davidl@tekadg.UUCP (Dave) (07/27/85)
My company paid, I believe, in excess of $100 for me to attend the Advanced C Programming tutorial at the last Usenix convention. The material presented therein was in no sense advanced programming in any language. The "instructor" spent hours going over details of expression evaluation and other trivia of compiler implementation. What I expected was a treatment of how the C language might be used to advantage in various applications such as data base management, graphics, etc. What I got was a sophomoric, at best, review of the contents of K&R's book, along with some additional information about how the compiler processes its input - information which any competent programmer will easily gather from experience in the first few months of using a new compiler. The presentation was certainly at a common level of sophistication with most of the presentations at Usenix, tutorial or otherwise. However, I have become accustomed, through exposure to tutorials sponsored by other organizations (such as IEEE), to being presented with state-of-the-art information. I came away from the tutorial speculating that perhaps the instructor was a community-college level professional educator who had never actually had to write any amount of useful code in the course of his employment. Were it not for the fact that attempting to obtain a refund of the money which my company spent on my tutorial attendance would cost the company far more than the amount of the refund, I would certainly make the attempt. When one multiplies the tutorial fee by the number of attendees, the resulting dollar amount is nauseating in view of the quality of the presentation.
rpk@ecsvax.UUCP (Richard Kelley) (07/27/85)
(the following are only my opinions. )
If you can say anything about the tutorials put on by Usenix it is that
they vary wildly in sophistication. At the Dallas meeting for example
I signed up for a course in System Admin that was taught by an ill-prepared
instructor that rambled on and on and never said anything of use to real-life
system admin. I found out that he had never done any real system
administration and that he wasn't going to address issues such as security
backups, staffing, and user admin except in general terms ("security is
important, you should consider it...backups are important, try to do them,...
etc, etc). I left this foolishness and changed my ticket to an Advanced
Shell Programming course taught by Mark Sobel that was very interesting
and professionally done.
Moral: Usenix doesn't appear to screen the instructors so you should. I
haven't attended any since that I haven't talked with the instructor
beforehand. The amount of money wasted is trival -- the time is anything
but.
#include <disclaim> /* does your system have this file ? */
-Dick --- ecsvax!rpk
/
USENET: {decvax, ihnp4, the_known_world}!mcnc! --- --- root
\ /
--- rti-sel!flan ---
\
--- rpk
ARPA: decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!rpk@BERKELEYmike@hcradm.UUCP (Mike Tilson) (07/29/85)
As the Usenix tutorial coordinator, I am responding to the unsigned
posting (return address tekadg!davidl) regarding unhappiness with
the Advanced C Programming tutorial at the Portland Usenix meeting.
I apologize for the large number of newsgroups, but I am only responding
to the original posting. If there is any followup, please restrict it
to net.usenix.
The essence of the complaint was that the tutorial was not sufficiently
advanced to be worth the time and money spent attending, and in general
not very well done. Also included were some remarks to the effect that
the level of the tutorial was equal to all of the other Usenix activities,
i.e. none of them were very advanced or very good.
I have reviewed the course evaluation forms. Many attendees felt that
the course was well done. Nearly all attendees felt that they got
something out of the course. However, I think we did have a problem
in targeting the course to its audience, since a number of attendees
felt the course was better described as "intermediate" rather than
"advanced". Unfortunately, while "novice" is fairly well defined,
there is no top end to "advanced". The course description did state
that 3-6 months of C programming experience were expected, but if you
already had several years, the tutorial was a little low level.
Nevertheless, most attendees got something out of it (at least those
that handed in evaluation forms.)
We will continue to work on refining our descriptions of courses as
well as improving the program. I would like to say that most of
our tutorials are very well received. I think they hold up very well
in comparison with any others. We welcome any comments and suggestions
for improvement, and we *do* look at evaluations and change the
program accordingly.
