Are 'new' university degrees easier than from the old ones?

[Jeremey Williams]

Are 'new' university degrees (ie ex polytechnics etc) easier to do
than from traditional universities. I think from what I have gathered
that the answer is yes. As it has been said that you have to teach to
the level you are given. No good making them all do hard stuff and
most of them failing and making the university look bad in marketing
terms is there?

I think this probably applies in particular to computer related
degrees, where lots of the need for maths and programming are removed
from the degrees the new universities run.

[Michael Saunby]

Post by Jeremey Williams
Are 'new' university degrees (ie ex polytechnics etc) easier to do
than from traditional universities. I think from what I have gathered
that the answer is yes. As it has been said that you have to teach to
the level you are given. No good making them all do hard stuff and
most of them failing and making the university look bad in marketing
terms is there?
I think this probably applies in particular to computer related
degrees, where lots of the need for maths and programming are removed
from the degrees the new universities run.

So how difficult should a degree be? Indeed how hard should it be to get
into university?

I guess if you want to get into one of the "best" universities then it's
reasonable that entry be a competition. Likewise if you want to get one of
the few top civil service jobs with good pay and pension and no real need
to do much work then again it should be a competition. If private
companies also wish to make appointments on such a basis then there's
nothing to stop them doing so too.

Meanwhile, back in the nornal world where most of us study and work it
makes most sense if a degree teaches that which is needed to practice the
profession, whether it be architecture, medicine, IT, or whatever, rather
than set a series of pointless challenges. Therefore to get a place at
university it should only be necessary to meet the prerequisites for such
study, but getting any more should only be needed if places are in short
supply - that or hard cash. I suspect the universities would rather hard
cash than smart arse students, but then life isn't always fair and we don't
always get what we want.

Michael Saunby

[Ian]

Post by Michael Saunby
Meanwhile, back in the nornal world where most of us study and work it
makes most sense if a degree teaches that which is needed to practice
the profession, whether it be architecture, medicine, IT, or whatever,
rather than set a series of pointless challenges. Therefore to get a
place at university it should only be necessary to meet the
prerequisites for such study, but getting any more should only be needed
if places are in short supply - that or hard cash. I suspect the
universities would rather hard cash than smart arse students, but then
life isn't always fair and we don't always get what we want.

I have a friend who complains that the students she gets at Uni these days
can't write well and are only semi-literate. The fact is that her
department could specify that they only take students with grade A English
for the course. That would mean the course would be mostly empty and she
would probably then be out of a job but all the students left on the
course would write well. When I started teaching the "average" was grade 4
CSE (E/F in GCSE). If 50% are targeted for HE, it means the same people
are then expected to do a uni course and get a degree. OK, we prepare them
better for exams, maybe push their IQ up a bit through cognitive
development but in the end, they are not going to be fundamentally
genetically changed by this. Not that educating 50% or even 100% of the
population to age 21 is a bad thing. The real snag is the nature of the
courses offered and the fact that the label "degree" covers everyone from
the top Cambridge physicist to the weakest ordinary degree qualified
sociologist from some obscure ex-poly. In fact I think most employers know
that the type of degree and the university make a difference. So do things
like emotional intelligence that can't easily be measured in an exam. We
get a lot of rhetoric from the Gov and DfES about transforming learning,
life long learning, breaking the mould etc but in fact the current system
is not that different from 30 years ago. There is more focus on
accoutability in increasing exam pass rates and the written exam paper is
still the shrine at which they all worship.

[vernon levy]

Post by Ian
When I started teaching the "average" was grade 4
CSE (E/F in GCSE). If 50% are targeted for HE, it means the same people
are then expected to do a uni course and get a degree.

For quite a while I thought that I had imagined the above definition of
'averageness'. Looks like I started teaching the same time as you. The kids
aren't smarter yet they are now expected to get 5 A-C's at GCSE and gain
access to university education and the Government denies that standards have
slipped. How has the teaching profession managed to let this evolution of
"averageness" take place without high profile protests?

[Ian]

Post by vernon levy

When I started teaching the "average" was grade 4 CSE (E/F in GCSE). If
50% are targeted for HE, it means the same people are then expected to
do a uni course and get a degree.

For quite a while I thought that I had imagined the above definition of
'averageness'. Looks like I started teaching the same time as you. The
kids aren't smarter yet they are now expected to get 5 A-C's at GCSE and
gain access to university education and the Government denies that
standards have slipped. How has the teaching profession managed to let
this evolution of "averageness" take place without high profile
protests?

Why should they? Probably the kids now are better taught - well depends on
what you mean by better. Certainly more focus more demand so probably they
do know a bit more. Question is does this additional knowledge actually
make them better prepared for life or work? I doubt it makes a lot of
difference to most. Certainly they are better prepared for exams. Even
back in the old days of double entry I recall a kid who I coached for O
level who double entered and got grade 4 CSE in physics just going and
doing the exam and a C at O level because we guessed the questions from
past papers and prepared those. So I see no great surprise in the "raised
standards". Of course if there are the same number of jobs out there
getting a C GCSE is going to be no more help than getting a grade 4 CSE so
in that sense its a con :-) If teachers are praised for raising results
why should they complain?

