[plug] MS Curriculum at schools and TAFEs ...

[The Thought Assassin]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Simon Scott wrote:
>>Whilst in the main you are right - the schools, universities, etc.
>>don't TEACH free thinking, philosophy or any of the rest of it, neither
>>do they actively discourage the students from working the techniques out
>>for themselves.
> The place of a uni/tafe is to *actively* encourage this, whether it
> is through classes or just by providing the facilities for students to go it
> alone, with support when needed.

I think of TAFE as being there to teach a trade, and University as a
place that should be teaching people to think independently.
Traditionally, universities where places of scholarship, research, etc.
It is only fairly recently that a university degree has become a
prerequisite for employment, and the majority of students are there only
for a piece of paper. It does devalue the experience for the thinkers.

>>Having said that, it then falls on the students to WANT to learn.
>>The reason that universities are increasingly becoming diploma mills is
>>largely because the students don't want to learn any more than they have
>>to to pass and get a degree.
> Then they shouldnt get degrees. The whole idea of being a 'Bachelor'
> of Science was originally meant to convey the fact that you had excelled in
> academic thought, with the guidance of other 'bachelors'. It did not mean
> that you had a good attendance record and managed to get your assignment in
> on time. Undergraduate courses were similar to what I imagine Masters and
> Honours courses would be today.
> If the students dont want to learn, send them home. All they do is
> devalue the degree, and waste my time.

Since I tutor a fair number of these fine young people, it would be
unpolitic of me to suggest that they were "wasting my time". :)
Otherwise, I agree with every word.

> Design was taught, sure, but not to the level needed. Most people never
> used it and just started hacking. Again, probably these 'students who
> dont want to learn'. Yes, OO is useful for certain things, but its
> definitely not the panacea that they claimed it would be.

OO is a nice way of codifying a set of good design practices in a way that
is easily digestible to the aforementioned non-thinkers. OO languages
provide support for these concepts, so that people who have learned the OO
paradigm can apply what they have rote-learnt directly to their code
instead of thinking about how best to design their program.

> They are still claiming that 'Java is the next big thing' and have been
> for 8 years. I still dont see it.
I do. From where I am standing (as a once and future commercial
programmer) it is the current big thing. The question is whether that is
because the hype was right, or because the hype was convincing. My opinion
is that we so desperately needed to get rid of the horrors of C++ that the
first half-way decent replacement that garnered enough hype was destined
to become the next big language.

>>Now this is the crux of the issue.  Any educational institute will
>>always be at the mercy of those who control the marketplace.  At the
>>moment, that just happens to be Bill and his evil cohorts, but who knows
>>what might happen in the future?
>My point is, they should have anything to do with the 'marketplace'.
>If it is unfeasible for a uni to run without pandering to large corporations
>then perhaps it would be better for them to not run at all. I think with the
>current level of damage, they are causing the IT 'state of the art' to move
>backwards.

I notice one of you says "educational institution", and the other says
"uni". I feel a university _should_ be scholarly, research-based
commercially-unfettered and abstracted enough to be fairly free of
influence. On the other hand, there is a clear and growing need for
educational institutions that teach programming as a trade - but I don't
think it serves our university system well to be those institutions. (OK,
so it serves them well financially, just not as centres of knowledge. :)

> I think thats the difference. There is, at least, 3 levels of
> 'science'. As an (rough) example....
> 		a) The current level being taught - Use Frontpage to create
> a webpage - add a photo of yourself.
> 		b) 10 years ago - utilize HTML to display WWW based
> information. Extra points for style.
> 		c) What should be taught - information layout/hyperlink
> languages. HTML as a subset of SGML. Information transport protocols. Client
> technology.

I wouldn't call those science. One of them is a semi-skilled trade, the
other is what someone in that trade might do to future-proof their career.
The third is information technology, which borders on computer science.

> A point made badly, but I hope you get it. They are currently
> teaching at level A. They used to teach at level B. They should be teaching
> at level C.

In information technology courses, yes, but there is also a need for
teaching and research in theoretical computer science.

-Greg Mildenhall