Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!rochester!quiroz From: quiroz@cs.rochester.edu (Cesar Quiroz) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: RE: foreign langauage requirements Message-ID: <1989Mar21.175437.29830@cs.rochester.edu> Date: 21 Mar 89 22:54:37 GMT References: <1277@blake.acs.washington.edu> Reply-To: quiroz@cs.rochester.edu (Cesar Quiroz) Followup-To: sci.research Distribution: na Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY 14627 Lines: 34 Summary: Sender: Expires: In <1277@blake.acs.washington.edu>, robert@blake.acs.washington.edu (Gedankenleere) wrote: | ... | It is too easy find yourself being convinced that the actual state | of affairs is just what you were prepared to believe to begin | with. ... | | ... And then, when you realize that very, very few scientific or | mathematical professionals ACTUALLY use even a modicum of whatever | feeble foreign languages they may have acquired in their previous | trainings, and just HOW REALLY ILLITERATE THEY ARE IN THESE | FOREIGN languages NOW, ... ACTUALLY? REALLY? In the context of your impassioned plea for carefully controlled scientific studies, I suppose you will be willing to back up your uppercasing with a reference, right? I side with you in one respect: more requirements are just so much more overhead. If you are serious (and classes don't get in your way too often), you will likely find both motivation and time to expand your horizons beyond your technical expertise. That may take you to study other languages, sure. We can separate the two issues (the original context was FLRs for PhD students): 1- Is learning `many' languages useful to future PhDs? 2- Should this learning be required? My preference is for `yes' and `no'. OOPS. What is this doing in comp.arch anyway? I am redirecting follow-ups to sci.research, for lack of a better fit. -- Cesar Augusto Quiroz Gonzalez Department of Computer Science University of Rochester Rochester, NY 14627