u/Odd-Doctor-0401

• Light mode
• Dark mode
Which one do you use on your computers and devices?

Is it a convention to use dark theme as default for this engineering sector or personal preference?

• Light mode
• Dark mode
Which one do you use on your computers and devices?

• Light mode
• Dark mode
Which one do you use on your computers and devices?

I’m a mechatronics and automation engineer deciding between two interstate offers.

Offer A focuses on advanced control systems, PLC/SCADA, Python, data analysis and industrial process optimisation. It appears more technically aligned with my long-term interest in robotics, software, AI/ML and intelligent automation.

Offer B focuses on commissioning control systems for generators, battery storage and microgrids. It offers practical site work, troubleshooting, customer interaction, travel and strong exposure to energy-control systems.

One offer pays noticeably more, but compensation is not my only consideration. I’m more concerned about technical development, career flexibility and avoiding being locked into either process control or field service.

Relocating would also mean leaving my friends, established community, responsibilities and professional network in Victoria. I’m willing to make that sacrifice, but only for a role that genuinely advances my long-term career.

Which offer would provide the stronger foundation for eventually moving into robotics or autonomous systems? Would you prioritise advanced controls and software depth, or broader hands-on commissioning experience?

Hi everyone,

I’m considering moving from Geelong to Perth and would really like to hear from anyone who has made the same move, or who has lived in both places.

How did you find the change in lifestyle, cost of living, housing, job opportunities, weather, traffic and social life? Does Perth feel significantly more isolated, and was it difficult being farther away from family or friends in Victoria?

What do you miss about Geelong, and what do you prefer about Perth? Was the move worth it overall?

I’d also appreciate hearing about anything you wish you had known before moving, as well as any Perth suburbs that might suit someone accustomed to living in Geelong.

Honest positives and negatives would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

I’m facing a career decision and would appreciate some outside perspective from people working in robotics, controls, automation, mechatronics or engineering recruitment.

Background

I’m a Mechatronics Engineer in Australia with experience across industrial automation, control systems, robotics, embedded systems, software, IoT, automotive validation and applied AI/ML.
My experience includes PLC/SCADA projects, autonomous mobile robots, ROS 2, SLAM, path planning, sensor fusion, embedded C/C++, Python, computer vision and multidisciplinary engineering work across mechanical, electrical and software systems.

Long term, I don’t want to be restricted to only PLC or SCADA work. I want to develop into a broad robotics and advanced mechatronics engineer, with the ability to work across physical systems, autonomy, controls, embedded software, AI/ML, computer vision, digital twins and eventually R&D.

I currently have two offers and a third opportunity progressing to interview.

Option 1: Control Systems Engineer at a large multinational organisation

This is a permanent role with a large, established multinational company.

The work would involve industrial control systems, automation, PLCs, SCADA, instrumentation, commissioning and supporting operational facilities.

The advantages seem to be:

Stronger organisational structure and processes
Better job security
Formal training and development
Exposure to larger industrial systems
A recognised company environment
Clearer management and career pathways
The role would require relocating interstate.

My concern is whether several years in a traditional industrial-controls role could eventually make it harder to move towards robotics, autonomy, embedded systems or AI-driven engineering.

Option 2: Mechatronics Engineer at a small industrial robotics company

This is with a much smaller engineering business that designs and delivers industrial robotic systems.

The work appears broader and more hands-on, potentially covering:

Industrial robots and robot programming
Mechanical design and fabrication
Electrical design and integration
Sensors, actuators and control systems
Software and system integration
Installation, commissioning and troubleshooting
End-to-end ownership of complete robotic cells

This seems closest to my long-term robotics ambitions because I would be working directly with physical robotic systems and across multiple engineering disciplines.

However, it is a smaller company with:

Less organisational structure
Lower pay
Greater business and project uncertainty
Potentially fewer formal development pathways
A requirement to relocate

My concern is whether the breadth would come at the expense of deep technical specialisation, mentoring or long-term stability.

