From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: Professional registration
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:35:20 GMT

In article <C00753.Mp0@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>Want some reasons why a few of us gave up on the US Educational system?
>Here's a short list:

Karl, I couldn't agree more with your list, but I thought it's important to
note that on some of these points the U.S. education system is already a
good deal better than most in other countries... (in higher education, that
is--on the primary and secondary levels the  U.S. has some more serious
problems.)

>How about those of us who are damn tired of "colleges" where an education
>takes a back seat to the whims and desires of some corporate sponsor who
>happens to be in someone's back pocket (or front pocket for that matter)?

This is a problem alright, especially with respect to military funding.
My Alma Mater is the Univ. of Massachusetts, a school which was reduced
from one of the world's finest public Universities to an auxiliary (military)
industry research lab over the last 6 years or so (someone who had a BIG hand
in this is a former Democratic presidential candidate... who, thank God,
didn't make it past the primaries.)  The net effect is that in some sciences
and in engineering UMass is still supposedly world-class, but with the liberal
arts trimmmed to hell the lopsidedness has made it a much less attractive
academic environment even for scientists/engineers.  It's strange, but you
can /feel/ it just walking through the campus these days... the spirit has
gone out of the place.

>How about "educational institutions" which believe that every student fits
>in a peg-hole and therefore should follow a "precise" course of study --
>even if it is a waste of time as the student in question knows the material?

If you think you're getting pigeon-holed in U.S. Universities, try some
European or Asian ones on for size!  In most countries not only do you have
far less flexibility during your course of study, but what you're /allowed/
to study often depends on your performance on a standardized nation-wide
placement test which has little or nothing to do with your real-world abilities
in the field you're interested in.  This is (IMHO) one of the reasons that the
U.S. higher education system (especially graduate level) still produces some
of the world's best scientists... the really creative talented people often
just don't even get a chance in other parts of the world.

>How many schools still insist on incoming freshman taking a "BASIC" or "Pascal"
>programming course -- or three?  Mine did -- BASIC, Pascal, then FORTRAN -- 
>yet I was programming >multitasking kernels< in Macro Assembler when in high 
>school.  My previous experience and knowledge counted for >nothing< in their 
>eyes.  Flush the tuition for three unnecessary classes down our toilet please;
>that's the price of admission to our program!

This is a problem, but I for one was able to get around it and skip the
intro Pascal class when I was an undergrad.  Rules can usually be bent if
you talk to the right people.  More of a problem is that the intro classes
are often simply /bad/.  A notable exception is MIT's intro CS class for
majors: it's a full-year course based on the Abelson & Sussman book and
all programming is done in Scheme.  After that class you know something
about programming and computer science, and even if you thought you already 
knew everything you'll learn a thing or two.  Unfortunately most CS
professors elsewhere would have to take this course before they could
teach one like it... and half of the ones I know would probably flunk.

>How about "educational institutions" which have Deans and department heads 
>with the balls to say to a student who is fed up and about to leave (to 
>enter business for him/herself) that "you'll never amount to anything"?
>(To one in particular who might be reading this:  YOU WERE WRONG.)

Yeah, well, mediocrity always tries to squash greatness, weilding
bureacracy as its favored weapon!

>How about "educational institutions" more interested in parceling out
>resources on their computer equipment based on class status (ie: declare 
>that major and follow our course of study or you can't use current 
>technology) than allowing students to >learn<, which is the purpose of an
>education anyway?

See my previous comment, but also understand that rules are necessary
because resources are limited.  It is often possible to change the 
rules by demonstrating better ways to allocate limited resources.  Students
are not entirely powerless in affecting University policy.

>My "lack" of a degree has never hampered my career -- quite to the contrary.
>It is my experience that I, and others like myself, frequently outperform 
>those who have their "Piled Higher and deepers"; many of those who I have 
>met with a BS or BA in Computer Science could not program their way out of 
>a paper bag.

This it certainly true, but also somewhat unique about the field of
computer science/computer engineering.  Something about the
personality it takes to be a top-notch software engineer seems to be
more incompatible with the structured, bureaucratic tedium of standard
education than is the case in most other disciplines.  Also, people
with an aptitude for computer science or software engineering seem to
be particularly good at self-education.  As a result our field is
particularly rich with people who made themselves a career without
having completed the 'requisite' level of formal education, which in
turn makes it easier to build a career for us because many potential
employers are well aware of this phenomenon.

Unfortunately for bright, creative people who have trouble with the
formal education system but are interested in fields other than
computer science, for them it is much harder to get started in the
process of building a career without a diploma.

>The day that "mandatory" regulation comes, either in the form of
>governmental certification or "industry specification" -- which is almost
>certain to include a degree requirement (if for no other reason than the
>market forces in a college will demand that their "investments" be
>justified) then programming as an art form will be seriously compromised.

Or, maybe more precisely, those arms of the industry who are forced to
employ only persons with the requisite certifications will be forever
stuck with mediocrity, whereas those who have the choice can continue
to recruit talent.

--
Jurgen Botz, jbotz@mtholyoke.edu