Xref: utzoo comp.edu:2736 comp.software-eng:2583
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!hubcap!billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu
From: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 )
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: CS education
Message-ID: <7289@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 2 Dec 89 20:30:49 GMT
References: <16283@duke.cs.duke.edu>
Sender: news@hubcap.clemson.edu
Reply-To: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu
Lines: 53

From crm@romeo.cs.duke.edu (Charlie Martin):
> Hmmm....  I think I am beginning to see something here.  Was the course
> you took largely directed toward the internals of the blah operating
> system?  

   My personal experience with OS courses consists of:

      1) Independent study - I read a few textbooks on my own to satisfy my
         own curiosity.  Having done this, I decided that it was a highly
         specialized and utterly boring field, and lost all interest.

      2) Undergrad study - compelled to take a course which involved
         an overview of compilers and operating systems.  Boring and
         a waste of my time and money, but I needed the degree.

      3) Graduate study - compelled to satisfy a requirement (not
         clearly expressed in the material I received before enrolling)
         that I have a course in Operating Systems Implementation.
         I was so infuriated by the prospect that the department 
         decided to permit me to gain credit for the course by
         examination.  Another total waste of time, but again I
         needed the degree.

> I don't doubt that you can go to a bank or some such and do IS for the
> next umpteen years, and if you like those programs then great.  

   We agree completely.  But apparently this route is not permitted
   by those who seek to dictate what will be studied.

> My point here is that every time I changed "fields" I did so because
> there was an intersting problem to approach, I thought it would be fun,
> and I had sufficient general background to work on it.

   If I was interested in being a generalist, perhaps I *would* decide
   to take OS classes and the like.  That should be MY decision.
 
> Even if you "know" you're going to go do IS immediately, and "know" you
> won't stray, how do you "know" that conditions won't change?

   I can't prove that I will never decide to enter another field.  But
   I know as a fact that if I decided I wanted to be a genetic engineer,
   I would have to undergo large quantities of retraining.  

   This is viewed as entirely natural and desirable.  If I do not wish 
   to enter a different field of endeavor, then I should not have to 
   endure irrelevant coursework. If I do, then there is a change in the 
   set of material which is considered relevant, and I will then go out 
   and obtain a complete understanding of this new material.  THIS is how
   the system should operate!

   
   Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu
 


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com