Option 3: Control Systems Engineer at a specialist multinational product company

The third opportunity is with a specialist multinational technology company that develops control hardware and software for engines, generators, power systems, hybrid energy systems and related applications.

I have completed the initial screening call and have an interview scheduled next Tuesday, so this is not yet an offer.

The work appears to sit somewhere between the first two options and could involve:

Control-system application engineering
Embedded controllers and specialised hardware
Industrial communication protocols
System integration and commissioning
Power generation and hybrid-energy control
Customer-facing technical problem solving
Product configuration, testing and technical support
It is a product-focused engineering company rather than a general industrial operator or small robotics integrator. The salary discussed is also the strongest of the three, and the location would allow me to remain closer to where I currently live.

However, it is still primarily a controls and power-systems role rather than a robotics role. I’m unsure whether this pathway would provide strong transferable experience towards robotics, embedded systems and intelligent machines, or whether it would eventually specialise me too heavily in generator and energy-control applications.

What I’m trying to optimise for

I’m less concerned about which job looks best for the next year or two and more concerned about where each pathway could place me in five to ten years.

My long-term interests include:

Robotics and physical AI
Autonomous systems
ROS 2
Computer vision and perception
AI/ML applied to physical systems
Embedded and real-time systems
Motion and control
Digital twins and simulation
Multidisciplinary product development
Engineering R&D

Questions

Which of these three pathways would you choose for long-term career development, and why?

Would the small robotics company provide more valuable experience despite the lower salary and higher risk?

Could a large-company controls role create a stronger engineering foundation before transitioning into robotics?

How transferable would experience from a specialist power-control product company be to robotics, embedded systems or autonomous machines?

When hiring robotics or mechatronics engineers, do you value direct robotics experience more than structured controls experience from a larger organisation?

Is broad end-to-end responsibility at a small company generally more valuable than narrower but deeper experience within a mature engineering organisation?

Would it be unwise to delay decisions on two existing offers while waiting for the outcome of the third interview process?

Which option would create the strongest portfolio and technical story for future robotics, autonomy or R&D roles?

I’d particularly appreciate perspectives from robotics engineers, control systems engineers, mechatronics engineers, hiring managers, and anyone who has moved between industrial automation, embedded controls and robotics.

Been sitting with this for a while and figured I'd just throw it out there.

I'm in Geelong, and like a lot of people I know, I'm watching the gap between what life costs and what work actually pays get wider every year. Rent's brutal, buying a house feels like a joke, healthcare keeps getting more complicated, and wages just... don't.

I'm not talking about tearing everything down. I don't mean getting rid of people's homes or small local businesses. I just mean questioning whether a system that treats housing, healthcare and education as profit opportunities is ever going to give ordinary people a stable life. I'm not sure it can anymore.

So what would actually change things here in Geelong? Genuinely curious what people reckon. A few things I've been thinking about:

Way more public housing, not just a token amount

Stronger worker protections and wages that keep pace with real costs

Co-operative business models getting more support

Universal basic services for the stuff people can't go without

Some kind of serious policy response to wealth concentration

Or something else entirely?

I'm not looking for a left vs right back-and-forth. I'm just curious what people who actually live here think a fairer version of this would look like. What would genuinely make life better for most people in this city?

Before I get into this, I want to be clear: I'm not having a go at students generally. Whether someone came through traditional entry, alternative pathways, international study, or later in life, that's not what this is about.

But I do think there's something worth saying about what universities have become, and I say this as someone who went through the system and has watched it closely.

There was a time when a degree meant something fairly specific. Rigorous training in a discipline, genuine command of the foundations, and the ability to actually demonstrate both under pressure. That standard still exists in pockets. But the gap between holding a qualification and being able to do the work has grown uncomfortably wide, and I've seen it firsthand, not as an abstract concern but as a lived observation.

