guthery@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) (01/08/89)
Just when you think it can't get any worse ... New York Bell reports
that they had to interview 22,000 people to fill 2,000 *ENTRY LEVEL*
positions. One of the tasks that tripped up the applicants the most was
reading numerical displays either off a tube or a LCD-type display.
Ya gotta ask yourself what the world looks like to the 20,000 that
flunked the test ... and who is going to be supporting them for the
rest of their lives. You also have to ask yourself what the money
we gave their school boards was spent on. Down here in Texas I know
... backfield coaches and band uniforms.
It's all well and good to debate whether you really need Volume II of
Aho & Ullman or whether Mead & Conway belongs in EE or CS but when
less that 10% of our secondary school graduates can't qualify for
their society's entry level jobs, we're heading for the cliff at a
mind-boggling rate.
Mathematics, plain old mathematics, is fundamental. Buying Apples
and running the computer literacy scam are diversions meant to keep
the taxpayer's eye off the bottomline. When, oh, when will we understand
that learning is hard ... that it has to be hard ... that you can't
candy-coat it with relevance or wrap it in empty self-esteem. When
will we stop accepting excuses for failure and start demanding success?
Simply put, when will teachers teach?
Cheers, Scott
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+ Austin Code Works +*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+**+*+
Domain: acw!guthery@uunet.uu.net Snail: 11100 Leafwood Lane
Path: {uunet}!acw!guthery Austin, Texas 78750-3409 USA
Office: guthery%asc@sdr.slb.com FAX: +1 (512) 258-1342
FidoNet: 1:382/12 Voice: +1 (512) 258-0785
Packet: N5MDE @ KB5PM TELEX: 446370 (austincodewrks)
+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* The Source of C +*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) (01/09/89)
In article <12.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP> guthery@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) writes: >Just when you think it can't get any worse ... New York Bell reports >that they had to interview 22,000 people to fill 2,000 *ENTRY LEVEL* >positions. One of the tasks that tripped up the applicants the most was >reading numerical displays either off a tube or a LCD-type display. > >Ya gotta ask yourself what the world looks like to the 20,000 that >flunked the test ... I assume that not all 20,000 of the people who were rejected screwed up on the LCD test. Remember, you could get 22000 einsteins in there and still less than 10% would be successful. >less that 10% of our secondary school graduates can't qualify for >their society's entry level jobs, we're heading for the cliff at a >mind-boggling rate. You mean "can," I think, and that's not true. Are you sure all 22000 of them were secondary school graduates? And in any case, you're assuming that the group of people who weren't in the applicant pool are distributed the same way as a group of 22000 people who are applying for an entry level low paying position. I'd be willing to bet that a random sample of 20000 people would do better than a group of 20000 NYC unemployed (or seeking entry level work). In other words, I think you're looking at a sample of some of the less intelligent and less educated people in society (as well as some who are just unlucky). So even if I accept that only 2000 were qualified for the job (not entirely borne out by what you say), I still don't accept your conclusion that more than 90% of todays secondary school graduates would have failed the test as well. -Dan
fritz@unocss.UUCP (Sharon O'Neil) (01/10/89)
In article <12.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP>, guthery@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) writes: > Just when you think it can't get any worse ... New York Bell reports > that they had to interview 22,000 people to fill 2,000 *ENTRY LEVEL* > positions. > > You also have to ask yourself what the money > we gave their school boards was spent on. Down here in Texas I know > ... backfield coaches and band uniforms. > > Mathematics, plain old mathematics, is fundamental. Buying Apples > and running the computer literacy scam are diversions meant to keep > the taxpayer's eye off the bottomline. When, oh, when will we understand > that learning is hard ... that it has to be hard ... that you can't > candy-coat it with relevance or wrap it in empty self-esteem. When > will we stop accepting excuses for failure and start demanding success? > > Simply put, when will teachers teach? > Just look at what the money in the school systems is being spent on! You say it yourself: backfield coaches and band uniforms and Apple Computers. You yourself point out that education is more than teaching kids how to press the right button on the computer. You yourself say that we have to stop candy-coating the schooling process. /Then/ you ask "when will teachers teach?" Teachers don't just /decide/ what they are going to teach in the classroom. Schoolboards /tell/ them what to teach in the classroom. Teaching is a unique profession. Why? Because most other professions have some sort of measure of autonomy. Teachers, on the other hand, have much of their curriculum decided by the school board and by the community at large. They are also paid by that school board and the community at large. When will teachers teach? You're obviously not going to get extremely intelligent people to teach when they know that they're never going to make half of what they could make in private industry. You're obviously not going to get the basics taught when the community is telling the teachers that they have to pass Bubba because he is desparately needed for the game on Friday and you're not going to get the basics taught when teachers have to waste time including unnecessary frills because the school board thought it would be great to buy a