I am an electrical and electronics engineer having 3 years of experience including 1 year in gulf country.But still now i didnt got a job of my satisfaction,means fully electrical or electronics field.Now i am working in street lighting project.But this job is not enough to use my knowledge into work.Just can anyone guide me for better career.
I think it depends on the engineer. Some guys have 5 years of experience where they learn and grow each year. Others have one year of growth and just hang around for the remaining four years. So you could have 5 years of experience or 1 year of experience 5 years in a row.
I see every what Tunrayo is talking about. We have specific prog. run by in-house managers. They are always using the less exp. eng. on the low end of the pay scale and they are always behind schedule and over-budget. You get what you pay for.
Have enough faith in yourself to take a leap..it's amazing how little cash you need to start your own business. If you don't take a leap of faith now - you never will.
Consulting works great also..build a reference database...check in often..lots of work if you'll call and ask.
I agree completely. If some intelligent creative person wants to build software to perform a specific function he will tend to keep working at it until it's done and will pick up whatever knowledge is needed to do the job. This is how the PC software industry mushroomed in the first place. Companies don't need to invest in training so much as they do in people who are creative enough to get the job done without training.
Here is a short story that I had fun writing. It is just a story.
I hate to admit it but when I say jump, most of the time I really just want to see someone jump. I appreciate when a go-getter asks if they jumped high enough. Engineers with decades of experience usually don't jump and endeavor to tell me why running is more appropriate. Once we "agree" on the objective of jumping, they invariably go away and run to achieve it. Great. Meanwhile, my willing jumpers have gotten good at jumping and recommend we try running and then jumping. Why, that is a new idea, let's try it! The experienced guy, after providing us the requisite education on why that has never worked in the past, agrees on the new direction and, of course, goes away to run and run some more. This is the other edge or the experience sword. Try not to be "that guy."
"The role of HR is determined by the middle technical management, and the role only reflects or mirror images the middle management. They can use it as a meaningful aid for collecting resumes or a wall of frivolous screening, about which we, the candidates, can do nothing."
Who are these middle management? Are they generalist or specialist?
I propose to everyone who is bugged by the "middle management bug" in the recruitment system should read through a rare but interesting article from CIO.com with title "Job Search: What to Do When You're Overqualified"
Its time to think of turning this "New Abnormal" to something sensible. I believe over the last 30 years or so, the so-called Middle-Management has been very effective to fatten up the organization at the Middle.
The time could not be far, when this breed of "Middle Management" would need to find jobs for themselves, which they are presently preserving ,at the cost of massive organizational inefficiencies and denying or delaying the impending changes.
This website is as stupid as hiring managers!! My well thoughtout response to you was obliterated as the site decided that I wasn't signed in.
This is certainly an example of the level of awareness that we are dealing with.
Simon and Isaac bring up good points about the screening process needing to be transparent and clearly delineated about filtering protocols. Sometimes the best insight about a candidate fit comes outside the formal interview process in social settings (like lunch) where you get to observe the thinking, decision making and insight in day to day operation where, contrary to the box of chocolates saying, you know what you are going to get in terms of passion or knowledge or fit. Getting to the interview is usually the biggest hurdle for a candidate. (And thank you Isaac for the kind words).
I have been a hiring manager in the semiconductor industry for 20+ years, and never cared much about any input from HR, until the final decision point (at which time I asked them to do the standard criminal, etc., background check). I looked at all resumes myself and decided whom to interview. Also, I worked directly (not through HR) with a very limited number of qualified recruiters who knew what I was looking for and understood that I did not appreciate them making screening decisions. I assume that most of the hiring managers who have experience work this way.
I guess that a lot depends on how you exactly define "being choosy", as there are various shades of it, often abused. If it is being used for precise emphasis on the very substance and/or high degree of verifiable specialization in the technical expertise sought, it may be regarded as the long overdue "rational factor" in the choice of hiring engineers. But, when the economy is bad and the supply is abundant, the modality of "choosiness" would naturally emerge and be exercised in various degrees of shades. As laborers, we can only hope that it would be deployed or exercised as rationally as possible as the time goes on. Knowing what exactly a company needs in the candidates and how to spot it, are still black art and would remain so for some time. I can only hope that there is an increasing realization of a company hiring nothing else, but a technical worker (i.e., the engineer), and they would be utterly alone with his/her technical productivity and effective expertise at the end of the day, not his/her charm or political abilities, or age, or his/her previous economy compensation, or his/her "15+ years at the John Deer Tractor Factory" in this so called "choosiness". The role of HR is determined by the middle technical management, and the role only reflects or mirror images the middle management. They can use it as a meaningful aid for collecting resumes or a wall of frivolous screening, about which we, the candidates, can do nothing.
In sum, as a bottom line, I second Mr. Camille K. above.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.