[Michael Saunby]

Post by vernon levy

Post by Ian
When I started teaching the "average" was grade 4
CSE (E/F in GCSE). If 50% are targeted for HE, it means the same people
are then expected to do a uni course and get a degree.

For quite a while I thought that I had imagined the above definition of
'averageness'. Looks like I started teaching the same time as you. The kids
aren't smarter yet they are now expected to get 5 A-C's at GCSE and gain
access to university education and the Government denies that standards have
slipped. How has the teaching profession managed to let this evolution of
"averageness" take place without high profile protests?

There was once a time when it was necessary to be "above average" in order
to become a doctor, accountant, lecturer, teacher, etc. Thankfully those
days are over and even the below average can get by in what used to be
considered intellectually demanding occupations. This is significant as it
releases the smartest amongst us for more important and better paid work
producing food, building roads and houses, etc. i.e. the really important
stuff.

Michael Saunby

[Ian]

Post by Michael Saunby

Post by vernon levy

When I started teaching the "average" was grade 4 CSE (E/F in GCSE).
If 50% are targeted for HE, it means the same people are then
expected to do a uni course and get a degree.

For quite a while I thought that I had imagined the above definition of
'averageness'. Looks like I started teaching the same time as you. The

kids

Post by vernon levy
aren't smarter yet they are now expected to get 5 A-C's at GCSE and
gain access to university education and the Government denies that
standards

have

Post by vernon levy
slipped. How has the teaching profession managed to let this evolution

of

Post by vernon levy
"averageness" take place without high profile protests?

There was once a time when it was necessary to be "above average" in
order to become a doctor, accountant, lecturer, teacher, etc.
Thankfully those days are over and even the below average can get by

I doubt it. Below average to-day would be < 5 A*-C GCSEs. I can't see many
people getting into medical school off that. While it might be less
academically demanding to get into teacher training, its still > than a
bare 5 A*-Cs and its rare for someone with Cs and Ds at GCSE to be
successful at A level at the required grades. So while there is no doubt
that intellectually weaker people thanin the past could get in here, its
an exaggeration to say they are below average performers. What has
happened is that the A level requirements to get into the most popular
courses at the prestige unis have gone up. That is why there is the
problem with the As as a ceiling.

Post by Michael Saunby
in what used to be
considered intellectually demanding occupations. This is significant as
it releases the smartest amongst us for more important and better paid
work producing food,

I didn't know you needed 4 As and a first to be a farm hand :-)

building roads and houses

Designing them perhaps, not so much building them.

, etc. i.e. the really important

Post by Michael Saunby
stuff.

Irony? No smileys so a bit difficult to tell ;-)

[Michael Saunby]

Post by Ian

Post by Michael Saunby

Post by vernon levy

When I started teaching the "average" was grade 4 CSE (E/F in GCSE).
If 50% are targeted for HE, it means the same people are then
expected to do a uni course and get a degree.

For quite a while I thought that I had imagined the above definition of
'averageness'. Looks like I started teaching the same time as you. The

kids

Post by vernon levy
aren't smarter yet they are now expected to get 5 A-C's at GCSE and
gain access to university education and the Government denies that
standards

have

Post by vernon levy
slipped. How has the teaching profession managed to let this evolution

of

Post by vernon levy
"averageness" take place without high profile protests?

There was once a time when it was necessary to be "above average" in
order to become a doctor, accountant, lecturer, teacher, etc.
Thankfully those days are over and even the below average can get by

I doubt it. Below average to-day would be < 5 A*-C GCSEs. I can't see many
people getting into medical school off that. While it might be less
academically demanding to get into teacher training, its still > than a
bare 5 A*-Cs and its rare for someone with Cs and Ds at GCSE to be
successful at A level at the required grades. So while there is no doubt
that intellectually weaker people thanin the past could get in here, its
an exaggeration to say they are below average performers. What has
happened is that the A level requirements to get into the most popular
courses at the prestige unis have gone up. That is why there is the
problem with the As as a ceiling.

Post by Michael Saunby
in what used to be
considered intellectually demanding occupations. This is significant as
it releases the smartest amongst us for more important and better paid
work producing food,

I didn't know you needed 4 As and a first to be a farm hand :-)

Not many farm-hands needed these days. I think the stats are that UK
farmers produce about half our food using less than 2% of the labour force,
probably the least labour intensive farming in the world and that in a
country that participates in the EU madness of farming subsidy and with a
government that measure employments in numbers not quality and certainly
not contribution. You might not "need" 4 As to run a farm but if that's
all you could manage then you probably wouldn't last long, just as 4 As
wouldn't get you far in professional football.

My brother-in-law runs a dairy farm and did get a first at uni, but then if
they were so inclined I expect a great many of the UK's farmers could do
so.

Post by Ian
building roads and houses
Designing them perhaps, not so much building them.

Well I know a few architects and I wouldn't trust most of them to build a
house. My grandfather was a joiner, which in the days of his father was
more of an architect-builder, just as in modern times there is no
restriction in entry to IT but only the best can really make it as
architect-coders.