computer for use in the reading class. The answer lies in your very own post. It's attitudes like the ones that I have seen in this recent discussion that drive good, quality people away from teaching. It's not enough to be gifted anymore. To be a good teacher one must also have a martyr complex anymore. There are many more factors that go into whether kids learn anyway. It's not that the schools are any worse nowadays. Fifty years ago many of the students that did poorly simply left school and got jobs. There were fewer students in the schools. Standards were not as high. Teachers had less education than they do now. Schools weren't as overcrowded. If you ask me what is wrong with schools today, I'll tell you what it is. It is the parents who have given up on parenting their children and expect the teachers to do it for them. Children are doing drugs, having sex, getting pregnant, and other things that were not commonplace for the average fourteen year old fifty years ago. Parents don't discipline their children. A troubled child is certainly going to have problems being taught. The teacher must spend much time just dealing with these children and their problems. Teachers are simply asked too much. If students were happy to begin with and if parents took responsibility then teaching would be a lot easier. Certainly, many of the parents here /are/ responsible, but many parents "out there" are not and time spent on the children from irresponsible families certainly detracts from all the children. -- ---------------------------------+-------------------------------------------- Sharon O'Neil | Internet: oneil%zeus@fergvax.unl.edu Who reads these, anyway? | Bitnet: oneil@unoma1 Univ of Nebraska - Lincoln | "Lord, what fools these mortals be!"
john@chinet.chi.il.us (John Mundt) (01/10/89)
In article <5220@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> dykimber@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Daniel Yaron Kimberg) writes: >In article <12.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP> guthery@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) writes: >>Just when you think it can't get any worse ... New York Bell reports >>that they had to interview 22,000 people to fill 2,000 *ENTRY LEVEL* >>positions. One of the tasks that tripped up the applicants the most was >>reading numerical displays either off a tube or a LCD-type display. > >>less that 10% of our secondary school graduates can't qualify for >>their society's entry level jobs, we're heading for the cliff at a >>mind-boggling rate. > >You mean "can," I think, and that's not true. Are you sure all 22000 of them >were secondary school graduates? And in any case, you're assuming that the >group of people who weren't in the applicant pool are distributed the same >way as a group of 22000 people who are applying for an entry level low paying >position. I'd be willing to bet that a random sample of 20000 people would >do better than a group of 20000 NYC unemployed (or seeking entry level work). >In other words, I think you're looking at a sample of some of the less >intelligent and less educated people in society (as well as some who are >just unlucky). I believe that the frightening point is that even if these are indeed the dregs of society, such a high percentage could exhibit such monumental incompetence. Granted, other questions, and this question itself, may have had more to do with illiteracy than with meter reading and the failure rate may have reflected the non-reading portion of the population, but what is to be done with these people. By applying for a job, they are presumably showing a willingness and desire to work and are finding that society literally has no place for them in a useful capacity. If society cannot find meaningful employment (i.e., inculcation into the mainstream of society) the problem will get worse. Rome had its bread and circuses, England its poorhouses. Two divergent solutions to the same problem. Which way will we go? -- --------------------- John Mundt Teachers' Aide, Inc. P.O. Box 1666 Highland Park, IL john@chinet.chi.il.us (312) 998-5007 (Day voice) || -432-8860 (Answer Mach) && -432-5386 Modem
johnm@uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) (01/12/89)
In article <12.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP>, guthery@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) [in a comp.edu discussion on the quality of education] writes: > Just when you think it can't get any worse ... New York Bell reports > that they had to interview 22,000 people to fill 2,000 *ENTRY LEVEL* > positions. One of the tasks that tripped up the applicants the most was > reading numerical displays either off a tube or a LCD-type display. > Ya gotta ask yourself what the world looks like to the 20,000 that > flunked the test ... and who is going to be supporting them for the > rest of their lives. . . . . . Before flaming on about the supposedly poor education of the 20,000, I think we should ask precisely what type of displays caused the problem. It seems wrong to me to automatically blame the applicants for what may be a design error (either in the tests or in the meters themselves), such that the meaning of the display is non-intuitive. For example, some styles of utility meter involve reading several circular dials in a supposedly "proper" sequence, with some dials numbered counter-clockwise. The sort of people who apply for jobs as meter readers may not be in the habit of using computer screens much, and could be somewhat intimidated by them. Although re-designing the human interface might make it easier for New York Bell to find 2,000 suitable individuals, it doesn't provide jobs for the other 20,000 in any case. However, their morale might be slightly better, since they would not have "failed yet another test". I'm cross-posting this to comp.cog-eng, because of the human interface aspects of the issue. - John Murray, Amdahl Corp. (My own opinions, etc.)
maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) (01/22/89)
In article <edAWg54Cmn1010gUyXQ@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> johnm@uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) writes: >In article <12.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP>, guthery@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) > > [in a comp.edu discussion on the quality of education] writes: > >> Just when you think it can't get any worse ... New York Bell reports >> that they had to interview 22,000 people to fill 2,000 *ENTRY LEVEL* >> positions. One of the tasks that tripped up the applicants the most was >> reading numerical displays either off a tube or a LCD-type display. >> Ya gotta ask yourself what the world looks like to the 20,000 that >> flunked the test ... and who is going to be supporting them for the >> rest of their lives. . . . . . > >Before flaming on about the supposedly poor education of the 20,000, I >think we should ask precisely what type of displays caused the problem. This question of display-type came up twice yesterday in very different conversations. In the first, I mentioned a color display as the appropriate medium for a proposed writing environment (envisioned as word processor, outliner, free-form database, and grammar/mechanics-help program dynamically linked through Hypercard), and I was challenged to say why color was necessary. As almost all of my PC use has been with IBM-compatibles, not Macs, I "naturally" thought of color as appropriate, and I said in reply that a color display meant more information, one, and, two, for any user, a readier grasp of the environment's logical structure. Then I realized I didn't know whether either of these things was really significant--true, color offers more information, but is its presence significant in terms of the user's interaction with the program? Next, in a casual conversation about displays, a friend cited research he'd read that indicated all CRTs caused a 25% decrease in reading comprehension by comparison to the printed page. At the time I just nodded my head, but now I want to know: could this be true, or is this true in some fashion? More to the point, perhaps, does anyone know of the research that was alluded to? In sum: does color have a significant effect on a person's ability to understand and/or use a system? and is there any evidence that CRTs in general or types of CRTs in particular have an effect on reading comprehension? Post or e-mail as you see fit. If I get mail responses, I'll summarize. Tom Maddox UUCP: ...{ucf-cs|gatech!uflorida}!novavax!maddoxt
efrethei@afit-ab.arpa (Erik J. Fretheim) (01/24/89)
In article <928@novavax.UUCP> maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) writes: >In article <edAWg54Cmn1010gUyXQ@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> johnm@uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) writes: >>In article <12.UUL1.3#913@acw.UUCP>, guthery@acw.UUCP (Scott Guthery) >> >> [in a comp.edu discussion on the quality of education] writes: >> >>> Just when you think it can't get any worse ... New York Bell reports >>> that they had to interview 22,000 people to fill 2,000 *ENTRY LEVEL* >>Before flaming on about the supposedly poor education of the 20,000, I >>think we should ask precisely what type of displays caused the problem. > >and I was challenged to say why color was necessary. As almost all of >my PC use has been with IBM-compatibles, not Macs, I "naturally" >thought of color as appropriate, and I said in reply that a color >display meant more information, one, and, two, for any user, a readier >grasp of the environment's logical structure. Then I realized I >didn't know whether either of these things was really >significant--true, color offers more information, but is its presence >significant in terms of the user's interaction with the program? > > In sum: does color have a significant effect on a person's >ability to understand and/or use a system? and is there any evidence >that CRTs in general or types of CRTs in particular have an effect on >reading comprehension? > Nothing but personal opinion, but I have often found that the "helpful" color patterns on most PC applications have been more of a pain in the neck than a help. The colors distract attention and require that one shift ones frame of reference each time you look at a different portion of the screen. Colors are neat for games, but leave much to be desired for real work. Look at the newspaper. There the only sections with regularly appear in color are the comics and sports sections and we know what level of audience these are directed at :-) (except USA Today, but that falls in the same catagory as the afore mentioned sections). If color were so vital to the absorbtion of information, it would seem that the papers would have gone to color just as the TV's have (aduience level?) I stick to my BW (GB) monitor. cx
troly@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Bret Jolly) (01/30/89)
I am teaching 4 lab sections of a beginning computer course which uses IBM PC compatibles. The main lab area has black and white monitors but there is an auxiliary lab which has color monitors. The color monitors are significantly easier to use, for the students and for me. For example, the cursor keeps getting lost in reversed-field displays on the black and white monitor. Different types of blocks selected by the word processor are displayed in different colors on the color monitor. These blocks are either undifferentiated or are marked by means which reduce legibility on the black and white monitors. When I worked as a technical flunkey in operations for the Deep Space Network, the control center had (essentially) black and white displays, while the spacecraft tracking stations had color displays. The color displays were significantly easier to read. Some people have claimed that color makes things worse, but I think these people were just exposed to very badly designed color displays. Color may make no difference for some applications, and I doubt it would help professional programmers much. But for tyros like me, my students, and my former comrades in technical flunkeydom, it makes a big difference. -Bret