As for design by inspiration, again I agree.
Creativity is a different human endeavor.
But after the inspiration comes design calculations and optimization tradeoffs.
This can not be done without Math in many disciplines.
Synthesis and Analysis go hand in hand.

As I said before, the OP just needs a good tutor to show him that all Math
through Calculus is nothing more than fancy Addition and Subtraction.
Explanation;
Integration is just multiplication with one of the multiplicands changing
Differentiation is just division in the limit as the denominator goes to zero.
Since Multiplication is nothing more or less than repeated addition and
Division is repeated subtraction, Calculus is not hard at all once you
see this. The techniques can be learned with practice and a good book
like Stewart's 6th Ed of Calculus.

 

[yungman]

Yes, I do agree op should take the time to study math and I did advice him in the past post of this thread. It is going to be hard when comes to EM.

 

[psparky]

So I'm currently a second-year college student, and I plan to transfer into an EE program at a four-year institution next spring. Overall I've done well on my math, but I struggled a lot in calculus with series and multi-variable integration. I also just finished a linear algebra class, and it didn't feel as easy as I thought it should be. I have yet to take a course in differential equations. Will these challenges reduce my effectiveness as an electrical engineer?

Let's remember the young man's original question.

To answer your original question...the answer is "NO" in my opinion. Why is that? Simple, because you are going to study your butt off and do quite well in ALL the math classes. You are going to study for a ridiculous amount of time and LEARN the required material.

So u struggled a little in calculus and linear algebra wasn't as easy as you thought. Whoopy doo doo.

If I recall, I got a 40% on my first calculus test and thought linear algebra was hard as hell.
Differential equations was the hardest...I did literally do the all day Saturday and all day Sunday study program until I got it. Got my typical "B" as in all the other math courses.

Listen here son...you make up your mind to do it...and you do it.

I did say that I don't do much math at work...that is true...but should the time come when I do need to kick it into high math gear...I will be ready. I may have to review a bit...but seeing that all I can really do is add or multiply...how hard can it be?

 

[cmb]

Will these challenges reduce my effectiveness as an electrical engineer?

The nature and magnitude of a challenge is not the key determinant in how effective a person is at dealing with it: If you believe the challenge will weaken you, it will. If you believe the challenge will strengthen you, it will.

You passed the maths. So, look back and say to yourself 'this difficult experience has strengthened me for the next challenge. I got past that one, so I now know I can get past the next one'.

 

[psparky]

All fine points...indeed.

Remember this too...in my opinion, you only retain the basics of each math class. Maybe 5%. Like calculus, you remember the derivative is the rate of change and how you multiply the exponent by the integer...etc. Same with the integrals...area under the curve...yadda, yadda, yadda. Differential equations...I remember how it ties into the "S" domain...that's about it.

Now algebra...that's a different story. I think you take all these upper level math courses just to master the algebra. Algebra is the glue that holds it all together. Master algebra...and you are on your way.

 

[kd7lee]

I did well in algebra... I had a 3.9 GPA in my math classes up through differential calculus. It's only been the math since then that I've struggled with. While Linear Algebra seemed harder than I expected, my biggest difficulty was keeping the terminology straight.

As far as working harder or longer, that's a luxury in my shoes. It strikes a sour chord with me to think I'm not working hard enough for this... My dad put me to work at 15 because he didn't agree with public education, and I never even earned my GED until I was 24. Now I'm almost 29 and have spent 4 years just to get this far--all while working 40-50 hours per week as well as trying to keep a somewhat sane relationship with my girlfriend and her two kids. It hasn't been easy, and in many repsects I've given far more than "just enough to get by" as some have implied. I envy the younger students who still have all the time they need to study.

Something else that may be worth mentioning here: In my 14 years of work experience, I've never once had an employer who couldn't trust that I was up to the task. I'm not about to have that change, and that was my reasoning behind this post. As much as I want to be an EE, I don't want to be a hack or do the job halfway, and if I can't get the math down maybe I'm not cut out for this.

At any rate I still plan to give it my best shot. Today I started a new term at school and I'm currently taking Electrophysics (Engineering Physics III) and ODE. With my other responsibilities it's a heavy load, but I'm going to do everything in my power to get through this. And if I don't, well then I have my answer.

Thanks to all for your replies.

 

[jim hardy]

linear algebra? i don't recall taking that course.you sound a practical sort.

you'll do fine.

industry needs hands-on engineers.
it's not what you know but your ability to look it up and figure it out.to paraphrase mark twain -- your honesty will reassure half the people and scare h**ll out of the other half.

old jim

 

[psparky]

I did well in algebra... I had a 3.9 GPA in my math classes up through differential calculus. It's only been the math since then that I've struggled with. While Linear Algebra seemed harder than I expected, my biggest difficulty was keeping the terminology straight.

