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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 107f24,626a0a064b320310 X-Google-Attributes: gid107f24,public X-Google-Thread: f4fd2,626a0a064b320310 X-Google-Attributes: gidf4fd2,public X-Google-Thread: 10259a,626a0a064b320310 X-Google-Attributes: gid10259a,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,ea8ea502d35ca2ce X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 103d24,626a0a064b320310 X-Google-Attributes: gid103d24,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,626a0a064b320310 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 1164ba,626a0a064b320310 X-Google-Attributes: gid1164ba,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-05-14 14:55:05 PST Path: archiver1.sj.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsxfer.eecs.umich.edu!news.bu.edu!newshost.Dartmouth.EDU!not-for-mail From: "FM" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.basic,comp.lang.functional,comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.perl Subject: Re: [OT] Software Engineering at 14 (was: Re: Beginner's Language?) Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 17:18:52 -0400 Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA Message-ID: <9dpi79$28r$1@merrimack.Dartmouth.EDU> References: <9cukad$nn68@news-dxb> <9d6b6e$1bt$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <87snihxiwc.fsf@frown.here> <9dbi83$sji$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <87heyu7cqd.fsf@frown.here> <9dc20p$hh15e$1@ID-37382.news.dfncis.de> <9ddfv2$gl3$1@merrimack.Dartmouth.EDU> <9dh21o$i8crr$2@ID-37382.news.dfncis.de> <9dhtr9$59d$1@merrimack.Dartmouth.EDU> <9dmq0v$60r$1@hecate.umd.edu> <9dmvrg$49c$1@merrimack.Dartmouth.EDU> <9dnnnf$idk$1@hecate.umd.edu> <9dntj0$elp$1@merrimack.Dartmouth.EDU> <9dp8km$1i8$1@hecate.umd.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: north-dhcp-235.dartmouth.edu X-Trace: merrimack.Dartmouth.EDU 989875241 2331 129.170.146.235 (14 May 2001 21:20:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@Dartmouth.EDU NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 May 2001 21:20:41 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.sj.google.com comp.lang.ada:7499 comp.lang.lisp:10044 comp.lang.smalltalk:9669 comp.lang.functional:5641 comp.lang.scheme:3800 comp.lang.perl:2738 Date: 2001-05-14T21:20:41+00:00 List-Id: "Peter Schuller" wrote: > >> It's those "limits" I'm talking about. In this regard, the US is actually > >> worse than Sweden - if I had gone to a university in Sweden I could have > >> concentrated on what I'm interested in (computers, math, physics, > >> philosophy, and some other stufF). I'm currently attending a US unversity > >> where 50% of the curriculum is CORE - and it's more or less the same all > >> over the place (believe me, I've checked this stuff for at least 100 > >> universities around the country). > > > >Brown University? > > Me? No, Univ. of Maryland, College Park. I actually meant to ask if you checked out Brown University. >From what I remember, they don't have any core requirements. > >In any case, what colleges decide to require for their degrees is > >a completely distinct issue. That's a point where there are enough > >plausible choices that it's hard to characterize them as a single > >system of any kind. > > They're different, but the concept of CORE is a general one. And some states > (if not all, I don't know) have laws regarding CORE (at least that's the > response I got from MIT when I asked about the CS degree requirements; and > IIRC also from RIT). It probably has something to do with accreditation, though I don't see how it would have such an effect. Seems like a marketing excuse, for the most part. > >Do you believe you learn only *facts* (or whatever it is that you can > >remember or forget) in history classes? That might be all they teach, > >but that's not all you were supposed to learn, IMHO. > > Supposed to yes, but in reality, no. I assume you're referring to things > like being able to conduct research, or analytical thinking as applied to > history etc. Sure, it sounds good on paper, but in practice? It's about > remembering facts for some exam. Except of course if you're *interested* and > take initiative; which isn't the case in the situation in question. You gain a useful perspective. It's something that comes along naturally as you learn facts even without you being necessarily aware of it. And who's to say that you won't be interested in it? > >> I fully realize that not everyone should be presented with all these choices > >> early in life. But the possibility should exist if the child takes the > >> initiative. knows that I would have done so. > > > >What possibility? > > To choose your own education. Requirements for being admitted to an > educational program should be based on: > > (1) Knowledge, as opposed to a piece of paper that states you've passed > course X and Y. > (2) *Relvent* knowledge only. Requiring home economics or sports in order to > get into a CS program is absurd. Just as absurd as requiring computer > programming for a home economics program. This is an idealistic but wildly impractical view. It's not that easy to evaluate others based on those principles alone. Besides, there are some other things to consider, such as potential, aptitude, character, social status, etc. > > Learning by yourself is a possibility for most > >circumstances, though not always (i.e. I didn't have access to > >any CS literature and/or a programmable computer when I was very > >young. I'm not too sure if it was a bad thing). > > No - and that's the problem. Getting into a university for example (or > whatever) requires certain artificial requirements to be met (one must have > such and such requirements satisfied on a high school transcript etc). > Without a standard education, I'd have a really hard time getting into a CS > program at a university for example. Of course that's why there are things like the GED test and a number of other standardized exams. Besides, nothing stops you from getting a high school diploma while studying other things. You could also take classes at a local college. > Even if I were an expert at everything, I would have a hard time being > admitted because of artificial requirements. I see that as *more* of a problem in a system that divides kids into separate schools and specialized courses. It creates those artificial requirements, for kids who haven't learned to deal with them. > >> Yes, but once again, teaching a bunch of stuff the subject doesn't remember > >> is useless. > > > >But that some people don't remember what they are taught doesn't > >mean that teaching in general is useless. Whether you will need > >or remember something is not clear to anyone when the decision to > >teach it is made. > > Correct - but I am trying to highlight that not everyone necessarily fits > into the "mold" created by whoever makes the decision regarding standard > education. And the student in question (possible in conjuncing with parents) > is more likely to make a proper decision individually than the "system" is > likely to do when throwing everyone in the same basket. You're saying that as if one system offers more choices than the other. There's no such dichotomy here. In any system, if you choose to go to a certain school, you are limited by its course offerings and graduation requirements. The question is, which limitations are beneficial or necessary and which ones aren't. Dan.