Xref: utzoo comp.software-eng:416 misc.jobs.misc:1566
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!ncc!alberta!edson!doug
From: doug@edson.UUCP (Doug Konrad)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,misc.jobs.misc
Subject: Re: American Programmer (What's a Ph.D. worth?)
Message-ID: <121@edson.UUCP>
Date: 7 Apr 88 17:16:28 GMT
References: <555@psu-cs.UUCP> <1434@ur-tut.UUCP> <3415@bunker.UUCP> <2705@charon.unm.edu>
Organization: Dept. of E.E., U of Alberta, Edmonton,Canada
Lines: 52
Summary: universities are not trade schools

In article <2705@charon.unm.edu>, ee4011ab@ariel.unm.edu (Mark P. Martin) writes:
> In article <8295@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> jmm@thoth20.berkeley.edu.UUCP () writes:
> >I always thought that universities were supposed to teach theory more than
> >practice.  
> 
> They do, greatly in  error and to the disadvantage of the student.  Employers

Compare this statement with the ones below.

> are not looking for people with extroardinary skills in practicing theory,
> but for people with extensive experience in a multitude of systems,
> languages, and environments.  NO, strike that!  They are looking for
> experience on *their particular system*.  Presumeably, this experience has
> been acquired elsewhere, as the employer finds it economically advantageous
> to hire capable people, rather than train new people.  

In other words, employers want people with skills in the straightforward use
of tools and techniques.

> I have yet to hear about a vocational school that teaches all the aspects
> of the internal design, programming and operation of computers, and still
> maintains a quality reputation.

There is a reason for that. Such is the domain of an institution which
teaches theory. If you try to design something, and don't understand the
underlying theory governing that something, you aren't an engineer, you're
a parrot.

>                                  Vocational schools are not recognizeable
> degree granting institutions in such fields as engineering.  And
> engineering is more ability to apply knowledge than the straightforward use
> of tools and techniques.  The word "engineer" derives from "engenious man"
> (no sexism flames please, I have a reference).

Here you come around and agree with me. (How can we have a good argument if
you insist on agreeing with me?) However, this wasn't what you said in your
first paragraph.

I am reminded of the statement of a character from the TV program "Paper
Chase". The show centred around a law school. "You will teach yourselves the
law. I will teach you how to think." A bit pretentious, but it captures the
role of a university. When I had finished my undergraduate degree, I had
learnt how to design microprocessor hardware, and how to think like an
engineer. The latter made a lot more money for my employer than the former.
Even if he didn't think so.

By the way, I am taking a broad view of theory. I mean much more than those
interminable classroom lectures on quicksort. For software engineering, it
includes examination of large systems. And it includes looking at challenges
where the theory is incomplete.

Doug