Re: Looking for PCB layout designer
- From: Charles Edmondson <edmondson@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 15:29:21 -0700
Fritz Schlunder wrote:
"keith" <krw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:pan.2005.03.27.17.32.57.791930@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 06:37:54 -0700, Fritz Schlunder wrote:
It's rather hard to compare single-layer boards with ten-layer complexity. Sure, if you have the same functino to perform a single layer will be a tad tougher. One doesn't add layers if they're not needed. I was objecting to your stating that 10+ layer boards and BGAs weren't all that common ten years ago. They were.
Well that is the problem with words like "common" whose definition wasn't quantified in this context. So we can both be right on this. My version of the definition of "common" is evidently different from yours.
That said, in 1995 I was using a 486 DX33 and it didn't have any BGA parts on it. In 1999 I worked for an electronics manufacturing company with X-ray equipment needed for working with BGAs. While that was in no way amazing in 1999, not all of the local competitors in the business had the tools needed for working with BGA parts.
In many ways I consider computer motherboards to represent the most complicated electronic consumer product (PCB wise) which is made in large volume. Motherboard manufactureres have been using four layer (as I understand it usually six layer now) boards for ages. That isn't to say 10+ layer boards aren't in common use.
Consumer products aren't the end-all in technology. They pushed more by cost than technology.
That is often true, but consumer products dominate in terms of volume. In terms of the total number of PCBs produced in 1995, I'm sure the number using 10+ layers takes a very small part of the pie.
I never claimed any such thing. Designing and then routing a fully functional ten layer board is well within my capability.
I see. It's only impossible for others. For you...
I never said it was impossible for others either. But regardless this is way off topic of my main point in my first post. My orignal point was I had a problem with employers effectively descriminating against smart people. Descrimination against smart people (as well as responsible people) is rather epidemic in our society. Most people are totally unaware of this simply because it doesn't effect them.
Take for instance the minimum driver licensing age. It varies by state in the US, but is typically somewhere around 16. When I was 13 I was definitely responsible enough to drive a car, which would have been very valuable for me for transport to and from college. No bussing system or mass transit was available in this area. Unfortunately due to societal descrimination against responsible people I had to ride a bicyle (uphill both directions in the snow, etc.) to school instead. How fair was that?
Of course, one might argue that even a very responsible 13 year old shouldn't be allow to drive since if they caused a car wreck (even if a pure accident and not due to irresponsible behavior) they could not pay for the damages.
I would counter that argument by saying that the very responsible 13 year old wouldn't be able to pay for the damages since our society further descriminates against the responsible and capable 13 year old with child labor laws that prevent them from working for money.
The point is many aspects of our society are simply too ridged. The rules are too unbending. There isn't enough room for exceptions. My specific qualm at the moment is with employers that descriminate against smart people with their X years experience requirements. Why do I even mention the problem? Well I want to change it, that is why. The way I see it the first step towards fixing this problem is to make people aware that it even exists by pointing it out in a public forum. One of the later steps is to figure out what method of hiring people would be better and more fair.
The whole process has problems including the resume writing/submittal/review steps. The resume process gives a great advantage to people who are dishonest and those who are perfectly comfortable bragging about how great they are. An honest/modest person who feels uncomfortable bragging about themself will have a disadvantage. He who lies on their resume the most is the most likely to be contacted for an interview. This isn't right. This is bad.
I propose employers should adopt a strategy of creating long questionaires/quizzes available to any prospective employee. The employer is free to make up the quiz/questionaire however they see fit, but presumably would include actual questions relevant to the job requirements. For example, for a digital design type job one question might be:
You want to implement the function: Output = A + B'C'D'A + (CD + B'). How would you do this? (leave space for the would be employee to enter schematics)
If the would be employee can't answer this or produces an ugly quagmire of over 100 gates, then they could quickly be excluded from a face to face interview. On the other hand if they produce a very elegant solution using the least possible gates, then it might be justifiable to do a face to face interview provided the rest of their answers to the other questions are reasonable.
Or maybe a question for switch mode power supply designer:
(show full and detailed schematics of a typical SMPS) The above powersupply has been found to have an unstable control loop. (provide relevant details such as capacitor ESR, etc.) Modify the schematics so the power supply is stable.
Or for some other type of electronics job, maybe one question might be like:
(show schematics of some circuit with a few errors in it) When the circuit shown above was prototyped and tested on the bench the device didn't work right. What is wrong with the design? Provide a description of how you might fix it.
You get the idea.
The employer can make the test as long as they want (and should). This will also be helpful for would be employees that don't know for sure if they are applying for the right kind of job and if they could handle it or not. This kind of test would be far more fair than a strict X years experience requirement.
And yes I am an exceptionally bright individual (in some ways, although admittedly not all). After completeing public school through eighth grade I started college at age 13. I then graduated with an associates of business degree at age 15 with a 3.86 GPA. During that time I did peer tutoring and tutored many of my peers in subject such as mathematics. Many of my tutees had many more years of "experience" learning mathematical concepts than me (having had to go through high school, etc.), yet I had in much less time managed to master all of the mathematics that my particular college taught.
Wow! Is your arm sore?
No, but it seemed relevant that I established some degree of credibility since you were using words that suggested I was an idiot.
I never claimed any such thing. I contend experience is very valuable, however, I believe X years of experience isn't as good a metric of competance as directly measuring or observing ability.
One minutes observation isn't much to go on either. I'll take relevant experience anytime.
No need for it to be a minute, a pre-interview test could be made arbitrarily lengthy since the employer doesn't have to pay employee candidates jack doodly.
Without a doubt experience is a very valuable thing.
Not that long ago I read an employment ad that was looking for a groundskeeper. The primary responsibility was to pick up trash and mow the grass. They wanted 1+ year of experience. I don't know about some people, but I don't need one whole year to learn how to mow grass and pick up garbage.
You miss the point. If they have one year experience, they'll be more likely to hang around past the first check. The candidate *may* be more reliable than one still wet behind the ears.
I agree in this example such a requirement may have something to do with employees hanging around with this kind of job. On the other hand prospective employees for design/engineering jobs such as the OP's are comparatively stable, but they do need to have some degree of mental flexibility. Discriminating against the most mentally flexible people doesn't make much sense for a job that requires mental flexibility.
Fritz,
I sounds like you were a young genius, and now find it hard to get out of the prejudices that you ran into early. It also looks like you haven't begun to figure out the job hunting experience, either, but let me give you a few pointers.
First, manager hire people that can get their job done, period. If he doesn't think you can do it, FOR WHATEVER REASON, then he won't hire you.
Second, HR is tasked with preventing, as much as possible, that a manager find that person they are looking for. Therefore, managers often hire schmucks who can't do the job well, but maybe can at least get it done eventually. It is the best the can do with what they can find.
Third, take a look at the Ask the Headhunter site. He has a lot about the first two facts, and how to make them work for you, and not against you. If you are talking to an HR person before you have talked to the hiring manager, then you are probably not going to get the job.
Charlie
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Help me solve this design problem PLEEEZ
- Next by Date: Re: Help me solve this design problem PLEEEZ
- Previous by thread: OT: I guess I'd better watch my P's and Q's ;-)
- Next by thread: Isuses with the PCM1804 and the overflow indicator
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