I've been around people who hold degrees, sometimes postgraduate ones, and genuinely cannot do the work the credential implies. Again, I'm not talking about people who struggled or took longer to get there. I'm talking about people who found ways to get through without ever really learning. When the system is large and diffuse enough, those paths apparently aren't that hard to find.

What genuinely troubles me is seeing this reach PhD level. I've known people who were clearly not suited to research during their undergraduate years, and I won't be vague about the reason: there were obvious academic integrity issues. Some of those same people have PhDs now. That's not a commentary on the difficulty of research in principle. It's a question about what the gatekeeping actually looks like when the institution running the program is also a revenue-dependent business.

Then there's the degree proliferation. The core engineering disciplines are well established: mechanical, electrical, electronics, civil, computer science. Mechatronics is a legitimate addition, it's a coherent field built around robotics, control systems, and embedded electronics, with real professional application. These disciplines have deep bodies of knowledge, rigorous foundations, and established standards.

But the catalogue keeps expanding. Bachelor of Entrepreneurship. Bachelor of AI Engineering. A growing list of others that seem designed around what sounds appealing in a course guide rather than around any genuine academic or professional need. Entrepreneurship is something most people develop through experience, failure, and mentorship, not a structured three-year degree. An AI engineering program built on weak mathematical and programming foundations isn't really AI engineering, it's a credential with the right keywords attached. These offerings aren't all worthless, but a lot of them are essentially cash cows: high enrolment appeal, low established output standard, no real professional benchmark to be held against.

And this is where the change becomes most visible to me. There was a time when a degree in a core discipline told you something real about the person holding it. Not just that they attended, but that they had genuinely earned it, and that filtered for both capability and work ethic. When someone walked in with a degree, you could largely rely on them for the task.

That signal doesn't hold in the same way anymore, and I'm not sure it holds even at PhD level now. That's not cynicism for its own sake. It's something I've had to actively factor into how I assess the people I work alongside.

So what actually changed? I think it's several things compounding: universities becoming revenue-dependent, degrees proliferating well beyond where genuine professional need exists, academic integrity failures that don't get caught or actioned consistently, and a general erosion of the filter between entering a program and graduating from it. Broader access is part of the picture, but I don't think access is the root problem. The root problem is that access was widened without anyone clearly defining, let alone maintaining, what the output standard actually needs to be.

There used to be a real drive behind earning a qualification. A sense that it represented something. I'm trying to understand what changed, and whether the system is broken or just doing exactly what it was redesigned to do. Curious whether anyone else who has been on the inside of this sees it the same way.

Just a rant due to recent activities and the latest migration stats.

Fresh ABS numbers dropped this week and they’re a wake up call. As of June 2025, Indian born residents reached 971,020 for the first time ever, narrowly ahead of England-born. Total overseas-born now 8.8 million, ~32% of Australia’s 27.6 million people. India added over half a million in the last decade, largely via student and skilled pathways.

Australia moved India to the highest risk visa category in January 2026 over concerns with fake degrees, document fraud and integrity issues. Rejection rates for Indian student visas hit around 40%. This pattern appears in other countries too. Canada deported record numbers last year for overstays and related issues, with similar actions elsewhere.

In Geelong and wider Australia, many qualified locals are struggling with job hunts lasting months. Some recruiters seem to favour networks from similar backgrounds. I recently declined a LinkedIn pitch for a money focused entrepreneur group, not my thing.

A significant number come as international students but end up in gig economy roles like delivery, rideshare, cleaning or entry level work. There are reports of visa conditions being stretched (extra hours, partner visas), strong community clustering with limited mixing, and friction around cultural practices like fireworks. Some groups show resistance to local norms. Trades and construction programs often feel inefficient when technology could deliver better outcomes at lower cost to taxpayers.

Record migration is adding real pressure on housing and services. Proposed negative gearing and CGT changes in the budget could help rebalance things. The pushback from investors shows why reform matters.

We need better control on low skilled and non genuine migration, genuine integration, and stronger enforcement against fraud. Similar to steps taken in Canada. Not every individual, but the scale and patterns are straining the system.