>>13134810>>13134823>>13135190samefag. Either way, I don’t think anon is suggesting that he knows everything to get into an EE masters program. He mentioned bridge programs and masters remedial coursework.
If we look at one of the first results in the US, the NPS MSEE program which is ABET accredited, in the worst case, anon would have to take 6 classes of math, 6 classes of phys+chem, and 13-14 classes of EE. However, being a math major and having done up to atomic physics, he’d probably just have to do the following:
1 sem of chem + lab
12-13 classes of EE (comp. arch. probably takes a CE flavored elective off the EE curriculum)
This is doable in 3-4 semesters as suitable retraining for someone who wants to commit to EE. That’s a decision anon will have to make, since it means 4 years for a masters, but he will likely come out with ABET accreditation.
I’m pretty sure he was referring to any linear systems and/or DSP class. You guys are taking it way too personally / close to your ego if you think his intent was to trivialize RF. Also, having experience working with mathematicians in grad school, there isn’t anything special about signal theory they can’t study. They would be ill equipped to do EE work with signal theory without lab experience and other classes, but there’s nothing stopping jumping in to be honest. I know a math masters who got admitted to EE PhD who works in signals.
When you’re a researcher, you have to let go of the preconception that what you’re studying is sacred. People will jump in and out of your areas of expertise all the time. They will learn, unlearn, and relearn over the course of weeks what took you months, as will you, because that’s what research is about. What’s important isn’t really anon’s background since he probably has strong STEM foundations. What’s important is his potential for output following the masters, which is what they’ll be assessing.
>t. EE PhD candidate 
