Re: Any research putting c above ada?

[Roy Grimm <ragrimm@cca.rockwell.com>]

Kevin Cline wrote:
> 
> Roy Grimm <ragrimm@cca.rockwell.com> wrote:
> >Fair enough.  I'd agree in principle with what you are getting at in
> >reference to "grade-grubbers".  There are slackers out there just
> >interested in doing enough to get by.  However, too many people
> >automatically associate that attitude with bad grades.
> 
> Let me make myself perfectly clear.  I believe there is little correlation
> between GPA and the ability to do software development.  However, even the
> most open-minded organization is going to deselect candidates with GPA's
> below some minimum standard.

I would agree 100% with that.  My resume was summarily rejected at
several companies because of an arbitrary GPA minimum that I didn't
meet.

> > I've never
> >gotten really good grades in any of the classwork I've done and yet I've
> >probably gotten more out of the classes than the average person.
> 
> That's exactly what I meant to say.  I don't want to hire people whose sole
> goal in attending is to get an A on their transcript.

I know far too many people like that.  I wouldn't want to work with
them.

> >Fortunately, I've been in the business long enough to prove I'm no
> >slacker.
> 
> It's definitely easier to judge those with professional experience.

So how do students prove they have real technical ability?  Probably the
way I did.  Get a job in the college computer center and do well in ACM
programming contests.  Having those two things on my resume opened quite
a few doors.

> >Actually, they were brilliant with theory.  The one individual I'm
> >thinking of was able to take the CompSci GRE and score in the upper 75%,
> >but couldn't figure out how to format a report of an amortization table
> >without help.
> 
> I assume you mean the upper quartile.  The GRE is a multiple choice exam,
> isn't it?

That's what I meant, yes.

> I agree completely.  That is why I make all candidates actually write code at
> a whiteboard.

I'd love to see how some of the candidates crack under that kind of
pressure.  "You mean I actually have to write real code?!?"

> I'm sorry.  You were poorly instructed.  I was fortunate enough to attend a
> private university, and the pace was quite challenging.

I went to a private college where the pace was barely noticable...  As a
result, I took advantage of the free time to teach myself most of what I
know.

> >How have they lasted in their positions to get any experience if they
> >don't know fundamental data structures?  And did you at least try to
> >teach them what they needed to know?
> 
> It's hard to instruct those more senior and more highly paid.  It's was much
> more rewarding to move to an organization with higher standards.

Personally, I would have loved the challenge.  Teaching people without
them realizing it is not easy, but it can be done.

> >Engineering judgement is the ability to solve problems.  Teach someone
> >how to solve problems in general, then show them the specifics of the
> >field and they can apply their fundamental problem solving ability to
> >that field.  Electrical engineers can combine thousands if not millions
> >of different components into electrical systems governed by very complex
> >differential equations.  Why then is it that professors can teach them
> >how to do it effectively yet you claim the computer science students
> >couldn't learn how to combine software packages together?  Is there some
> >genetic defect with computer science students?
> 
> Combining components does not require judgment.  Evaluating them does.
> Deciding which requirements are likely to change and which are not requires
> judgment.  Deciding whether to release your product to the marker or continue
> testing requires judgment.

I'm not talking about throwing together a few components to make a
trivial system, I'm talking about the judgement it takes to design
complex systems and understand when you've gotten it right.  We recently
hired an EE grad into our software department.  He came fresh from
school right into our department.  He has a better understanding of the
design process than almost any other person in the department.
(including me!)  

Sure, he was a little shaky on the details of designing algorithms and
data structures at first.  But hey, it takes a few weeks to teach that
to someone.  I ran him through the fundamentals and gave him my
algorithms book.  Three weeks later, he gives it back, fully
understanding the practical principles of algorithm design.  We touched
on theory and spent a day or two with algorithm analysis, and he picked
it all up right away.

You see, he learned how to solve problems.  Algorithm design is just
another problem to solve.  He was a better software developer after two
months than I was after a year.

> >> >Sure.  If you are one of the 5% of students who are able to comprehend
> >> >technical manuals, that's good advice.  What about for the rest of them?
> 
> I'm not talking about manuals.  I'm talking about books and periodicals.
> Most students can't afford to buy them, but they should be available in the
> library.

The type of books is irellevant.  The fact is, most students do not have
the practical knowledge and experience to make use of the information in
most technical books (be it manuals or text books) and periodicals.

-- 
Voicing my own opinion, not speaking as a company representative...

Roy A. Grimm
Rockwell Collins Avionics
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
ragrimm@cca.rockwell.com