Post by Ian
, etc. i.e. the really important

Post by Michael Saunby
stuff.

Irony? No smileys so a bit difficult to tell ;-)

Most societies can get by without teachers, even this one pays them less
than a decent plumber. Of course the quanity of useful work a plumber can
do is limited by her speed, hours worked, technology, etc. whereas for
teachers it's determined largely by class size and other traditional
features of an even more ancient practice than building.

Michael Saunby

P.S. Insert your own smilieys where and when you like :-)

[Ian]

Post by Michael Saunby

Post by Ian
I didn't know you needed 4 As and a first to be a farm hand :-)

Not many farm-hands needed these days. I think the stats are that UK
farmers produce about half our food using less than 2% of the labour force,

That includes the farmers so not too many of them either in the whole
scheme of things. And getting fewer round here. Lots of farms being sold
up with barn conversions galore.

Post by Michael Saunby
probably the least labour intensive farming in the world and that in a
country that participates in the EU madness of farming subsidy and with
a government that measure employments in numbers not quality and
certainly not contribution. You might not "need" 4 As to run a farm but
if that's all you could manage then you probably wouldn't last long,
just as 4 As wouldn't get you far in professional football.

I was just responding to your assertion that the smartest would be better
deployed farming. While it might give them a better quality of life, I
don't believe that youu need to be particularly smart to run a farm. Well
no more so than running any other business.

Post by Michael Saunby
My brother-in-law runs a dairy farm and did get a first at uni, but then
if they were so inclined I expect a great many of the UK's farmers could
do so.

But you could probably say that about manu people who haven't got firsts -
even some professional footballers. Depends what motivates you at that
period in your life. If when I was 18 someone had offered me 10 grand a
week to play football I probably wouldn't have gone to university.

Post by Michael Saunby

Post by Ian
building roads and houses
Designing them perhaps, not so much building them.

Well I know a few architects and I wouldn't trust most of them to build
a house. My grandfather was a joiner, which in the days of his father
was more of an architect-builder, just as in modern times there is no
restriction in entry to IT but only the best can really make it as
architect-coders.

You get design and build companies. I have a good friend who is a builder
and we go to the boxing periodically with the architects, engineers etc.
Again just another cross-section of brighter than average but not
exceptionally clever people. Just can't see why they would need to be.

Post by Michael Saunby

Post by Ian
, etc. i.e. the really important

Post by Michael Saunby
stuff.

Irony? No smileys so a bit difficult to tell ;-)

Most societies can get by without teachers, even this one pays them less
than a decent plumber.

Not really. I know a few plumbers. A self-employed plumber who runs a good
business will make more than a basic scale teacher but if you take account
of pension rights, holidays and the fact that certainly in secondary
schools most teachers are not on the basic scale, a plumber on a permanent
contract with a building contractor will not.

Post by Michael Saunby
Of course the quanity of useful work a plumber can do is limited by her
speed, hours worked, technology, etc. whereas for teachers it's
determined largely by class size and other traditional features of an
even more ancient practice than building.

Quality of life is what matters. Better to be a happy plumber than an
unhappy teacher. I suspect mostly the market sorts this stuff out.

Post by Michael Saunby
P.S. Insert your own smilieys where and when you like :-)

Oh I do a lot of what you post makes me smile ;-)

[`p]

Post by Michael Saunby
Not many farm-hands needed these days. I think the stats are that UK
farmers produce about half our food using less than 2% of the labour
force, probably the least labour intensive farming in the world and
that in a country that participates in the EU madness of farming
subsidy and with a government that measure employments in numbers not
quality and certainly
not contribution.

Well, we definitely agree about farmers getting subsidies. I'm sick of
seeing good crops being ploughed under round here year after year.
There are several "large" fields of wheat that surround where I live.
I often wander down through the fields (along the public
footpaths/bridlepaths) with the dog and the wee ones. The farmers that
work these fields consistently never harvest! This year I have watched
good wheat go beyond the dust in the husk! Then you read in the papers
that agrarian farmers have had a tough year ... shades of another
subsidy rip off heading our way as in the interesting way that foot and
mouth spread and how the "accounting and auditing" were carried out?

Post by Michael Saunby
P.S. Insert your own smilieys where and when you like :-)

Do the world a favour, don't elect anyone who wants to be a politician;
better yet (and as a Catholic I'm shocked to post this) support post
natal abortion on an elector's demand up to the age of 101 for
politicians.

[Ian]

Post by `p
Do the world a favour, don't elect anyone who wants to be a politician;
better yet (and as a Catholic I'm shocked to post this) support post
natal abortion on an elector's demand up to the age of 101 for
politicians.

er, that's a political statement ....:-)

[aonghus heatley]

Post by Michael Saunby
There was once a time when it was necessary to be "above average" in order
to become a doctor, accountant, lecturer, teacher, etc. Thankfully those
days are over and even the below average can get by in what used to be
considered intellectually demanding occupations. This is significant as it
releases the smartest amongst us for more important and better paid work
producing food, building roads and houses, etc. i.e. the really important
stuff.
Michael Saunby

What a load of rubbish. You can take the whole egalitarian ideal of
eduction for all and sundry a little bit too far. I don't want
someone average as my doctor, as my lecturer or teaching my children.
Have you seen some of the people enrolled at teaching colleges over
the country recently? Complete and utter morons, only interested in
big brother, eastenders and vodka with no knowledge of anything
important and who don't themselves value educational achievement.
More needs to be done to attract better quality people - above average
people - into the teaching profession.