As far as working harder or longer, that's a luxury in my shoes. It strikes a sour chord with me to think I'm not working hard enough for this... My dad put me to work at 15 because he didn't agree with public education, and I never even earned my GED until I was 24. Now I'm almost 29 and have spent 4 years just to get this far--all while working 40-50 hours per week as well as trying to keep a somewhat sane relationship with my girlfriend and her two kids. It hasn't been easy, and in many repsects I've given far more than "just enough to get by" as some have implied. I envy the younger students who still have all the time they need to study.

Something else that may be worth mentioning here: In my 14 years of work experience, I've never once had an employer who couldn't trust that I was up to the task. I'm not about to have that change, and that was my reasoning behind this post. As much as I want to be an EE, I don't want to be a hack or do the job halfway, and if I can't get the math down maybe I'm not cut out for this.

At any rate I still plan to give it my best shot. Today I started a new term at school and I'm currently taking Electrophysics (Engineering Physics III) and ODE. With my other responsibilities it's a heavy load, but I'm going to do everything in my power to get through this. And if I don't, well then I have my answer.

Thanks to all for your replies.

I would agree that you will do fine. It is clear you have a very high work ethic. It's not going to be easy...but it wasn't easy for any of us.

Keep this in mind as well...your average college student isn't the brightest person in the world. If you are just average intelligence, you will still do fine with hard work. With a 3.9, you are clearly above average. I never got a 3.9 in my life. Graduated with a 3.1 cumlative...averaged a B in all my math classes...and was still able to pass the Electrical P.E. on my first attempt.

Keep in mind too...your average engineer fresh out of school isn't the brightest person in the world either.

And then when you do land your job with a big firm...you will also notice that the average engineer there isn't the brightest person around either. You get my point.

An average student who works hard...often outdoes a gifted student who is lazy. You will see this over and over...

Good luck. I am positive you will succeed.

 

[kd7lee]

Well the encouragement helps... Thanks!

BTW my work background:
2 years industrial maintenance (in my dad's service business)
12 years CNC machining, including 3 years as programmer and 2 years as quality inspector (my current position).

 

[yungman]

linear algebra? i don't recall taking that course.


you sound a practical sort.

you'll do fine.

industry needs hands-on engineers.
it's not what you know but your ability to look it up and figure it out.


to paraphrase mark twain -- your honesty will reassure half the people and scare h**ll out of the other half.

old jim

I never studied that either. I just studied enough to do all the matrix manipulations, determinants, Adjoint etc. Anything that get me through the network parameters and nothing more! It is not even hard. I never even talk about this here as you learn it on the fly.

 

[yungman]

I did well in algebra... I had a 3.9 GPA in my math classes up through differential calculus. It's only been the math since then that I've struggled with. While Linear Algebra seemed harder than I expected, my biggest difficulty was keeping the terminology straight.

As far as working harder or longer, that's a luxury in my shoes. It strikes a sour chord with me to think I'm not working hard enough for this... My dad put me to work at 15 because he didn't agree with public education, and I never even earned my GED until I was 24. Now I'm almost 29 and have spent 4 years just to get this far--all while working 40-50 hours per week as well as trying to keep a somewhat sane relationship with my girlfriend and her two kids. It hasn't been easy, and in many repsects I've given far more than "just enough to get by" as some have implied. I envy the younger students who still have all the time they need to study.

Something else that may be worth mentioning here: In my 14 years of work experience, I've never once had an employer who couldn't trust that I was up to the task. I'm not about to have that change, and that was my reasoning behind this post. As much as I want to be an EE, I don't want to be a hack or do the job halfway, and if I can't get the math down maybe I'm not cut out for this.

At any rate I still plan to give it my best shot. Today I started a new term at school and I'm currently taking Electrophysics (Engineering Physics III) and ODE. With my other responsibilities it's a heavy load, but I'm going to do everything in my power to get through this. And if I don't, well then I have my answer.

Thanks to all for your replies.

OK, now I have a lot more confidence in you. I tell you, nothing beats a good healthy does of common sense. That's what a lot of student from college lack of. As far as time, nobody said you have to do it in certain amount of time. Spread it out. Hack, I waited until I finished my career before making up my math and physics, talk about late!

