Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hcradm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hcrvax!hcradm!mike
From: mike@hcradm.UUCP (Mike Tilson)
Newsgroups: net.cse,net.unix,net.unix-wizards,net.usenix
Subject: Re: Re: Disillusionment with Usenix tutorial
Message-ID: <2155@hcradm.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 4-Aug-85 18:39:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: hcradm.2155
Posted: Sun Aug  4 18:39:03 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 5-Aug-85 04:10:21 EDT
References: <92@tekadg.UUCP> <2140@hcradm.UUCP> <112@ulose.UUCP>
Followup-To: net.usenix
Organization: Human Computing Resources, Toronto
Lines: 67

(Note -- I've tried to set up this up so that future followups will
be diverted to net.usenix only.  However, I not sure I understand
all the mysteries of netnews, so it might fail.)

Responses to Rusty C. Wright and Bob Bismuth:

Rusty C. Wright (sdcarl!rusty) commented that the 4.2BSD internals
course was not "advanced", and that one could learn the material
by studying the manuals.

I think this is simply an illustration of my earlier point that there
is no limit to "advanced".  Most attendees of the 4BSD internals
course find it to be very useful, and it is very well received by
nearly everyone who takes it.  If you have already studied and
understood all of the relevant documentation, then you may not need
a course at all.  These courses do not disclose the inner secrets
of the universe; they don't usually provide information that you couldn't
figure out yourself given enough time and motivation.  They are
intended to quickly introduce you to topics that might otherwise
take you a lot longer to learn.

With the 4BSD course we had taken special efforts to mark the course
as "advanced" because in the past it had been taken by people with
insufficient background -- they considered it far too advanced and
simply beyond their comprehension.  For this course at least I think
we have the target audience right, but in any group of 150 people we are
bound to have a few who hoped to get something else.  We try as hard
as we can.


Bob Bismuth (ulose!bob) said that he knew several people who had left
the Advanced C course because it was not sufficiently advanced.
He also felt that the System V Internals course was not advanced.
He also had some nice words of praise for some other Usenix tutorials.
(Thanks.)  I think my remarks above apply, but I admit that the C course
was lower level than some people were looking for.  I would also comment
that there is a limit to the material than can be covered in one day.

Bob also had some other specific comments:
> I would suggest that those who found the courses unacceptable either 
> walked out or didn't fill in the forms. What percentage of the attendies
> did fill in your forms?

In fact, we got a pretty good percentage of returns on evaluations --
most of the attendees filled them in.

> Also, I'd really like you to ensure that the presenters either have some
> experience in giving such presentations to large groups, or they at least
> are aware of the scope of the task. I know from my own experience giving
> seminars that it is a taxing and trying experience, only made worse by
> lack of awareness or preparation. Presenters really deserve a hand, not
> criticism since they have a tough job with a lot of preparation involved.
> They need all the help they can get.

We do try to only use speakers who have taught to groups before.  In
particular, the BSD Internals, Advanced C, and System V Internals
courses mentioned in this posting all used experienced instructors.
I agree that it's a hard job.


I would welcome any other constructive suggestions for improving the
Usenix tutorial program.  Please respond by mail.  If anything of
general interest comes in, I'll summarize for the net.

/Michael Tilson
/Usenix Tutorial Coordinator
/{decvax,utzoo}!hcr!hcradm!mike