> It's like getting an astrophysics degree in hopes of getting a job in the telescope industry
Which seems perfectly reasonable? I reckon most astrophysicists could work in the “telescope industry” just fine, and their background in astrophysics would prove pretty useful. And likewise, CS graduates are perfectly suited to difficult engineering jobs. I’d rather hire a smart CS grad with no knowledge of FactoryFactoryFactory than the reverse.
If that was the point you were trying to make, it might have been better to state it rather than link to two articles about radio astronomy and ask “what does optics have to do with telescopes”
Reflective and refractive optical telescopes are still important (and still being built.)
Indeed! I think elecrical engineers cover the largest "area" in today's engineering landscape in terms of both breadth and depth, encompassing applied physics, math, and cs. An electrical engineer can understand and potentially work on converting RF to electrical signals, process them to extract bits, program a computer to decode those bits, and convert those bits into a human consumable format.
Of course each of those areas is filled with decades of progress that requires in-depth expertise, but if there's a discipline that can go deep enough into each of them, it's probably EE.
Whether it’s reasonable or not depends on who’s paying for the unnecessary years of education you just did, and if that involves debt then the consequences of the debt.
Which seems perfectly reasonable? I reckon most astrophysicists could work in the “telescope industry” just fine, and their background in astrophysics would prove pretty useful. And likewise, CS graduates are perfectly suited to difficult engineering jobs. I’d rather hire a smart CS grad with no knowledge of FactoryFactoryFactory than the reverse.