Real EE job is not only about knowledge, work ethics, careful, common sense mean a whole lot. When you first start out, you'll find yourself spending a lot of time reading data books( well in my days, reading on the computer for you). Design has a lot to do with knowing what's out there on the market, what kind of performance. That's the reason a lot of times you see Jim Hardy and me just pull out a part name when someone asked a question. That come with time and been around the block a few times. Those are in certain sense very important. Your work experience will definitely help, hack! I can't tell you how much my years as a musician help me in my EE career, it's the way of things, how to approach a problem that you learn from your pass job. Go get them tiger.

Just study, have question, come here and ask.

 

[reddvoid]

I did it all ODE PDE Fourier laplace's z line surface volume integrals random variables processes complex variables and the damn curl divergence etc during my bachelor's degree but all i did was just to learn how to solve problems i didn't know much of where all those are used and even didn't know physical interpretation or concept of much of the topics i learn't , maybe because time available between exams was less(i didn't know how complex exponential signal would look but i useto get good in signals) ...so it was not much fun working math.
I finished bachelor's degree and now preparing for masters entrance test so I'm studying all engineering math again this time with full conceptual understanding and its a lot fun, I learn't that once you know physical interpretation or some analogy its lot fun to work with. . .and i believe good books make good engineers.cuz i useto struggle in controls i hated it and once i started reading it from ogata it became my favourite subject :-) so hunt for good books .these are some excellent authors out there whom you've never heard of but can convert your nightmare subject to your favourite one :-)

 

[yungman]

Yep, knowledge is not cheap. No books are good in all topics in a subjects. You can have a very good book on most topics and you hit the wall on one. Guide line to me is you have at least 4 books per subject. Also every book present the topic very different, some people like one way, some like the other, all in all, if you read them all, you start to get the meaning.

Yes Curl and Divergence mean very little in math, only when you get into EM then you really start to get the feel of it. I always joke about Griffiths "Intro to Electrodynamics" is the follow up course of Vector Calculus. You work out the problems in Cpt 10 and Cpt 11, you get pretty good in vector calculus.

My next topics in math I like to get into is Complex Analysis, Numerical Analysis after I finish Antenna Theory. I still have the "Classical Electrodynamics" by J D Jackson to look forward to. This is the holy grail of EM, it's like climbing the Mt Everest.

 

[Bassalisk]

Wow this thread actually made me feel better. I failed my EM course because I have lousy knowledge of vector algebra.

In my opinion, Fourier transform is holy grail in calculus.(and transforms alike)

When we studied FT in calculus course, I failed it.

But now, when I am studying it at Signals and Systems, it goes almost flawlessly.
Why?

Because I got something to relate this whole bunch of math. Frequency domain etc.
I need to see the purpose of the math that I am trying to learn, before I can actually learn it.

I like Fourier transform so much, that I will, with my teaching assistant, start developing application for students like me, that struggle with concept of transforms.

Calculus is good in a way that forces you to think differently. I know what Fourier transform does, but give me integral that has billion terms in it, good bye see ya.If you can think like an engineer, you will become one. Tesla didn't know scrub(not as much as Maxwell anyway) about math, now did he?

 

[yungman]

Wow this thread actually made me feel better. I failed my EM course because I have lousy knowledge of vector algebra.

In my opinion, Fourier transform is holy grail in calculus.(and transforms alike)

When we studied FT in calculus course, I failed it.

But now, when I am studying it at Signals and Systems, it goes almost flawlessly.
Why?

Because I got something to relate this whole bunch of math. Frequency domain etc.
I need to see the purpose of the math that I am trying to learn, before I can actually learn it.

I like Fourier transform so much, that I will, with my teaching assistant, start developing application for students like me, that struggle with concept of transforms.

Calculus is good in a way that forces you to think differently. I know what Fourier transform does, but give me integral that has billion terms in it, good bye see ya.If you can think like an engineer, you will become one. Tesla didn't know scrub(not as much as Maxwell anyway) about math, now did he?

Shoot! I wish I can say that. I studied FT but just never really "get it" Also I have not study probability ( yes I know, it is not hard!) that is require in Signal and systems, modulation etc. I finally decided to pick my battle and change direction to EM RF side.

FT and Laplace transform are the two that I studied, if I review, I can solve problems, but just never been good at them. Been using Bode Plot for all my closed loop feedback design and never let me down, so I never transition to LT and if you don't use it, you loose it!

Is ODE and PDE still belong to Calculus? I thought these two are the hardest.

 

[Bassalisk]

Shoot! I wish I can say that. I studied FT but just never really "get it" Also I have not study probability ( yes I know, it is not hard!) that is require in Signal and systems, modulation etc. I finally decided to pick my battle and change direction to EM RF side.

