peking@attunix.UUCP (03/30/88)
This is a more detailed reply than my previous. I don't know whether there is any simple answer, but the problem you describe is not confined to Australia. Tom Osborn, a while back, commented: > I have concerns about the impact on University level education of the > computing industry's needs (labour, advice, market manipulation, ...). > In Australia, as elsewhere, the formal, critical, broadbased components > of professional degree courses have been hacked away in the pursuit of > national productivity. When I questioned my faculty about some teaching methods or philosophies that I found hard to understand, contrary to human nature or downright bizarre, I was always told that they were modelling the requirement or procedure under discussion after the "real world", "so you will know what you will encounter on-the-job". If they weren't being totally hypocritical, and other computer science departments behaved in the save way, it would go a long way toward explaining the sorry state of most computer companies compared to manufacturing and other types of business. > Specific computing industry requirements for programmers and jargon- > competent front-persons are more easily produced (trained) than more > solidly educated graduates. Funds flow to more 'productive' courses > so that ultimately, the typical graduate 'knows all the words' and > codes well, but seldom 'sees the point'. This also applies to very experienced people, some with advanced degrees. Spaghetti code and hiding behind arcane rituals is not limited to the two-year trade school or military technical school graduate; it is alive and well among those who have earned the MSCS and above. I have often had to point out to the " [client] can't walk and chew gum at the same time (programming's gift to the let-them-eat-cake society)" types, who think nothing of marketing the most user-unfriendly applications imaginable, that these stupid people are quite capable of deciding whether or not to pay us for our work and then acting upon that decision. They can't understand that, while they regard themselves as a priesthood "being a priest means never having to say you're sorry", the client regards them a hired help -- emphasis on help. If you do not help the client (i.e., carry out your professional and ethical responsibilities) they will find someone who will. I think this attutude of remoteness from personal and social responsibility is, in part, fostered by the educational systems of ALL countries. We Americans are fond of joining the rest of the world in casting stones at our educational system, but other systems are no more resistant to close scrutiny than ours is. > Formal foundations, analytical and critical skills, broad background > and literacy/appreciation skills may not be necessary for the COBOL > programmer on an IBM 4381 (or whatever the name may be). However, not > everyone desires to start with, or remain in, such a job - but that is > what they get trained for. NORMALISATION of our graduates can only have > the following consequences: > > Lack of intelligent computer professional input at upper > management levels in companies and organisations. The > influence of accountants and economists needs balance. > On one hand from those who can say what can be reasonably > done, and on the other hand, from the judgement of well > educated, clear-thinking professionals who don't reason > by balance sheets; This is nowhere so well evidenced as by those managers who espouse elaborate organization plans and then resolutely jettison them, caving in to the pressures of the moment and/or making decisions on whether it will be career-enhancing. A recent questionaire by a leading journal (I think it was Datamation sometime in 1986) asked its readers whether it thought star wars programming assignments would be good for their resumes, and not one question about societal impacts of the work they would be called on to do. The self-examination of the atomic scientists is almost totally lacking in our profession. > Psychological alienation of a well-paid but bored, competitive > class of computer graduates. It often imagine computing jobs > as like rows of battery hens; After many years of working with co-workers and clients of limited background and education, I moved to an environment where nearly all I dealt with had a BS/BA degree or better. I have been constantly appalled at the emotional, moral and ethical infantilism encountered on a daily basis, as well as an almost complete lack of depth of thought, a crowd of those who can't see beyond the end of their well-bred noses. > Reduction in the talent development of 'bright young men and > women' who would otherwise contribute to R&D, Universities, > commentators and general trouble-shooters; > > With a reduced importance placed on underlying reasons (and > general abstract thought), ethical development must suffer. > When a pragmatic education orients the graduate to 'get it > done', internalised values of integrity and responsibility > suffer (eg 'three assignments in one week' - none are done > well and cheating is rife). This recalls a conversation I had with a lawyer during Watergate, when every passing day the news unearthed more and more crooks. I told my friend, that it amazed me that most of them were lawyers, and seemed to have totally brushed aside any ethical considerations whatever. His resonse: "Ah, but you see; ethics is an elective. They didn't have to pass an exam (show competence) in it!" > Of course the bottleneck of software maintenance and production reduces ... I'm not so sure it does. I'm still asking myself the question about a previous job: Proportionally, how much did the client pay for the work, and how much for the false starts? > I also feel that industry should take much more financial responsibility > for education (especially in Australia) and with even less control over > the decision making and planning. If further high level training alone > is desired, then that should be paid for IN FULL (through some mechanism or > other). We should always keep in mind that the LACK of a strong, broad > education is much more expensive than the cost of having one. Technical > skills ON TOP OF a good education will outperform and fail less often. You are right. More and more firms have found it more productive to teach the generally well-educated specific technical skills than to attempt to broaden the vision of a techie. > The Protestant Work Ethic may give you an industrious, loyal, aggressive > workforce, but what does it provide for adaptability, innovativeness, > social conscience and integrity? It probably doesn't. I remember with a chill the remarks of a corporate recruiter about why his company recruited among small religious colleges. He said his company wanted people who could take orders well and who would give them no surprises in their personal lives, and who "would adjust to the group." (doesn't the above sound like a kindergarten report card?) Granted this was during the late 60s - early 70s when many outfits were more concerned about extravagant manners and dress than about ensuring that their company would be around 20 years later. Oh well, we who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.