nerad@closus.DEC (04/06/84)
!libation... Andy Tannenbaum of Masscomp writes: >It's also not clear that the folks who want to learn to use Lotus 1-2-3 are >"highly motivated intelligent students" even when compared to the usual >humdrum CS grad student fare. It's not clear that teaching Lotus 1-2-3 would >be as intellectually gratifying as teaching CS at a university. > Sorry, I guess my article had some amount of ambiguities. The position was to teach CURRENT TOPICS OF COMPUTER SCIENCE to the ENGINEERS at Lotus, somewhat along the same basis as grad seminars. I agree. Most customer training positions would strike me as being the true and utter pits. Keeping engineers in a young company current with technology is likely to be less "humdrum" than CS grad students, I suspect. AT: >Realize that a professor sacrifices quite a bit of freedom to go into >fulltime industry. It's not every professor who wants to get dressed >up in a spiffy suit and be bright and cheery in the morning. >Industrial training may not afford time for research or consulting or >long vacations. (Then again, it may, but typically, it doesn't.) Private industry does not necessarily require spiffy dress or mornings, either. There is such a thing as a company without spoken or unspoken dress codes, and with flextime. Lotus is one of these, by reputation. The manager I know there might wear jeans and a t-shirt to interview someone just to see if they could cope with the idea. Aren't we running into some prejudices here? Every company in industry is not IBM. Shava Nerad Telematic Systems (@DEC Ed. Svcs.) {decvax, allegra}!decwrl!rhea!closus!nerad