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

[Sol Hanna]

Hi Pluggers,

I have been reading these posts with interest and wanted to add my $0.02 
coming from a somewhat different angle. (I'm doing a Education & History 
double major @ Mudrock).

1. M$ features heavily in secondary school, TAFE and Uni courses for a 
variety of reasons including many, if not all of the above, but for 
other reasons also. Most teachers and academics are not computer 
literate (infact in high schools most students are at a higher level of 
proficiency than teachers). This general ignorance is a fertile ground 
for the Dark Side of the Source (ie:M$) to sow is thorny seeds. In the 
case of administrators in schools (and possibly TAFEs and Unis), they 
don't go the Open Source solution because they just don't know about it, 
and hence they end up paying that taxation on stupidity that is 
purchasing M$ products.

NOTE: Given the tight budgetary environment which public schools are 
facing presently, an excellent opportunity (in my opinion) presents 
itself regarding introducing Linux to the public school system in WA. To 
this end I have been planning (when I get some time at the end of 
semester to put together a proposal to the education minister Mr 
Carpenter about the advantages of Linux. (I read about a month ago that 
a state education department in Mexico, and another in China have 
adopted Linux across the board.) This might sound futile but I consider 
taking action a nice augmentation to complaining loudly and often.
If anyone comes across any pertinent information (preferably with 
referenced facts based on research) regarding why Linux is a better 
option for education departments please email it to me so I can refer to it.

2. Teachers/Educationists tend to be convergent thinkers and highly 
resistant to change. Many on the list already seem to be intuitively 
aware that schooling/education is stuck in a paradigm developed at the 
beginning of the industrial era, blissfully unaware that that era has 
come to an end. Leading intellectuals in education like Piaget and 
Vygotsky made strident criticism of educational practices more than 
fifty years ago (it's a damn shame that some of my lecturers and tutors 
don't actually APPLY these principles in class), emphasizing the 
importance of introducing such elements into curriculum as metacognitive 
learning ("learning how to learn").
How does this relate to Linux? Well because by learning Linux one 
actually learns principles related to the structure of software (I'm 
sure most of you are familiar with what I mean here). By learning 
Windoze one is learning virtually nothing - except the lazy, dependent 
way of the corporate slave. Hence it is actually advantageous to learn 
computer use in a Linux environment because one learns generic skills by 
default.

There seems to be a few Murdoch crew on the list. I am interested in 
ways of turning Murdoch to Linux and have some ideas. Perhaps it would 
be worthwhile meeting to discuss, complain, abuse, joke, etc ideas and 
the possibility of starting a MurLUG or a Murdoch Chapter of PLUG?
Any takers?

Sol

PS: I think you guys were a little soft on Nick Miller's article. As an 
ignorant newbie I don't need to point out that the actual Linux 
operating system is superior to the Windoze OS (more stable, better 
security, blah blah blah). Mr Miller's criticism of Linux as I saw it 
was based on the lack of applications for Linux thus confusing the 
operating system with applications. From what little I know about the 
whole OS war, etcetera, it seems that Linux has got Windoze surrounded 
on most flanks insofar as it is technically superior. All that stands 
between Linux and popular acceptance is (a) having more commercial 
applications being ported to Linux  (b) people seeing through the M$ 
propaganda campaign (of which Corporate Tool Nick Miller is a part).
Am I going too far?



Simon Scott wrote:

> 	Yup, but I think youre missing the main point :)
> 
> 	To put it simply, it has always been this way. Maybe not with MS
> specific curriculum, but in general univerisities no longer are places for
> advanced tech. They just teach you how to code ADA, a bit of C, a little
> design, and you go and do it in the real world. Never do they teach
> free-thought, forward thinking or even a little philosophy. They simply
> churn out Java coding clones by the dozen.
> 
> 	Whether the curriculum includes MS specific stuff is irrelevant. The
> whole system is broken. 
> 
> 	Dont get me wrong, I hate MS products, but if unis and tafes are
> weak enough to side with MS just for some more $$$s it just proves my point
> that I wasted 3 years in what effectively turned out to be an extended
> high-school. I went thru in the early 90s and even the cracks were showing
> then, and if not for the brilliance of some lecturers the whole scheme
> wouldve fallen to shit much sooner. Learning to think was extra-curricular,
> not part of the course. As long as you can hack out some small program in
> ADA you were right. Question the lecturer as to technique or alternative
> solutions? Dont be stupid.
> 
> 	In fact, Ive come to the realisation recently that large sections of
> what they taught us were just plain wrong. I am especially questioning the
> Relational Database paradigm and its utility in solving real-world problems.
> Not only that, but with the benefit of hind-sight I am left wondering why
> the lecturers tried to drum into us very early 'design is 90% of the job,
> the remaining 10% can be done by monkeys with a strong design', yet only 20%
> (if that) of the course was centred on design?
> 
> 	Anyway, I think you are panicking for the wrong reasons. It is a
> much deeper problem which brings into question the independence (esp from
> commercial concerns), usefulness and adaptability of most uni's/tafes. 
> 
> 	It does have one positive tho: those of us that have taught
> ourselves to think independently will always be one step ahead of the
> competition :)
> 
>