Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/3/85; site ukma.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!drew
From: drew@ukma.UUCP (Andrew Lawson)
Newsgroups: net.cse
Subject: Re: pitfalls in computer science education
Message-ID: <2761@ukma.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Feb-86 17:11:26 EST
Article-I.D.: ukma.2761
Posted: Wed Feb 26 17:11:26 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Feb-86 08:28:10 EST
References: <149@leopard.UUCP> <403@watmum.UUCP>
Reply-To: drew@ukma.UUCP (Andrew Lawson)
Distribution: net
Organization: U of KY Mathematical Sciences
Lines: 23

In article <403@watmum.UUCP> rgatkinson@watmum.UUCP (Bob Atkinson) writes:
>>I doubt anyone would claim that formal training will contribute to
>>*inferior* computer scientists. So what's the rub?
>
>        Formal training can certainly be a detriment if that
>        formal training narrows one's vision too much.
>        However, (at least in my experience),
>        there is a tendency for programs that teach such styles to stifle
>        the development of other modes of thinking that are valuable
>        in problems where a creative, innovative approach is needed.
>
>        -bob atkinson
>        watmath!rgatkinson

Before I argue with you on this, how about less ambiguous
statements.  Which styles are "such styles"? What is taught
and how does it stifle development?

-- 
Drew Lawson
					cbosgd!ukma!drew
"Parts is parts."			drew@uky.csnet
					drew@UKMA.BITNET