root@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (10/07/85)
>At least Bill's Business College sells what they purport to sell. >-- > > Charlie Martin > (...mcnc!duke!crm) Excuse me, as a person involved in a University, exactly what did we 'purport to sell'? Massive numbers of cheap programmers all talented and all interested and well trained in your particular applications, just add water? I doubt we promised you that or anything like that. Your entire attitude that the purpose of a University is to serve whatever current trends in industry's labor needs are fashionable/profitable I find offensive. Sorry sir, grow up. Yes, we make 'em literate *you* do the job training, and when that ceases to be, we all lose badly, if you don't believe that, try to look beyond your spreadsheet and short term employment needs. Maybe you have to spend a few $$ teaching a new hiree what to think about, but who do you think taught him/her/you that thinking was an important activity and how to go about it? And if you believe that is tacit, just talk to people who are poorly educated and see what *they* think about, try to get a person with a poor education to read a book or solve an abstract idea at all, they'll laugh at you and go on living in their sadly limited little worlds. You miss the point of an education, it is not to produce trained poodles, it is to produce people who want to and know how to solve problems, don't take those skills for granted, as abstract as they sound. And yes, they do tend to do just fine and make you industry types lots of money despite your belly-aching and tax-credits which result in us having to produce those people on a shoestring and putting up with the low salaries etc. It's disgusting the way these attitudes have currently created a climate where University funds have all but dried up and fat-cats from industry are swinging their pocketbooks in ways that only governments should be allowed to like drunken sailors in a whorehouse on payday. Fortunately, not all of us are selling and there are still a few decent folks out there (in both government and industry) who know why we exist. I mean, the next time you need a typist will you suggest that we should be producing more typists? Yes, that's how silly you sound, you are just blinded by some myopic thinking. -Barry Shein, Boston University
crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (10/08/85)
Neato, flaming in net.cse.... In article <699@bu-cs.UUCP> root@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes: > >>At least Bill's Business College sells what they purport to sell. >>-- >> >> Charlie Martin >> (...mcnc!duke!crm) > >Excuse me, as a person involved in a University, exactly what did we >'purport to sell'? Massive numbers of cheap programmers all talented and all >interested and well trained in your particular applications, just add water? >I doubt we promised you that or anything like that. As a person involved in a university for the express purpose of getting a Ph.D. as working for low(er) pay teaching these subjects, I'll tell you: 1) We are giving these kids educations in ``Computer Science'' without giving them (in most cases) the least idea of what they will be doing with the degree. 100-line pascal programs are not repeat not what a working software engineer writes (a working software engineer writes English, mostly.) 2) We are not teaching them the technical tools they will need to become capable in quality programming. These tools include: - logic. Almost all of programming is based on formal logic. In most cases, the major exposure to formal logic that an undergrad gets is in a switching theory course. If the kid doesn't take a EE course, he/she is out of luck. - analysis of algorithms, and analysis of performance of programs. - file systems. I don't argue that someone should necessarily know all the vagaries of, say, IBM VSAM, but they should know what an ISAM file is, and what a relative-record (direct) file is. I learned to program at a technical college while most Universities didn't even *have* computer science departments, and I learned that. But file systems are intrinsic parts of computer systems, and are especially important in things like production compilers where the intermediate stages cannot be kept in memory. Also in data bases. - Optimization. We don't tell them a thing about how to make choices to better fulfill a specification (like when is it worth the hazard of using global data.) - Specifcation. Most of these kids will be writing specs in 0-2 years from the date they are hired. Most of them will not have as idea how to attack the problem, nor will they have had any experience derived from a class in many cases. >Your entire attitude >that the purpose of a University is to serve whatever current trends in >industry's labor needs are fashionable/profitable I find offensive. Gee, that's too bad. >Sorry >sir, grow up. Are we arguing my points or my age? I've 16 years in the field. Let's watch the personal references, shall we? >Yes, we make 'em literate No we don't: that;s my point. > *you* do the job training, and when >that ceases to be, we all lose badly, if you don't believe that, try to look >beyond your spreadsheet and short term employment needs. Maybe you have to >spend a few $$ teaching a new hiree what to think about, but who do you >think taught him/her/you that thinking was an important activity and how to >go about it? So far as I've seen, with rare exceptions, no-one. >And if you believe that is tacit, just talk to people who are >poorly educated and see what *they* think about, try to get a person with a >poor education to read a book or solve an abstract idea at all, they'll >laugh at you and go on living Nonsense. I'm not going to respond point-for-point to the remaining flame. However, I am going to respond to the general gist as I undertand it: First of all, let's get our facts striaght, shall we? I am in graduate school getting a Ph.D.