NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/lang/c++-part1/6727

Text File | 1996-08-05 | 5.8 KB | 128 lines

Newsgroups: comp.lang.tcl,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.databases.sybase,comp.databases.oracle,comp.databases.informix,comp.databases.oracle
Path: ncrgw2.ncr.com!ncrhub6!daynews!falcon!news
From: Dick Menninger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: Vacant Job Positions
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: 149.25.123.146
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News administrative Login)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (mennid)
Organization: AT&T Global Information Solutions
X-Newsreader: DiscussIT 2.5.1.3 for MS Windows [AT&T Software Products Division]
References: <4fnftr$[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 18:05:52 GMT


> ==========Michael Engshun, 2/12/96==========
>
> In <[e-mail]> Dick Menninger
> <[e-mail]> writes:

[...]

> >Now, calc. is not that far up the mathematical maturity curve
> >and the early physics courses are still rather concrete.
> The European view... in America, the curve is more like a chasm.
> (Sorry for the mathmatical soap box commentary.   No, I not sorry :) )

To the contrare.  I am an American with an American
education and my comment was based on experience
in American university education.  My comments stand.

> >  So difficulty at this level says you are somewhat cut off from a
> >considerable body of more abstract thinking that is germaine.
> In the same way that not knowing how to build a Saturn rocket even
> though you know how to build a Saturn car makes you - mmm - an idiot.

Rather, much published Computer Science material and
other stuff including much business and economic modeling
involves stuff that will be hard for you to grasp and apply.
That limits you in ways that matter to many companies.

> >The demonstrated ability to deal with abstraction over a wide
> >range of subjects matters is a valid criterion.
> As a degreed math person with minor in physics, physics and math
> hardly constitute "a wide range of subjects matters"...

Maybe your minors were too shallow or your programs
were weaker than they should be.  Besides, the issue
was demonstrating skills rather than complete coverage.
Further, the person was denigrating having these in the
required courses at all.  They clearly provide demonstrations
of potential aptitude at key skills.  If you are one of those
people who want to reject all that is not perfect in all respects,
then you will reject all, for nothing in education is ever perfect.

> >Although
> >whether a CS degree insures your qualification is debatable,
> >inability to clear some basic hurdles in related fields in order
> >to get the CS degree should concern those employers that
> >are dealing with problems where demonstrated maturity at
> >thinking and working abstractly matters.
> >
> >In my experience, people who took readily to math and
> >physics readily developed a high level of maturity in software
> >development, as well.  Coding is only a small part of modern
> >programming.  Creating an abstract model of things is much
> >a part of it and is much like forming a physical theory.  You
> >must understand what is important and what should be ignored.
> >You must be able to do theorem-like work to do many calculations
> >in the most appropriate form.  That happens in business
> >problems as well as other contexts.
> Funny - the employers and colleagues I have known generally concur that
> one should lock up most of the developers with such "high level of
> maturity" in the programming area since they can't design a decent GUI
> or write documentation.   So much for the "well-educated graduate".

It sounds like you or your employers and colleagues have
a problem assessing those things.  If you are talking about
new graduates and you want good human factors in your
GUI interfaces and good writing skills, then look for evidence
in their education for those.  That does not mean those are
the ONLY skills you want demonstrated, however.  So, needing
those does not eliminate the need for other demonstrated skills.
Physics and math demonstrate other skills.

> >So, a CS degree is a good filter for many jobs.  You should
> >look very hard at why you had trouble.  Was it ability or
> >attitude or inadequate background or lack of applying yourself?
> >If you were inadequately prepared, it would be worth your
> >while to go back and fix that.  Life can be hard sometimes
> >and each of us must be willing to take responsibility and
> >control of ourselves and work hard when life is hard.
> Or you can do good work, suffer through the numerous employers and
> peers that can't stand undegreed developers, and judge fellow
> practitioners on their skills and thinking (and just enjoy the stories
> of where they learned them).

It can be done, but yes, not having a basic check-off
item does make it more difficult.  Much of the world is
not any good at judging true skills, even when they see
them demonstrated in front of them for a period of time.
The world is really that way, in general.  You must consider
that and place personal priority on getting the check-off
items if you want an easier time.  Being an exception
always places the onus on you to prove to the blind
and dumb that you have all the skills you need.
Life is definitely like that.

> Be well and do good work...
> Michael

> Degreed;
> happy about it;
> would of made my way in the world without it with some extra effort.

Degreed, but long ago and not in CS.  I demonstrated
many of my CS skills on the job, including some theory
work.  The thing that got in my way, at times, was
no PhD.  My personal circumstances required my
getting a job instead of going on.  So this pattern
happens at many levels.  Yet, I do not regret my
decision to meet certain responsibilities rather than
maximize my check-off items in my areas of interest.

Good Day
Dick
[e-mail]