I think you're confusing ability with class - I certainly value more
working class students entering those professions and excelling, but I
don't want this to be at a cost of academic rigor... and it shouldn't
have to be.

[Michael Saunby]

Post by aonghus heatley

Post by Michael Saunby
There was once a time when it was necessary to be "above average" in order
to become a doctor, accountant, lecturer, teacher, etc. Thankfully those
days are over and even the below average can get by in what used to be
considered intellectually demanding occupations. This is significant as it
releases the smartest amongst us for more important and better paid work
producing food, building roads and houses, etc. i.e. the really important
stuff.
Michael Saunby

What a load of rubbish. You can take the whole egalitarian ideal of
eduction for all and sundry a little bit too far. I don't want
someone average as my doctor, as my lecturer or teaching my children.

Well you might not like it but times do change. A century ago being a
postman was very much a job for the above average - because the average
couldn't read or write. Today it's possible be a doctor or teacher and be
damn near inumerate, because computers and calculators remove the need for
many professionals to actually do arithmetic using their own wits. As time
goes on, more and more "thinking" is done bay machines, not people.

Post by aonghus heatley
Have you seen some of the people enrolled at teaching colleges over
the country recently? Complete and utter morons, only interested in
big brother, eastenders and vodka with no knowledge of anything
important and who don't themselves value educational achievement.

That's just a local problem. The solution is to recruit doctors,
architects, teachers, etc. from countries with a more reliable source of
well trained professionals.

Post by aonghus heatley
More needs to be done to attract better quality people - above average
people - into the teaching profession.

If only folks wanted to learn. Until they do what's the point?

Post by aonghus heatley
I think you're confusing ability with class - I certainly value more
working class students entering those professions and excelling, but I
don't want this to be at a cost of academic rigor... and it shouldn't
have to be.

Not at all. I regarding being a decent craftsman a more noble calling than
being a school teacher. Crafts were passed on from one generation to the
next long before state education was invented.

Michael Saunby

[Ian]

Post by Michael Saunby
Well you might not like it but times do change. A century ago being a
postman was very much a job for the above average - because the average
couldn't read or write. Today it's possible be a doctor or teacher and
be damn near inumerate, because computers and calculators remove the
need for many professionals to actually do arithmetic using their own
wits.

No. You still need a feel for number to get a A/A* grade in maths at GCSE
and few medical students would not get this. They also need good grade A
levels in science and/or maths so to say they could be innumerate is
stretching the imagination. While the job itself might require very little
maths, the selection procedures and competition for popular subjects like
medicine mean the academic levels required are likely to be above the
specific needs of the job. Teaching is a bit different.In some subjects,
and maths is a good example, it is exceedingly difficult in secondary to
recruit. This is in part the same reason why Matthew is having problems
with CS recruitment. There are only so many people in the population
capable of a A in A level maths and they are in demand from math scourses,
science, engineering, accountancy, CS, teaching etc etc. Supply and
demand.

Post by Michael Saunby
As time
goes on, more and more "thinking" is done bay machines, not people.

Nope, machines don't think. In general formal cognitive processes that
children get around 8-11 are pretty difficult to achieve in any machine.
USing a calculator for arithmetic operations only requires thinking if its
part of higher order problem solving. In short I have yet to come across a
calculator that can think. There are some very expensive and sophisticated
computer systems that can appear ro think in very specialised
circumstances but that's about it.

Post by Michael Saunby

Have you seen some of the people enrolled at teaching colleges over the
country recently? Complete and utter morons, only interested in big
brother, eastenders and vodka with no knowledge of anything important
and who don't themselves value educational achievement.

That's just a local problem. The solution is to recruit doctors,
architects, teachers, etc. from countries with a more reliable source of
well trained professionals.

Troll :-)

Post by Michael Saunby

More needs to be done to attract better quality people - above average
people - into the teaching profession.

If only folks wanted to learn. Until they do what's the point?

Most people want to learn, just not the things you might think its
valuable to teach.

Post by Michael Saunby

I think you're confusing ability with class - I certainly value more
working class students entering those professions and excelling, but I
don't want this to be at a cost of academic rigor... and it shouldn't
have to be.

Not at all. I regarding being a decent craftsman a more noble calling
than being a school teacher. Crafts were passed on from one generation
to the next long before state education was invented.