Funny thing is that I am studying telecommunications. I should know EM.

Probability is very big cake, I like it, I want to do it but it has too much to learn, in very short time. I will be most likely self taught this summer vacation, things I couldn't get to learn(because of time) in my course.

Ah Fourier transform. Its a playground for me actually. I won't lie to you that I spent nights, just laying there and thinking Fourier transform pairs. Filters? I am obsessed with them :D

 

[yungman]

Funny thing is that I am studying telecommunications. I should know EM.

Probability is very big cake, I like it, I want to do it but it has too much to learn, in very short time. I will be most likely self taught this summer vacation, things I couldn't get to learn(because of time) in my course.

Ah Fourier transform. Its a playground for me actually. I won't lie to you that I spent nights, just laying there and thinking Fourier transform pairs. Filters? I am obsessed with them :D

Good for you, to each their own. You should go with your heart, that's how you can be good in the career...passion. To me, RF, EM, EMC make me tick, I can sit there and think about how the current goes.

It is a big field, Yours will take a few years and so is my interest. You have to choose your battle. I know my passion and I had to give up signals system and modulation techniques in favor of my interest. Particular at my age, things leak out the other end as fast as I learn it. I am using the opportunity of responding to EM questions here to motivate myself to pickup the notes and read before answering. I am hoping that if I do it long enough, something should stick!

BTW, my highs is to design RF amplifier circuits with all distributed elements including all kind of filters and matching circuits...and all you see on the pcb is just a maze of copper patterns!

 

[Bassalisk]

Good for you, to each their own. You should go with your heart, that's how you can be good in the career...passion. To me, RF, EM, EMC make me tick, I can sit there and think about how the current goes.

It is a big field, Yours will take a few years and so is my interest. You have to choose your battle. I know my passion and I had to give up signals system and modulation techniques in favor of my interest. Particular at my age, things leak out the other end as fast as I learn it. I am using the opportunity of responding to EM questions here to motivate myself to pickup the notes and read before answering. I am hoping that if I do it long enough, something should stick!

BTW, my highs is to design RF amplifier circuits with all distributed elements including all kind of filters and matching circuits...and all you see on the pcb is just a maze of copper patterns!

I have passion in circuit design too. I am second year in college, and already I am pushing myself in designing circuits. I would like to work as a circuit designer, but I am on the wrong field.

And I think you are never too old to learn something. Can you explain a bit more what is RF amplifier circuit design? I am really interested in this.

 

[yungman]

I have passion in circuit design too. I am second year in college, and already I am pushing myself in designing circuits. I would like to work as a circuit designer, but I am on the wrong field.

And I think you are never too old to learn something. Can you explain a bit more what is RF amplifier circuit design? I am really interested in this.

RF amp design in a way is just normal amp circuit design, except you have to deal with frequency that the wave length is not much longer than the components and the traces in the circuit. You cannot look at any component as just a lump element. Also parasitic of the components become dominant in some case. Beyond 2 to 3 GHz, it is getting harder and harder to design with discrete components like inductors, capacitors. That's when components realized by transmission lines become popular.

Also the component availability is much more limited, you just don't go out and buy an op-amp that run at 2GHz! Even RFICs amplifiers are more like transistors. The most common way of presenting the characteristic is the S-Parameters when it lump input output, feed forward and reverse coupling characteristics together.

Even though RF design concept start out to be the same as low frequency design, but the reasons above quickly complicates the situation and a totally new approach and new parameters are used for all calculation and you really have to train your mind to think like the Smith Chart that plot the characteristics using the S parameter.

Get the RF book by David Pozar or Ludwig. both are very good books particularly Pozar. Ludwig is easier. Honestly, you don't need a lot of EM to study this as long as you can accept the phasors representation of traveling waves. You don't even need a lot of Linear algebra as I said that I learn on the fly whenever I need it for the two port networks.

One thing, pay more attention on pcb layout. It is a big part of the circuit design. Too many students have no idea and don't understand the importance of pcb layout. With good layout, those cook book circuits really work! A lot of the problems of circuit not working can be traced back to a bad layout. What I meant layout is not about learning a CAD software. It is about the art of putting the circuits together. I don't know whether there is any classes for that as I highly question whether those professor even know what I am talking about. If not anything, just respect the layout, that is where the battle won or lost. Particular the kind of Tx line distributed elements design I refer to as like a maze, I doubted you can have someone else do it for you.