Michael Tilson
Usenix Tutorial Coordinator
{utzoo,decvax}!hcr!hcradm!mikemike@hcradm.UUCP (Mike Tilson) (07/30/85)
Richard Kelly (ecsvax!rpk) writes: > ... If you can say anything about the tutorials put on by Usenix it is that > they vary wildly in sophistication. At the Dallas meeting for example > I signed up for a course in System Admin that was taught by an ill-prepared > instructor that rambled on and on and never said anything of use to real-life > system admin. I found out that he had never done any real system > administration and that he wasn't going to address issues such as security > backups, staffing, and user admin except in general terms ("security is > important, you should consider it...backups are important, try to do them,... > etc, etc). I left this foolishness and changed my ticket to an Advanced > Shell Programming course taught by Mark Sobel that was very interesting > and professionally done. > > Moral: Usenix doesn't appear to screen the instructors so you should. ... Please note that last winter in Dallas there were *two* UNIX conferences: the UniForum trade show (put on by /usr/group) and the Usenix conference. These were distinct and independent; both had tutorial sessions. Mark Sobell's shell programming course mentioned above was part of the *UniForum* show so I assume that the System Admin course was also. The *Usenix* tutorial course on System Admin was taught by Ed Gould and Vance Vaughan of Mt. Xinu. Both of the *Usenix* instructors are extremely well qualified, and their course evaluations reflected this. Because two UNIX activities were held in the same city at the same time, there has been a lot of confusion. Usenix has been called UniForum and vice versa. But they AREN'T THE SAME, so please be careful. The Usenix Association tries to screen its tutorial instructors in several ways. We look at past tutorial offerings by the same instructor. We look at the proposed course outlines and materials. We discuss the course topics before selecting an instructor. Finally, we obtain evaluation forms from the attendees, and we use this in our decisions about future courses. While the quality of instruction varies, and while the course descriptions have not always been as clear as they could be, we have to my knowledge never offered a course whose instructor was not more than qualified technically. Michael Tilson Usenix Tutorial Coordinator {utzoo,decvax}!hcr!hcradm!mike
rusty@sdcarl.UUCP (rusty c. wright) (08/01/85)
i had the same feelings about the "advanced 4.2bsd internals" tutorial
(or whatever it was called) that i attended at the salt lake city
usenix. i felt that it was for the most part a waste of my time and
my school's money. everything that was covered was already covered by
one or more of the documents in volume 2c of the 4bsd upm.
equally annoying was that an appreciable amount of time was wasted
during the class because there were contests by the various nerds in
the class trying to prove how they were more knowledgeable and
wizardly than the instructor and everyone else.
--
rusty c. wright
{ucbvax,ihnp4,akgua,hplabs,sdcsvax}!sdcarl!rustybob@ulose.UUCP ( Bob Bismuth ) (08/01/85)
I too apologise before starting about the large number of groups this is going to, but I felt some of Mike's comments needed to be addressed for the benefit of the larger audience he addressed. > > The essence of the complaint was that the tutorial was not sufficiently > advanced to be worth the time and money spent attending, and in general > not very well done. Also included were some remarks to the effect that > the level of the tutorial was equal to all of the other Usenix activities, > i.e. none of them were very advanced or very good. > I would not like to comment on the overall level of Usenix activities, but I do feel, along with other attendies that I know, that the level of some tutorials was below that advertised. I did not take the Advanced C, but I know that several who took it walked out at lunchtime in disgust. They claimed that the level was better suited to someone with no C programming experience at all. Judging from their notes and comments, I would tend to agree. I did take the System V Internals course and I too walked out at lunch time. In the first place I didn't see why I needed an AT&T licence for what they were discussing. With the possible exception of 1 slide, none of the material was that much of a secret. Most of it is published in one place or another and available to the public. Given the rather skimpy detail and depth, the course would have been better advertised as: General OS Theory and Simple Examples based on Un*x System V. > I have reviewed the course evaluation forms. Many attendees felt that > the course was well done. Nearly all attendees felt that they got > ..... I would suggest that those who found the courses unacceptable either walked out or didn't fill in the forms. What percentage of the attendies did fill in your forms? I would not like to criticise all Usenix seminars. At Dallas, I