So being old means its good :-) How old are you ;-)

[Mark Evans]

Post by Michael Saunby

Post by aonghus heatley

Post by Michael Saunby
There was once a time when it was necessary to be "above average" in

order

Post by aonghus heatley

Post by Michael Saunby
to become a doctor, accountant, lecturer, teacher, etc. Thankfully

those

Post by aonghus heatley

Post by Michael Saunby
days are over and even the below average can get by in what used to be
considered intellectually demanding occupations. This is significant as

it

Post by aonghus heatley

Post by Michael Saunby
releases the smartest amongst us for more important and better paid

work

Post by aonghus heatley

Post by Michael Saunby
producing food, building roads and houses, etc. i.e. the really

important

Post by aonghus heatley

Post by Michael Saunby
stuff.
Michael Saunby

What a load of rubbish. You can take the whole egalitarian ideal of
eduction for all and sundry a little bit too far. I don't want
someone average as my doctor, as my lecturer or teaching my children.

Well you might not like it but times do change. A century ago being a
postman was very much a job for the above average - because the average
couldn't read or write. Today it's possible be a doctor or teacher and be
damn near inumerate, because computers and calculators remove the need for
many professionals to actually do arithmetic using their own wits. As time
goes on, more and more "thinking" is done bay machines, not people.

Problem is that machines are "garbage in/garbage out".
The basic problem with someone who just relys on a
machine is that they can't tell when the answer which
pops up is nonsensical.

[Michael Saunby]

Post by Mark Evans

Post by Michael Saunby

Post by aonghus heatley

Post by Michael Saunby
There was once a time when it was necessary to be "above average" in

order

Post by aonghus heatley

Post by Michael Saunby
to become a doctor, accountant, lecturer, teacher, etc. Thankfully

those

Post by aonghus heatley

Post by Michael Saunby
days are over and even the below average can get by in what used to be
considered intellectually demanding occupations. This is

significant as

Post by Mark Evans

Post by Michael Saunby
it

Post by aonghus heatley

Post by Michael Saunby
releases the smartest amongst us for more important and better paid

work

Post by aonghus heatley

Post by Michael Saunby
producing food, building roads and houses, etc. i.e. the really

important

Post by aonghus heatley

Post by Michael Saunby
stuff.
Michael Saunby

What a load of rubbish. You can take the whole egalitarian ideal of
eduction for all and sundry a little bit too far. I don't want
someone average as my doctor, as my lecturer or teaching my children.

Well you might not like it but times do change. A century ago being a
postman was very much a job for the above average - because the average
couldn't read or write. Today it's possible be a doctor or teacher and be
damn near inumerate, because computers and calculators remove the need for
many professionals to actually do arithmetic using their own wits. As time
goes on, more and more "thinking" is done bay machines, not people.

Problem is that machines are "garbage in/garbage out".
The basic problem with someone who just relys on a
machine is that they can't tell when the answer which
pops up is nonsensical.

Sure which is why graduates are employed to fly airliners, work as GPs,
manage factories, etc. However a great deal of decision making is now
machine assisted (informated rather than automated) and that reduces the
need for many of the thinking skills once needed.

Michael Saunby

[Ian]

Post by Michael Saunby

Problem is that machines are "garbage in/garbage out". The basic
problem with someone who just relys on a machine is that they can't
tell when the answer which pops up is nonsensical.

Sure which is why graduates are employed to fly airliners, work as GPs,
manage factories, etc. However a great deal of decision making is now
machine assisted (informated rather than automated) and that reduces the
need for many of the thinking skills once needed.

It changes the pardigm. The type of thinking required is different perhaps
but thnking is still required. More people are expected to think because
more jobs are people orientated, in entertainment, hospitality, sales etc.
This requires thinking about how the other person is thinking to do it
well. Its why paper and pencil tests are a limited tool for deciding who
is good at what. We are in the process of selecting for a couple of jobs
at the moment, and while the candidates need technical skils, it won't
matter how technically able they are if they are not able to make
judgements about the feelings of the people they are dealing with.

[aonghus heatley]

Post by Michael Saunby

Post by aonghus heatley

Post by Michael Saunby
There was once a time when it was necessary to be "above average" in

order

Post by aonghus heatley

Post by Michael Saunby
to become a doctor, accountant, lecturer, teacher, etc. Thankfully

those

Post by aonghus heatley

Post by Michael Saunby
days are over and even the below average can get by in what used to be
considered intellectually demanding occupations. This is significant as

it

Post by aonghus heatley

Post by Michael Saunby
releases the smartest amongst us for more important and better paid

work

Post by aonghus heatley

Post by Michael Saunby
producing food, building roads and houses, etc. i.e. the really

important

Post by aonghus heatley

Post by Michael Saunby
stuff.
Michael Saunby

What a load of rubbish. You can take the whole egalitarian ideal of
eduction for all and sundry a little bit too far. I don't want
someone average as my doctor, as my lecturer or teaching my children.

Well you might not like it but times do change. A century ago being a
postman was very much a job for the above average - because the average
couldn't read or write. Today it's possible be a doctor or teacher and be
damn near inumerate, because computers and calculators remove the need for
many professionals to actually do arithmetic using their own wits. As time
goes on, more and more "thinking" is done bay machines, not people.

I think you underestimate how difficult it is to actually become a
doctor or similar. While some professions, like law, have become far
too easy to get into, others, and quite rightly so, only choose an
elite.

