X-Envelope-to: mbu-l@TTUVM1.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"mbu-l@ttuvm1.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Sat, 10 Oct 1992 17:33:00 EST
From:         WPWP@PITTVMS.BITNET
Subject:      hypertalk good stuff

>
> Jeff, I really didn't make myself clear when I was comparing
> hypertalk with BASIC or Pascal.  I didn't mean to say there was
> some essential difference between the older and newer languages,
> or that the older ones could do more.  My comment about easier
> and harder dealt with the perceptions of those who are not
> familier with any of this.  BASIC and Pascal ring a bell with
> computer illiterates; Hypertalk, so far, doesn't, or at least not
> as clear a bell.  My use of "authoring languages" was also
> confusing, but again, people who haven't really thought much
> about it have trouble seeing HyperCard as a "compiler" in the
> sense of a BASIC or Pascal compiler, and I believe Atkinson
> himself distinguishes the "stacks" idea from that of a "library"
> of Pascal or other language programmed modules; he calls
> HyperCard an "erector set for software" (Carol Kaehler,
> *HyperCard Power*) and implies that hypertalk scripts are much
> easier to program (because of the high level of support in
> Hypercard) than previous languages, just as -- as I said in my
> earlier message -- Turbo Pascal is much easier to program than
> earlier versions of Pascal.  Hence, again as I said, I had
> presumed experts decrying my use of Turbo as a language
> substitute, not because it couldn't do what the earlier languages
> could, but because it was simply too easy and didn't put me
> through the traditional hoops, or at least not enough of them.
>
> So I don't really have an "argument" about any of this, just a
> sort of recognition of human nature in academia, that the
> language requirement is probably not so much a real-world
> requirement for future study as one more test of a student's
> tenacity and willingness to follow orders -- i.e. dig holes and
> fill them in.  It would be an interesting study to see just how
> many successful academics actually employ their studied languages
> in their teaching and research.  While I'm sure many of them do,
> I believe that those of us investigating computer-based
> instruction make a far greater use of Pascal or HyperTalk in our
> subsequent careers, as a rule.  But we're working against
> tradition, certain measures of academic prestige, a general
> anti-utilitarian bias, and boot-campism.  I'm on your side, Jeff.
> Fred Kemp, TTU


Fred,
        I've been out of town for the past five days.  Otherwise I'd
have responded earlier.  I greatly appreciate your comments clarifying
your earlier post.  Your explanation of what is "normally" acceptable
and why rings true in many ways.  I'd be curious as well to see how many
grads actually use the languages they have learned to fulfill their
degrees.
        Just as an aside, I was talking to a fellow student just the
other day about classes.  He said he was spending an inordinate amount
of time studying his French for reading proficiency class.  I was
surprised to hear he was taking the course at all because he spoke
Spanish fluently (he taught English in South American for a year).  He
was shocked to hear that he actually did not have to take another
language.  No one had mentioned it to him.  And, while it does state in
our graduate handbook that comprehensive knowledge of one language would
suffice for the requirement, my friend later told me that no one has, in
recent memory (perhaps ever) fulfilled the requirement with advanced
proficiency.  There is not even a means of certifying comprehensive
proficiency in our department.  Perhaps this says something in and of
itself.
        I tell this story because it is suggestive of the hole-digging
syndrome you mentioned in your note.  It is so easy to slip into
procedural complacency with requirements.  So much paperwork to be done.
 So many students to process.  And, from the perspective of students, so
many hoops to jump through, so many holes to dig and refill.  But,my friend
should have looked at the requirements in the handbook before taking the
course.  And, perhaps, someone might have reminded him to do so.  THe
fact, however, that no graduates had gone this route before, suggests
how both administration and students seem to perceive these
requirements.
        Graduate school is so ladened by what Foucault calls "exercises"
of power over the bodies of grad students that the process tends to
drive itself.  I'm glad this problem I've been working on has been given
some public attention.  It raises some rather old debates about the role
of graduate education, but also raises the possibility of tension and
change.  In the case of our department, this has also been an
opportunity to raise questions about additional technologies like
electronic mail and hypermedia applications.  These technologies have
potentially sophisticated enough programming potential to also be
considered for proficiency of a language.
        THanks Fred and others for your support and comments on this
issue.  I think it has significant implications for the direction of
computers in composition at the post-secondary level.
jeff galin
galin@vms.cis.pitt.edu