know that the networking seminar gave a very good intro to networking, both un*x based and non-un*x based. Also the LEX/YACC seminar at Dallas was very good and had excellant notes. I would only ask that you bill/advertise the seminars a little more acurately - as you said, a presentation problem. Also, I'd really like you to ensure that the presenters either have some experience in giving such presentations to large groups, or they at least are aware of the scope of the task. I know from my own experience giving seminars that it is a taxing and trying experience, only made worse by lack of awareness or preparation. Presenters really deserve a hand, not criticism since they have a tough job with a lot of preparation involved. They need all the help they can get. -- bob (decvax!ulose!bob) (** opinions are my own, no flames are intended, everything is subject to change - and usually does **) *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
mike@hcradm.UUCP (Mike Tilson) (08/05/85)
(Note -- I've tried to set up this up so that future followups will be diverted to net.usenix only. However, I not sure I understand all the mysteries of netnews, so it might fail.) Responses to Rusty C. Wright and Bob Bismuth: Rusty C. Wright (sdcarl!rusty) commented that the 4.2BSD internals course was not "advanced", and that one could learn the material by studying the manuals. I think this is simply an illustration of my earlier point that there is no limit to "advanced". Most attendees of the 4BSD internals course find it to be very useful, and it is very well received by nearly everyone who takes it. If you have already studied and understood all of the relevant documentation, then you may not need a course at all. These courses do not disclose the inner secrets of the universe; they don't usually provide information that you couldn't figure out yourself given enough time and motivation. They are intended to quickly introduce you to topics that might otherwise take you a lot longer to learn. With the 4BSD course we had taken special efforts to mark the course as "advanced" because in the past it had been taken by people with insufficient background -- they considered it far too advanced and simply beyond their comprehension. For this course at least I think we have the target audience right, but in any group of 150 people we are bound to have a few who hoped to get something else. We try as hard as we can. Bob Bismuth (ulose!bob) said that he knew several people who had left the Advanced C course because it was not sufficiently advanced. He also felt that the System V Internals course was not advanced. He also had some nice words of praise for some other Usenix tutorials. (Thanks.) I think my remarks above apply, but I admit that the C course was lower level than some people were looking for. I would also comment that there is a limit to the material than can be covered in one day. Bob also had some other specific comments: > I would suggest that those who found the courses unacceptable either > walked out or didn't fill in the forms. What percentage of the attendies > did fill in your forms? In fact, we got a pretty good percentage of returns on evaluations -- most of the attendees filled them in. > Also, I'd really like you to ensure that the presenters either have some > experience in giving such presentations to large groups, or they at least > are aware of the scope of the task. I know from my own experience giving > seminars that it is a taxing and trying experience, only made worse by > lack of awareness or preparation. Presenters really deserve a hand, not > criticism since they have a tough job with a lot of preparation involved. > They need all the help they can get. We do try to only use speakers who have taught to groups before. In particular, the BSD Internals, Advanced C, and System V Internals courses mentioned in this posting all used experienced instructors. I agree that it's a hard job. I would welcome any other constructive suggestions for improving the Usenix tutorial program. Please respond by mail. If anything of general interest comes in, I'll summarize for the net. /Michael Tilson /Usenix Tutorial Coordinator /{decvax,utzoo}!hcr!hcradm!mike
libes@nbs-amrf.UUCP (Don Libes) (08/06/85)
I didn't fill out an evaluation form at the end of the class because I
didn't stay till the end. I walked out at the first break.
But first I checked with the teacher to see if he was really going to
continue at the elementary level. He stated that he was. He also said
that this was not his choice of material, but that the course syllabus
was given to him by the Usenix tutorial organizers.
He didn't agree that this course was elementary, but he acknowledged
that it certainly wasn't advanced.
I write a regular magazine column on "intermediate"-level C programming
and believe me, that course didn't begin to cover material that my
column assumes people have a good understanding of. For example, he
assumed that people did not know what pointers were. Really!!