Post by Michael Saunby

Post by aonghus heatley
Have you seen some of the people enrolled at teaching colleges over
the country recently? Complete and utter morons, only interested in
big brother, eastenders and vodka with no knowledge of anything
important and who don't themselves value educational achievement.

That's just a local problem. The solution is to recruit doctors,
architects, teachers, etc. from countries with a more reliable source of
well trained professionals.

A temporary measure and one we shouln't be relying on. Plus its not
exactly great for the countries we poach off.

Post by Michael Saunby

Post by aonghus heatley
More needs to be done to attract better quality people - above average
people - into the teaching profession.

If only folks wanted to learn. Until they do what's the point?

Its the wrong kind of people seeking entry to the profession... there
are plenty of people who wouldn't mind teaching at a university, but
who would detest teaching in a school... therefore something needs to
be done to attract people into teaching.

Post by Michael Saunby

Post by aonghus heatley
I think you're confusing ability with class - I certainly value more
working class students entering those professions and excelling, but I
don't want this to be at a cost of academic rigor... and it shouldn't
have to be.

Not at all. I regarding being a decent craftsman a more noble calling than
being a school teacher. Crafts were passed on from one generation to the
next long before state education was invented.

Personal opinion, but I value teachers more than craftsmen.

Post by Michael Saunby
Michael Saunby

[Michael Saunby]

Post by aonghus heatley

Post by Michael Saunby

Post by aonghus heatley

Post by Michael Saunby
There was once a time when it was necessary to be "above average" in

order

Post by aonghus heatley

Post by Michael Saunby
to become a doctor, accountant, lecturer, teacher, etc. Thankfully

those

Post by aonghus heatley

Post by Michael Saunby
days are over and even the below average can get by in what used to be
considered intellectually demanding occupations. This is

significant as

Post by aonghus heatley

Post by Michael Saunby
it

Post by aonghus heatley

Post by Michael Saunby
releases the smartest amongst us for more important and better paid

work

Post by aonghus heatley

Post by Michael Saunby
producing food, building roads and houses, etc. i.e. the really

important

Post by aonghus heatley

Post by Michael Saunby
stuff.
Michael Saunby

What a load of rubbish. You can take the whole egalitarian ideal of
eduction for all and sundry a little bit too far. I don't want
someone average as my doctor, as my lecturer or teaching my children.

Well you might not like it but times do change. A century ago being a
postman was very much a job for the above average - because the average
couldn't read or write. Today it's possible be a doctor or teacher and be
damn near inumerate, because computers and calculators remove the need for
many professionals to actually do arithmetic using their own wits. As time
goes on, more and more "thinking" is done bay machines, not people.

I think you underestimate how difficult it is to actually become a
doctor or similar. While some professions, like law, have become far
too easy to get into, others, and quite rightly so, only choose an
elite.

I wasn't saying it was easy to gain entry - it's a very restrictive
profession, almost, but not quite, as hard as becomming a diplomat. That
does mean you actually have to be that good at passing exams to actually be
a diplomat or doctor, just that if you're not you'll never get to be one,
you'll have to become a dentist or vet, or whatever. Same skills, near
enough, just not so hard to get in - in those countries who operate systems
of the kind found in the UK.

Post by aonghus heatley

Post by Michael Saunby

Post by aonghus heatley
Have you seen some of the people enrolled at teaching colleges over
the country recently? Complete and utter morons, only interested in
big brother, eastenders and vodka with no knowledge of anything
important and who don't themselves value educational achievement.

That's just a local problem. The solution is to recruit doctors,
architects, teachers, etc. from countries with a more reliable source of
well trained professionals.

A temporary measure and one we shouln't be relying on. Plus its not
exactly great for the countries we poach off.

Swings and roundabouts.

Post by aonghus heatley

Post by Michael Saunby

Post by aonghus heatley
More needs to be done to attract better quality people - above average
people - into the teaching profession.

If only folks wanted to learn. Until they do what's the point?

Its the wrong kind of people seeking entry to the profession... there
are plenty of people who wouldn't mind teaching at a university, but
who would detest teaching in a school... therefore something needs to
be done to attract people into teaching.

Post by Michael Saunby

Post by aonghus heatley
I think you're confusing ability with class - I certainly value more
working class students entering those professions and excelling, but I
don't want this to be at a cost of academic rigor... and it shouldn't
have to be.

Not at all. I regarding being a decent craftsman a more noble calling than
being a school teacher. Crafts were passed on from one generation to the
next long before state education was invented.

Personal opinion, but I value teachers more than craftsmen.

Until your house falls down because it was built by idiots.

Michael Saunby

[Ian]

Post by Michael Saunby
I wasn't saying it was easy to gain entry - it's a very restrictive
profession, almost, but not quite, as hard as becomming a diplomat.
That does mean you actually have to be that good at passing exams to
actually be a diplomat or doctor, just that if you're not you'll never
get to be one, you'll have to become a dentist or vet,

You are joking. Getting to be a vet is more demanding than being a doctor!