(please Ghod) for the express purpose of teaching Computer Science in a University. So whatever my motives, they are clearly not profit-related. Note the mailing address: I am at Duke. Secondly, (and this is not cogent to the main argument, but strikes co9les enough to home that I feel I should respond) I think that the elitist attitude you take is quite repulsive. Are you truly under the impression that only those who attend a University learn to think? My impression has certainly been rather the opposite: that many people come out of a university with a 4-year degree and no interest in thinking whatsoever. They -- for example -- take on faith the idea that one can only learn to think in a university, and that those who don't do so lead lives > ...in ... sadly limited little worlds. Thirdly: I said that they are getting what they are paying for. I still maintain that they are not. However, I am not maintaining that the *only* thing they are paying for is to learn to program. They need the theoretical background, but *they also need to be able to do programming*. They need programming because that is what computer science is about. Even the most abstract results in theory of computation are based on programming; and even Dijkstra (who brags that he has not written a line of code for execution in years) first did real programming. In fact, I maintain that the main value of Dijkstra's work lies in theffact that it is applicable to real programming. And last: you complain about low salaries etc. If you think computer science salaries are low, go check your English department. Freshman English is also essential to a working software engineer. If you are opposed to industry support of computer science (as part of your message suggests) then tell me: did the system you are using come from industry, or not? Was it purchased at full list? -- or at an academic discount? What was the source of the funds? And if it was purchased at full list, with tax funds, where did those funds come from? I'll answer that for you: they were extracted by force from people like my grandmother (who survived on income from stock purchased in her earlier years) to support people that think she lived a miserable little squalid existance since she had no University stamp of approval on her thoughts. >Yes, that's how silly you sound, you are just >blinded by some myopic thinking. Another personal attack? If you think my views silly, you are welcome to ignore them: if you think you have some refutation, I will be interested in your reasoned discussion. -- Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)
usenet@ucbvax.ARPA (USENET News Administration) (10/10/85)
> These tools include: > > - logic. Almost all of programming is based on formal logic. In > most cases, the major exposure to formal logic that an undergrad > gets is in a switching theory course. If the kid doesn't take > a EE course, he/she is out of luck. Wonderful! Someone has brought up my very favorite subject! Let me tell you a story ... I have been trying for at least 3 years to get the CS and Math depts. here at Berkeley to make an introductory course in formal logic a requirement for CS and Math majors. This is for many reasons, including: (1). Logic is absolutely fundamental to mathematical reasoning. I have worked with many students who were struggling with upper division math and cs theory courses, and almost invariably they were stuck at certain points due to lack of understanding of the most simple aspects of symbolic logic (which they had not studied). (2). Logic is *THE* fundamental subject that any educated person needs to understand. I claim that a great deal of the tragedy in human history has been due to popular ideas lacking in logic (for example National Socialism a few years ago ... I could mention a few current abuses of logic by political leaders also ...) (3). Logic is certainly necessary and helpful in computer programming, not to mention being closely tied to the theory of computation. I finally got my proposal to the point where it was being seriously considered by a committee. But the decision was "WE DON'T WANT ANY MORE LOGIC IN OUR COURSES." The reason given: Some idiots after taking a course in symbolic logic (get this) *WRITE OUT ALL THEIR MATHEMATICAL PROOFS COMPLETELY FORMALIZED* when taking upper division math courses, and the professors can't stand these people (I don't blame them). Didn't they learn from the very start that the idea is *NOT* to formalize every proof, just to *BE ABLE* to formalize them if necessary. Oh well, my life's struggle to add Logic to the Math/CS required course list went down the drain due to the above absurd situation ...
scott@gitpyr.UUCP (Scott Holt) (10/11/85)
In message <699@bu-cs.UUCP>: > Your entire attitude >that the purpose of a University is to serve whatever current trends in >industry's labor needs are fashionable/profitable I find offensive. Perhaps you arent looking at the reasons many schools were founded. My school was founded to provide an engineering education to people in the south, a side effect being to futher the development of industry in the area. Throughout its 100 year history, the growth of Georgia Tech has been closely tied to the growth of industry in the South. One of the goals of the instutute as a whole is to help high tech industries. If this school wasnt here, much of the economic growth in the area might not have occured. If the industry wasnt here, the school would not be the same as it is today. There is an interdependence beteen education and industry; too ignore it or be offended by it is just plain stupid. The schools were not created simply to privide higher education...they were created to benifit the communtity through education and economic development. - Scott Holt -- --------- Where we are going and from whence we came are completly unknown to us... and personaly, I have no idea where I am now. Scott Holt Georgia Tech Po Box 36199 Atlanta, GA 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,masscomp,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!scott ...!{rlgvax,sb1,uf-cgrl,unmvax,ut-sally}!gatech!gitpyr!scott I WANT MY MTV!
