Hi All, So, I'm in grad school for systems. to me, the whole point of systems is hardware agnosticism. You get to discuss solutions to problems ( related to dynamical systems ) without restricting the discussion to one type of hardware (like motors and or circuits, even though that could be a popular application). And when you are given hardware, you can model it and then discuss the solution without considering the hardware (at least very heavily). And I'm trying to get started with research but I'm a little confused at the research being done around me in the department. most research around me that i've seen from my peers uses little to none of the graduate level systems knowledge accrued. Part of that is because it has to be applied to get funding these days, but sometimes i'm simply amazed at how simple some research around me seem from a systems level, and they are "pure hardware" study and very little abstract system level research (stability, trajectory patterns, designing a new type of controller synthesis). This isn't really meant to be a critique on the usefulness/validity of their research, but just it doesn't seem to match the "Systems" title. I simply don't have interest in direct applications as much as the theory, and don't know what to do. I expect Systems research to maybe start with an application and then boil the problem down to a set of constraints, and then perhaps synthesize a novel controller and test it in various ways, or simply to analyze a complex system to make some sense out of the trajectories, which is what is done in classes. I'm just wondering thoughts of anyone, if anyone has noticed this dichotomy between the theoretical level of classes and the research done by peers.