Thing is there are not too many soft options, there is a lot of
competition to get into most professions.

Post by Ian

Post by Michael Saunby
I wasn't saying it was easy to gain entry - it's a very restrictive
profession, almost, but not quite, as hard as becomming a diplomat.
That does mean you actually have to be that good at passing exams to
actually be a diplomat or doctor, just that if you're not you'll never
get to be one, you'll have to become a dentist or vet,

You are joking. Getting to be a vet is more demanding than being a doctor!
Thing is there are not too many soft options, there is a lot of
competition to get into most professions.

What are the soft options?

Another question, when you get lots of CVs for a job, do you
automatically bin the ones that have degrees from the newer
universities? die Are you just looking for people with degrees from
say the top 20 Sunni's such as you find in the Times league tables.
How common is the practice?

[Ian]

Post by

Post by Ian

Post by Michael Saunby
I wasn't saying it was easy to gain entry - it's a very restrictive
profession, almost, but not quite, as hard as becomming a diplomat.
That does mean you actually have to be that good at passing exams to
actually be a diplomat or doctor, just that if you're not you'll never
get to be one, you'll have to become a dentist or vet,

You are joking. Getting to be a vet is more demanding than being a doctor!
Thing is there are not too many soft options, there is a lot of
competition to get into most professions.

What are the soft options?

Depends on what you mean by soft. Its easier to get into teaching than
medicine. Academically easier to get in the Police than Dentistry.

Post by
Another question, when you get lots of CVs for a job, do you
automatically bin the ones that have degrees from the newer
universities?

No, the ones that get binned tend to be the ones that have made no effort
to match their application to the job spec.

Post by
Are you just looking for people with degrees from say the top 20 Sunni's
such as you find in the Times league tables. How common is the practice?

A lot depends on circumstance. We are a small company so we tend to have
to recruit when someone leaves. At this time of the year most of the fresh
graduates have jobs and those who have several years of the required
experience are often too expensive for us to employ and are probably
overkill for what we need. A lot comes down to cost-benefit for the
company. Its also good to have evidence that the candidate has decent
interpersonal skills. The nature of our business means everyone has to
deal directly with customers so a code monkey with a first from a top uni.
that sits in the corner and doen't communicate is no good. Commitment to
continue learning is also important and that includes learning about
people, what motivates them etc not just technical stuff - that's the easy
bit. Again we haven't a lot of time to provide formal training so it has
to be self-motivated. Not ideal but a commercial reality. If they need a
formal structure of lectures etc to learn they are probably no good to us.

[Dr A. N. Walker]

[...]. A century ago being a
postman was very much a job for the above average - because the average
couldn't read or write.

It is indeed very possible that in 1904 "postman" was a better
job than average, given the huge numbers of farm labourers, servants,
etc.; but not for that reason. By then, we had had compulsory primary
education for some decades.

Today it's possible be a doctor or teacher and be
damn near inumerate,

It has always been possible to be a doctor or teacher and be
"damn near innumerate". In my childhood, medicine was academically
a low-grade subject for which the main requirements were a relative in
the profession, an ability to remember the names of bones, and fluency
in Latin. At least today you can add good science A-levels to the list
as compensation for the loss of Latin. Most teachers have always been
useless at maths; my mother [not that good herself] had to do *all*
the maths teaching in her primary school as her colleagues -- splendid
teachers though they may have been in other ways -- turned pale at the
thought of anything more than addition tables. The vast majority of
people are DNI, always have been, always will be.

because computers and calculators remove the need for
many professionals to actually do arithmetic using their own wits. [...]

And this is bad because ...? If I were a GP, or a nurse, or
a shopkeeper, then despite a much greater than average facility with
mental or written arithmetic, I would still prefer to use the computer
[or the till] to calculate doses, change, etc. I know how often I
make mistakes, and even 0.1% of dead patients because of them is not
good news.

[John Cartmell]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
And this is bad because ...? If I were a GP, or a nurse, or
a shopkeeper, then despite a much greater than average facility with
mental or written arithmetic, I would still prefer to use the computer
[or the till] to calculate doses, change, etc. I know how often I
make mistakes, and even 0.1% of dead patients because of them is not
good news.

Reliance on machine computed output has probably caused more (and greater)
overdoses that anything else.

[Michael Saunby]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

[...]. A century ago being a
postman was very much a job for the above average - because the average
couldn't read or write.

It is indeed very possible that in 1904 "postman" was a better
job than average, given the huge numbers of farm labourers, servants,
etc.; but not for that reason. By then, we had had compulsory primary
education for some decades.

Actually I suspect it was compulsory elementary education as compulsory
primary education was most likely only introduced when secondary education
was introduced - or the civil servants of the day were a damn sight more
forward thinking than those of today. Not hard I'll grant, but still
unlikely.