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (10/15/85)
> Neato, flaming in net.cse....
Can I roast some marshmallows too?
What indeed do universities "purport to sell"? A panacea, methinks.
Whatever it is that you desire, a college/university degree will help
you get it.
Personally, when I attended college/university, I was looking for
"learning" that would make life better for me. Not necessarily job-
related (I attended a liberal-arts college).
Sorry to say, I found little of value there. In the end, I came to the
conclusion that a person would learn more in four years of life than in
four years of college. And I think that most serious college students
would agree that they experience very little "life" during their college
"four year sentence".
Look around your university. Do you see many adults attending classes?
(That was rhetorical). The reason that you don't is because college
is attractive mainly to people who don't yet know what they want, and
so don't know what they want from college. If you don't know where
you're going, any road will do; the road through college is popular.
It also provides a socially acceptable excuse for putting off the hard
decisions about what to do with one's life.
So, friends, tell me I'm wrong. Tell me what a college/university has
to offer its students that will be of value to those students and which
can not be obtained elsewhere at less cost in time and money.
--
Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {calcom1,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!dougrcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (10/16/85)
> What indeed do universities "purport to sell"? A panacea, methinks. > Whatever it is that you desire, a college/university degree will help > you get it. Not if they're being honest. (The size of that "if" depends a lot on the university.) I'd like to hope...no, wait, I DO hope...that they're trying to provide an education which (by contrast with trade schools and/or hard experience) is: - broad rather than deep, trying to cover a lot of ground so that you have a chance to develop the ability to look at the large perspective of problems and tasks - concept-oriented rather than fact-(or experience- or...)oriented, so that you have a chance to develop skills for looking at new problems and taking new approaches > Personally, when I attended college/university, I was looking for > "learning" that would make life better for me. Not necessarily job- > related (I attended a liberal-arts college). A fair objective--much fairer expectation than some of the crappo flaming of previous postings in the group on the topic. > Sorry to say, I found little of value there. In the end, I came to the > conclusion that a person would learn more in four years of life than in > four years of college. Several thoughts here: - Yeah, perhaps, but they'd be a lot different. - You can lead a student to knowledge but you can't make him think. - They won't all be gems. The proportion of college profs that are absolute dorks is not terribly smaller than the proportion of dorks in the population at large. I figured that about one good prof a semester was OK. Some are inspired; some are jerks; many are ploddingly passable. I had about the same approach to my courses--inspired in a few, screwup in a few, plodded thru the rest. Grad school was a lot better for both profs and students. >...And I think that most serious college students > would agree that they experience very little "life" during their college > "four year sentence". Some of them sure seem to have a helluva good time. The really serious students are often the ones who dive into the courses and ignore "life". If you go at the coursework really hard, it takes most of your time. If you look at the average student, he's plodding a lot. So what? If you look at the average adult, he's plodding most of the time. > Look around your university. Do you see many adults attending classes? > (That was rhetorical). The reason that you don't is because college > is attractive mainly to people who don't yet know what they want, and > so don't know what they want from college. If you don't know where > you're going, any road will do; the road through college is popular. And if college provides that, what's wrong with it? College is oriented toward people at a particular (strongly formative, intellectually) time of their lives. You don't see many "adults" because most adults either went to college at the traditional time or decided not to go. The older adults you see in colleges are the ones who decided not to go to college, or were unable to go, early in their lives--but then acquired the time/money/... or changed their minds. Of course that's a small number. > So, friends, tell me I'm wrong. Tell me what a college/university has > to offer its students that will be of value to those students and which > can not be obtained elsewhere at less cost in time and money. OK, you're wrong (but at least you're being sensible and asking decent questions). You can get exposure to a wide spectrum of ideas, theories, structurings of knowledge. You can meet interesting people with good ideas, get connections to some of the real movers and shakers, sometimes learn by doing in an environment protected enough that the world doesn't collapse under you if you make a big mistake. You can learn the techniques that help you find information when you need it, even if you don't know it. (You learn what knowledge exists and how it's organized even if you don't learn it all.) -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Simpler is better.
