Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site ulose.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ulose!bob
From: bob@ulose.UUCP ( Bob Bismuth )
Newsgroups: net.cse,net.unix,net.unix-wizards,net.usenix
Subject: Re: Re: Disillusionment with Usenix tutorial
Message-ID: <112@ulose.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-Aug-85 10:12:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: ulose.112
Posted: Thu Aug  1 10:12:08 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Aug-85 05:23:03 EDT
References: <92@tekadg.UUCP> <2140@hcradm.UUCP>
Organization: CADMUS Computer Systems, Lowell, MA.
Lines: 60
Xref: watmath net.cse:423 net.unix:5233 net.unix-wizards:14167 net.usenix:492


I too apologise before starting about the large number of groups this
is going to, but I felt some of Mike's comments needed to be addressed
for the benefit of the larger audience he addressed.

> 
> The essence of the complaint was that the tutorial was not sufficiently
> advanced to be worth the time and money spent attending, and in general
> not very well done.  Also included were some remarks to the effect that
> the level of the tutorial was equal to all of the other Usenix activities,
> i.e. none of them were very advanced or very good.
> 

I would not like to comment on the overall level of Usenix activities, but
I do feel, along with other attendies that I know, that the level of some
tutorials was below that advertised. I did not take the Advanced C, but
I know that several who took it walked out at lunchtime in disgust. They
claimed that the level was better suited to someone with no C programming
experience at all. Judging from their notes and comments, I would tend to
agree.

I did take the System V Internals course and I too walked out at lunch time.
In the first place I didn't see why I needed an AT&T licence for what they
were discussing. With the possible exception of 1 slide, none of the material
was that much of a secret. Most of it is published in one place or another
and available to the public. Given the rather skimpy detail and depth, the
course would have been better advertised as: General OS Theory and Simple
Examples based on Un*x System V.


> I have reviewed the course evaluation forms.  Many attendees felt that
> the course was well done.  Nearly all attendees felt that they got
> .....

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?

I would not like to criticise all Usenix seminars. At Dallas, I know that
the networking seminar gave a very good intro to networking, both un*x
based and non-un*x based. Also the LEX/YACC seminar at Dallas was very
good and had excellant notes. I would only ask that you bill/advertise
the seminars a little more acurately - as you said, a presentation
problem.

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.

  --  bob
      (decvax!ulose!bob)

      (** opinions are my own, no flames are intended, everything is
	  subject to change - and usually does **) 

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***