Regarding of memory, I can tell you my memory degraded so much it's not even funny. I remember when I was young, I seldom had to study back, reading and working it out one time was good enough for me. Now, when I went back to study the EM the second time, it almost look foreign to me, read back my own notes and question whether I wrote it or my evil twin! I studied the subject of EM 3 complete times already, working through problems in two and half books to get to this point. And if someone ask a question here, I still have to hurry up and pull out my notes! It is only after all these effort, I start to at least feel a little bit more comfortable with it! Talk about slllooooooowwwww!

 

[Bassalisk]

RF amp design in a way is just normal amp circuit design, except you have to deal with frequency that the wave length is not much longer than the components and the traces in the circuit. You cannot look at any component as just a lump element. Also parasitic of the components become dominant in some case. Beyond 2 to 3 GHz, it is getting harder and harder to design with discrete components like inductors, capacitors. That's when components realized by transmission lines become popular.

Also the component availability is much more limited, you just don't go out and buy an op-amp that run at 2GHz! Even RFICs amplifiers are more like transistors. The most common way of presenting the characteristic is the S-Parameters when it lump input output, feed forward and reverse coupling characteristics together.

Even though RF design concept start out to be the same as low frequency design, but the reasons above quickly complicates the situation and a totally new approach and new parameters are used for all calculation and you really have to train your mind to think like the Smith Chart that plot the characteristics using the S parameter.

Get the RF book by David Pozar or Ludwig. both are very good books particularly Pozar. Ludwig is easier. Honestly, you don't need a lot of EM to study this as long as you can accept the phasors representation of traveling waves. You don't even need a lot of Linear algebra as I said that I learn on the fly whenever I need it for the two port networks.

One thing, pay more attention on pcb layout. It is a big part of the circuit design. Too many students have no idea and don't understand the importance of pcb layout. With good layout, those cook book circuits really work! A lot of the problems of circuit not working can be traced back to a bad layout. What I meant layout is not about learning a CAD software. It is about the art of putting the circuits together. I don't know whether there is any classes for that as I highly question whether those professor even know what I am talking about. If not anything, just respect the layout, that is where the battle won or lost. Particular the kind of Tx line distributed elements design I refer to as like a maze, I doubted you can have someone else do it for you.

Regarding of memory, I can tell you my memory degraded so much it's not even funny. I remember when I was young, I seldom had to study back, reading and working it out one time was good enough for me. Now, when I went back to study the EM the second time, it almost look foreign to me, read back my own notes and question whether I wrote it or my evil twin! I studied the subject of EM 3 complete times already, working through problems in two and half books to get to this point. And if someone ask a question here, I still have to hurry up and pull out my notes! It is only after all these effort, I start to at least feel a little bit more comfortable with it! Talk about slllooooooowwwww!

hahahaha :D

But still you are veteran circuit designer.

Where is RF circuit design used? Can I do that with degree in telecommunications?

You are talking about GHz's and that ignites my interest already.

 

[yungman]

hahahaha :D

But still you are veteran circuit designer.

Where is RF circuit design used? Can I do that with degree in telecommunications?

You are talking about GHz's and that ignites my interest already.

Cell phone, SONET, ATM and all sort of serial communications are all relate to telecom. You need to know RF to design the front end interface. They are get into multi GHz. Having knowledge of signal and communication has a big advantage of knowing the requirement of the RF design. In my case that don't know enough about signals and system, or each kind of modulation. I have to take the requirement at it's face value for designing. You'll have better feel in how much distortion you can live with knowing what kind of modulation you are using. Even slower communication link like USB and Firewire is 400MHz.

Even 10 years ago, we were talking about OC192 where it run at 10GHz!

 

[Bassalisk]

Cell phone, SONET, ATM and all sort of serial communications are all relate to telecom. Even slower communication link like USB and Firewire is 400MHz. You need to know RF to design the front end interface. They are get into multi GHz. Having knowledge of signal and communication has a big advantage of knowing the requirement of the RF design. In my case that don't know enough about signals and system, or each kind of modulation. I have to take the requirement at it's face value for designing. You'll have better feel in how much distortion you can live with knowing what kind of modulation you are using.

Even 10 years ago, we were talking about OC192 where it run at 10GHz!

So I can be circuit designer in telecommunications? :D:D:D

What joy!

I thought I would end up with studying networks etc. and work as a IT engineer. I don't want that. As much as I know about computers, and even like them, they are not challenge to me.

So RF you say. I may have just found field of interest. Signals and Systems and electronics!

Apart from that one book you suggested, what do you suggest more? I want to start to tie things up, on this spring break between semesters.

I already have a project regarding demodulation. If it has signals and electronics, I am your man. I am even fond on MATLAB and simulink.I will probably need to go outside my country to get a job, but that is not to think about now :D