While I'm on the subject, just what is the point of offering courses
like "Elementary C programming" or "Elementary shell programming" or "An
Introduction to UNIX" at a Usenix conference? The conference is
supposed to cater to experienced UNIX users, no? You're not going to go
to AAAI or SIGGraph to get an introduction to AI or graphics, are you?
Don Libes {seismo,umcp-cs}!nbs-amrf!libesche@ptsfb.UUCP (Mitch Che ) (08/11/85)
In article <6@nbs-amrf.UUCP> libes@nbs-amrf.UUCP (Don Libes) writes: >While I'm on the subject, just what is the point of offering courses >like "Elementary C programming" or "Elementary shell programming" or "An >Introduction to UNIX" at a Usenix conference? The conference is >supposed to cater to experienced UNIX users, no? You're not going to go >to AAAI or SIGGraph to get an introduction to AI or graphics, are you? > FLAME ON: I guess you were born a UNIX expert, right? I have run across this attitude before: if you're not already experienced in a subject don't show up... and certainly don't ask questions... Auggh!!! FLAME OFF. Seriously, I am perfectly happy seeing people show up at conferences for introductory courses. The quality of the advanced courses shouldn't suffer if the courses are described, outlined and taught properly (which they apparently weren't in the cases described above). Your example of Siggraph is perfect. As always, this year they held a few intro. courses along with their more interesting/advanced courses. Does anyone think the advanced courses there suffered because of "Intro. to Raster Graphics"? Conferences should be forums for exchange of ideas and info between ALL levels of expertise... -- Mitch Che Pacific Bell --------------------------------------- disclaimer, disclaimer, disclaimer, too (415) 823-2438 uucp: {ihnp4,dual}!ptsfa!ptsfb!che
thomas@utah-gr.UUCP (Spencer W. Thomas) (08/13/85)
In article <6@nbs-amrf.UUCP> libes@nbs-amrf.UUCP (Don Libes) writes: >While I'm on the subject, just what is the point of offering courses >like "Elementary C programming" or "Elementary shell programming" or "An >Introduction to UNIX" at a Usenix conference? The conference is >supposed to cater to experienced UNIX users, no? You're not going to go >to AAAI or SIGGraph to get an introduction to AI or graphics, are you? Well, let's see. Looking through this year's SIGGRAPH program, we find the following courses: 1. Introduction to computer graphics 2. Introduction to color raster graphics 8. How to evaluate and shop for computer graphics hardware 9. Introduction to computer amimation 18. Introduction to solid modeling 26. Introduction to image processing So 6/27 = 22% of the SIGGRAPH tutorials were introductions to some topic in "computer graphics". The answer, in this case is "yes, many people go to SIGGRAPH to get an introduction to computer graphics." -- =Spencer ({ihnp4,decvax}!utah-cs!thomas, thomas@utah-cs.ARPA) "To feel at home, stay at home. A foreign country is not designed to make [one] comfortable. It's designed to make its own people comfortable." Clifton Fadiman
mike@hcradm.UUCP (Mike Tilson) (08/15/85)
Don Libes (nbs-amrf!libes) writes about the "Advanced C" Usenix tutorial: > I didn't fill out an evaluation form at the end of the class because I > didn't stay till the end. I walked out at the first break. Several people have suggested that tutorial evaluation forms be handed out at the start, along with the other materials, to allow anyone who leaves early to still evaluate the course. This will be done in the future. > ... [the instructor] also said > that this was not his choice of material, but that the course syllabus > was given to him by the Usenix tutorial organizers. To clarify: He was requested to drop discussions of general algorithms in favor of more depth on advanced or unusual C features. The actual outline of the course and all of the materials were of his design; the specs were to conform to the published course description. We did ask for changes, but these changes were in the direction that everyone else seems to be asking for. For the information of net readers, the "Advanced C" course will either not be offered again, or if it is offered it will be relabeled and described differently. I think there is value in the course, but it missed its target for a number in the audience in this case. There was also a question about whether it makes sense to offer "introductory" courses at Usenix. Several others have already responded to this point quite well. / Michael Tilson / Usenix tutorial coordinator / {utzoo,decvax}!hcr!hcradm!mike