mauney@ncsu.UUCP (Jon Mauney) (10/17/85)
> From: doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) > > Personally, when I attended college/university, I was looking for > "learning" that would make life better for me. > Sorry to say, I found little of value there. In the end, I came to the > conclusion that a person would learn more in four years of life than in > four years of college. > > Look around your university. Do you see many adults attending classes? I wholly disagree. I learned a lot at college. Besides graph theory, modern algebra, linquistics, a little bit of music theory and ancient history (which I probably would not have learned on my own) I learned a lot of other things. I met people from all over the country; in grad school I met people from all over the world. I was exposed to many different things, from people smoking dope around the Bell Tower, to preachers talking hellfire and damnation in front of the Student Union. I had time to stop and listen to the preachers, to Velikovsky expounding his theories, to do a little research on Druidism to support a prank I had started. Now I spend all my time on more important things, like working and fixing up my house and visiting my in-laws. I have also learned a lot since graduating. But what one learns in school and what one learns in life are not exactly the same; both are valuable. -- Jon Mauney, mcnc!ncsu!mauney North Carolina State University (of course, some might claim I never left school and enter "real life")
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (10/17/85)
> I DO hope that they're trying to provide an education which... is: > - broad rather than deep... > - concept-oriented rather than fact-(or experience- or...)oriented I certainly hope so, too. But I wonder if that education is really of much value, particularly to an 18-year old who has not experienced much for himself. It might be a personal trait, but I find that what I was taught in college didn't "mean" anything to me -- it was just too abstract. But two decades of living in the "real world" have given me something with which to compare such teachings, and even allow me to make personal judgements as to the value and correctness of those teachings. > >...And I think that most serious college students > > would agree that they experience very little "life" during their college > > "four year sentence". > > Some of them sure seem to have a helluva good time. The really serious > students are often the ones who dive into the courses and ignore "life". > If you go at the coursework really hard, it takes most of your time. Isn't that what I said? > You can get exposure to a wide spectrum of ideas, theories, > structurings of knowledge. You can meet interesting people with good > ideas, get connections to some of the real movers and shakers, sometimes > learn by doing in an environment protected enough that the world doesn't > collapse under you if you make a big mistake. You can learn the techniques > that help you find information when you need it, even if you don't know it. > (You learn what knowledge exists and how it's organized even if you don't > learn it all.) And this brings us full circle, back to the original question of "what should a college be?" While some have argued that college should provide a "trade school" type of education, I agree with the above objectives. But... (you knew that was coming, didn't you?) Too often, colleges are "neither fish nor fowl". Instead, they assume that their primary objective is to be a screening mechanism, assuring that only deserving students achieve the hallowed "college degree". If colleges truly were concerned about "teaching", they wouldn't have courses that are closed to some students. They wouldn't require the declaration of a major in order to attend classes. They wouldn't require that each student take a certain number of "for credit" classes each semester (or quarter, or whatever). If you paid your tuition, you should be able to attend whatever courses you think will be of benefit to you, even if those courses don't contribute toward obtaining a degree. Now back to my own concern... even if colleges did concern themselves with teaching, isn't it a mistake to "waste" that teaching on people who don't have the "life experiences" to make good use of it? -- Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {calcom1,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug
oleg@birtch.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev x268) (10/22/85)
> So, friends, tell me I'm wrong. Tell me what a college/university has > to offer its students that will be of value to those students and which > can not be obtained elsewhere at less cost in time and money. > -- > Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {calcom1,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug You are wrong.( you asked! :-)) What do univercities offer? Resources and accesses! I don't know about other schools, I've only had experience with UCLA. With persistance and desire a student can get access to a hell of a lot of hardware and software, can find people who will teach how to use it and help to get out of jams. And there is a lot of things at UCLA that one would not find in one place in a smaller institution. Also, most of us who don't work for "industry giants", see only one or two machines in 1-2 years in our work and don't have time/finances/access priveleges to look and try something new and different. -- DISCLAMER: The above are the opinions of a type V demon who took posession of me as a result of a failed AD&D summoning spell. Send flames to /dev/Gehenna. ----------------------------------+ With deep indifference, "I disbelieve an army of invisible| Oleg Kiselev. mind-flayers!" |...!trwrb!felix!birtch!oleg "OK. They are *still* not there." |...!{ihnp4|randvax}!ucla-cs!uclapic!oac6!oleg
colonel@sunybcs.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) (10/24/85)
["You save my life, Captain Buffalo! Have a CIGAR!"] > Excuse me, as a person involved in a University, exactly what did we > 'purport to sell'? ... Your entire attitude ... I find offensive. > Sorry sir, grow up. Yes, we make 'em literate *you* do the job > training, and when that ceases to be, we all lose badly, if you don't > believe that, try to look beyond your spreadsheet and short term > employment needs. ... try to get a person with a poor education to > read a book or solve an abstract idea at all, they'll laugh at you and > go on living in their sadly limited little worlds. ... It's disgusting > the way these attitudes have currently created a climate where > University funds have all but dried up and fat-cats from industry are > swinging their pocketbooks in ways that only governments should be > allowed to like drunken sailors in a whorehouse on payday. ... > > -Barry Shein, Boston University Don't be fooled! Barry Shein is a dockhand who dropped out of school at age 10. He got so smart by reading books and solving abstract ideas! 8 |-) -- Col. G. L. Sicherman UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel CS: colonel@buffalo-cs BI: csdsicher@sunyabva