Re: Student responsability (Was: Any research putting c above ada?)

[jfbode@nospam.mail.earthlink.net (John Bode)]

In article <5kfdhi$d2m$1@dbs1.sma.ch>, lga@sma.ch wrote:

> In article <EACHUS.97May1143942@spectre.mitre.org>,
eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
> > In article <5k88f8$387@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz
Kylheku) writes:
> > 
> >   > Ah. The thing is, I thought that all good computer science
> >   > programs included software engineering as part of the curriculum,
> >   > and I always saw them as inseparable. I realize that this is not
> >   > the case in every institution.
> > 
> >    But in reality it is the responsibility of the students to get the
> > knowledge that they need. 
> 
> Professors shouldn't put the responsability onto students' shoulders. 
Students
> go to universities to be taught elements of what will be necessary in their 
> future carreer.
> 
> It is naive to belive that a student (by definition without experience)
is able
> to reasonably elect what will proves to be useful in the long term. 
Students do
> not even know the possible applications of a topic before they have
learned it!
> 
> I know, I was one...
> 

#ifndef RANT
#define RANT 1

But neither is it reasonable for the student to just sit back and wait for
the professor to tell him or her what to do.  I freely admit I was a lazy,
unimaginative student, and I pay the price for that *every single day*. 
Since I never took the initiative to explore on my own, I find it difficult
to expand on what I was taught, which as most people can attest was not
enough.  And part of the reason for my attitude was the idea that the
classes I was taking were little more than job training.

One of the great tragedies in recent years is the general attitude (in the
US, anyway) that the *only* reason to go to college anymore is so you can
get a good job after you graduate.  We become so focused on studying only
what we need for our final degree that we ignore the *real* purpose of a
college or university -- to provide an *education*.  To learn things
because they are worth learning on their own merit, not because they will
make us a better engineer or programmer or marketer.

One day, an English major wrote a letter to university newspaper
questioning why he needed to take College Algebra.  How was Cramer's Rule
going to be of any use to him in the future?  Why should he waste his time
learning something he didn't need?

And that got me wondering about my own haphazard progress.  I spent my
first three years shopping for a major.  I took a lot of classes I didn't
need to (and my transcript suffered for it -- like I said, I was lazy). 
But I did gain something out of it.  I learned things.  I had a very
slightly broader view of the world than most of my CS contemporaries, who
weren't interested in sociology or anthropology or astronomy or music
theory.  

I didn't *need* that knowledge to get a job programming computers, but I
believe the time spent in gaining that knowledge was anything *but* wasted. 
It is unfortunate for me that I didn't understand that until after I had
graduated.  It astonishes me still when I mention something that I always
though was general knowledge, but a good many of my contemporaries look at
me funny because they never heard of it.  I am not a well-educated man, and
I have trouble believing that there are people out there who know less than
I do, and it worries me.

"Knowledge is Power" may sound trite and cliche, but that does not diminish
it's validity.

#endif /* just to keep things somewhat on topic */

-- 
John Bode
"Paranoia is just reality on a finer scale" -- Strange Days

To eamil me directly, remove the 'nospam.' from my address.