laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (03/04/86)
In article <6470@cca.UUCP> g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes: >Laura, what you say makes a great deal of sense, but I think you are >making a fundamental mistake. The universities have always, from the >founding of the first universities in the middle ages onward, served >a dual function. One function is to serve a temple of wisdom -- a >place where learning for the sake of learning is encouraged and >supported. The other function is to prepare the young for their >place in society. Let me expand on the latter thought for a bit. I think I had better cut in here first. As far as I know the ``other function'' got into the game very late. From everything that I have read it seems that universities were founded to be centres of wisdom. The ``places in society'' bit came later. But I haven't looked into this per se' --- do you have any references? >Most people who >go to college do so in preparation for becoming members of the >officer class of society. That is the principal function of the >universities, from the viewpoint of society as a whole, and the >reason that they are supported. I find this curious, for two reasons. How many people who go to university go there with this explicitly in mind? Are those who do not have this in mind being ``taken'' by the system in some way? The other reason is that it is an old saw that peacetime members of the armed forces make lousy officers and solidiers when the war comes around. If what universities are supposed to do really should be compared to the making of an officer, then are their efforts doomed? I, for one, have seen an awful lot of theses in the social sciences which seem founded on beliefs about the way the world is which just don't wash. As serious research into the questions, I can handle them just fine -- but if they are going to go out there and lead society right down the tubes, then they begin to grate. >These are general principles; they apply to CSE as well. You >seem to feel that people ought not to take up CS because it >is a good paying field. I believe that this is a slight misrepresentation here. I would like to see more people happy. I can conceive of situations where people might be happy doing work that they do not like (to pay for many trips to the opera). Over all, though, I think that people should find something they enjoy doing and do that -- simply because doing it will be a source of joy in their lives. And somewhere along the line, I think universities have been shafted -- perhaps because they now are expected to turn out the officers of society? Learning for its own sake is a source of joy as well -- but I am not all that sanguine that it can coexist with other functions. Universities may end up serving both of the functions you mention -- and doing badly at both of them. -- Laura Creighton ihnp4!hoptoad!laura utzoo!hoptoad!laura sun!hoptoad!laura toad@lll-crg.arpa
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) (03/06/86)
In article <582@hoptoad.uucp>, laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) writes: > In article <6470@cca.UUCP> g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes: > >{...} The universities have always, from the > >founding of the first universities in the middle ages onward, served > >a dual function. One function is to serve a temple of wisdom -- a > >place where learning for the sake of learning is encouraged and > >supported. The other function is to prepare the young for their > >place in society. Let me expand on the latter thought for a bit. > > I think I had better cut in here first. As far as I know the ``other > function'' got into the game very late. From everything that I have > read it seems that universities were founded to be centres of wisdom. > The ``places in society'' bit came later. But I haven't looked into > this per se' --- do you have any references? > [many lines deleted] > And somewhere along the line, I think universities have been shafted -- > perhaps because they now are expected to turn out the officers of > society? Learning for its own sake is a source of joy as well -- but > I am not all that sanguine that it can coexist with other functions. > Universities may end up serving both of the functions you mention -- and > doing badly at both of them. Laura is a highly intelligent, well mannered person. I am a more crass and uncaring lout. I like a good flame now and then. One of the *MAJOR* problems we have in our Universities and Colleges in the United States is that we have allowed ourselves to view them as trade schools. This is a pile of unmitigated BULLSHIT! (no apologies for crudery) Most of the persons currently attending university have *ANY* business there. They are not academically inclined, they are not sufficiently prepared, and they have little, if any, interest in what they are studying. They are there because "it'll help me make more bucks later". ***GAG*** Most countries provide an institution known as trade (or vocational) schools. There, programmers, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, welders, mechanics, cooks, lab technicians, etc, etc. are trained for their professions. The schools are specifically and deliberately set up to teach the skills needed by the students to go into the real world and perform in a chosen field. This is a **GOOD THING**. Persons who have the academic skills and background, on the other hand, have the option of attending universty, and studying to become a more highly skilled, and highly trained professional (please note that I refer to both levels of training as "PROFESSIONAL" training). These individuals are more academically inclined (or ought to be). Many of them (though not all) may well end up in the research end (which is where computer scientists belong) as opposed to working in the "real world". If this is an elitist attitude, so be it. By broadening the university to include what is essentially vocational training we only destroy the nature and purpose of the university. (end of flame) -- ==================================== Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim and and all responsibility for disclaimers. tom keller {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)