From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: Craig Franck Subject: Re: Any research putting c above ada? Date: 1997/05/12 Message-ID: <5l5qhj$l6a@mtinsc05.worldnet.att.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 240955512 References: <5ih6i9$oct$1@waldorf.csc.calpoly.edu> <5k60au$gig@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> <5k88f8$387@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> <5ku5tj$9d9$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <5AB7287E9247441B.B61EDFD34B8F49B0.FCD25A82E03921C6@library-proxy.airnews.net> <0313A6944836C48E.193DB760B2AB7789.7A79EA9ECF40F6E3@library-proxy.airnews.net> Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-05-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: clines@delete_this.airmail.net (Kevin Cline) wrote: >Larry Weiss wrote: > >>Richard A. O'Keefe wrote: >>> eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes: >>> > But in reality it is the responsibility of the students to get the >>> >knowledge that they need. >>> >>> I've just had a student in my office who was extremely annoyed. >>> He had submitted his assignment electronically in two parts, >>> and his second submission had caused his first to be deleted, >>> hence his low mark. He was *outraged* at the suggestion that >>> he ought to have read the on-line manual for the electronic >>> submission program. I pointed out that he _ought_ to read the >>> manuals for _all_ the programs he used, and he was vehemently >>> opposed to that view. In his view, he was paying us money, >>> and he shouldn't have to read _anything_ that wasn't in the >>> printed handouts. It was a very upsetting meeting. >>> >>> Some students are rock solid *certain* that it *isn't* their >>> responsiblity. Hopefully, you have dispossessed him of this notion. >>Give the student a break! Your mechanistic treatment of this >>scenario is very upsetting. You have a student that you know >>acted in good faith to compose what he/she needed to provide to >>qualify for a total submission, yet you seem to take satisfaction >>(that's my take on it, I may, of course be wrong) in frustrating >>this person. I'd say that if they could quickly resubmit the >>missing portion, then what's the harm in accepting it? >> >>I hope the situation hasn't gotten out of control where you two >>can't come to a good outcome on this. Good luck! > >If I were the student, I would be upset too. Anyone, particularly a CS >professsor, who provides software to automate assignment submission should >have the sense to provide a warning before deleting old information. >I wonder if the student was even informed that he should read the manual. He has to be told to do this? >In all seriousness, I feel sorry for Mr. Eachus students. So do I. First they operate the software, then tragedy strikes, then they must consult the documentation to find out why. Maybe someone should break them of this pattern. >I don't think Mr. >Eachus would be very happy if he were told that a file he accidental deleted >while working at Mitre was unrecoverable because no backups were made. If he were wise he would consult with the network administrator and find out what the policy is on backups. -- Craig clfranck@worldnet.att.net Manchester, NH BBN has the brightest bit-heads on the planet. -- David Goodtree