Even so by 1904 only a very tiny proportion of the population would have
had such an education so I'll hazard an educated guess than by 1904 it was
still the case that most postmen had been privately educated.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Today it's possible be a doctor or teacher and be
damn near inumerate,

It has always been possible to be a doctor or teacher and be
"damn near innumerate". In my childhood, medicine was academically
a low-grade subject for which the main requirements were a relative in
the profession, an ability to remember the names of bones, and fluency
in Latin. At least today you can add good science A-levels to the list

And no doubt the same was true for postmasters, etc. until at least after
WWI and in some professions until after WWII.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
as compensation for the loss of Latin. Most teachers have always been
useless at maths; my mother [not that good herself] had to do *all*
the maths teaching in her primary school as her colleagues -- splendid
teachers though they may have been in other ways -- turned pale at the
thought of anything more than addition tables. The vast majority of
people are DNI, always have been, always will be.

because computers and calculators remove the need for
many professionals to actually do arithmetic using their own wits. [...]

And this is bad because ...? If I were a GP, or a nurse, or

I'm not saying it's bad just noting that the measures we use today to
filter for entry into professions - education, family background, etc.
aren't necessarily important for the practice of the profession. But then
what would I know, I'm a white male graduate who works alongside hundreds
of other white male graduates.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
a shopkeeper, then despite a much greater than average facility with
mental or written arithmetic, I would still prefer to use the computer
[or the till] to calculate doses, change, etc. I know how often I
make mistakes, and even 0.1% of dead patients because of them is not
good news.

Or indeed plumbers. You'd be surprised by the mess it makes when pressure
calculations for boilers aren't done quite right.


Michael Saunby

[John Porcella]

Post by Michael Saunby

Post by Jeremey Williams
Are 'new' university degrees (ie ex polytechnics etc) easier to do
than from traditional universities. I think from what I have gathered
that the answer is yes. As it has been said that you have to teach to
the level you are given. No good making them all do hard stuff and
most of them failing and making the university look bad in marketing
terms is there?
I think this probably applies in particular to computer related
degrees, where lots of the need for maths and programming are removed
from the degrees the new universities run.

So how difficult should a degree be? Indeed how hard should it be to get
into university?
I guess if you want to get into one of the "best" universities then it's
reasonable that entry be a competition. Likewise if you want to get one of
the few top civil service jobs with good pay and pension and no real need
to do much work then again it should be a competition. If private
companies also wish to make appointments on such a basis then there's
nothing to stop them doing so too.
Meanwhile, back in the nornal world where most of us study and work it
makes most sense if a degree teaches that which is needed to practice the
profession, whether it be architecture, medicine, IT, or whatever, rather
than set a series of pointless challenges.

Not everybody would agree! If you want to be an accountant, for instance,
you can take professional accountancy examinations. But if you want to
learn about the strengths and weaknesses of accountancy for a purely (or
mainly) academic purpose, then that is what universities might be for.

[Michael Saunby]

Post by John Porcella

Post by Michael Saunby

Post by Jeremey Williams
Are 'new' university degrees (ie ex polytechnics etc) easier to do
than from traditional universities. I think from what I have gathered
that the answer is yes. As it has been said that you have to teach to
the level you are given. No good making them all do hard stuff and
most of them failing and making the university look bad in marketing
terms is there?
I think this probably applies in particular to computer related
degrees, where lots of the need for maths and programming are removed
from the degrees the new universities run.

So how difficult should a degree be? Indeed how hard should it be to get
into university?
I guess if you want to get into one of the "best" universities then it's
reasonable that entry be a competition. Likewise if you want to get

one

Post by John Porcella
of

Post by Michael Saunby
the few top civil service jobs with good pay and pension and no real need
to do much work then again it should be a competition. If private
companies also wish to make appointments on such a basis then there's
nothing to stop them doing so too.
Meanwhile, back in the nornal world where most of us study and work it
makes most sense if a degree teaches that which is needed to practice the
profession, whether it be architecture, medicine, IT, or whatever, rather
than set a series of pointless challenges.

Not everybody would agree! If you want to be an accountant, for instance,
you can take professional accountancy examinations. But if you want to
learn about the strengths and weaknesses of accountancy for a purely (or
mainly) academic purpose, then that is what universities might be for.

Interesting, so who should pay, and who should choose at 18 to follow such
a career, and why? I'd guess that global demand for such wizards is not
strong but perhaps important enough that they be paid millions so could
probably fund their own study.

Perhaps the truth is that at 18 damn few people want to be accountants,
though of course in time a large proportion of graduates become
accountants, just as many will marry, have children, buy an Audi, etc. If
it wasn't for the fantastic pay, travel and sex, hardly any would want to
be an academic expert in accountancy.

Of course a lot of folks go to university for the cheap beer and a few sad
individuals go because they want to "get a good job". It hardly matters
what they study.

Michael Saunby

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Michael Saunby

Post by John Porcella
Not everybody would agree! If you want to be an accountant, for
instance, you can take professional accountancy examinations. But if
you want to learn about the strengths and weaknesses of accountancy for
a purely (or mainly) academic purpose, then that is what universities
might be for.

Interesting, so who should pay, and who should choose at 18 to follow such
a career, and why? I'd guess that global demand for such wizards is not
strong but perhaps important enough that they be paid millions so could
probably fund their own study.

These days a degree seems to be demanded for almost any desk job
beyond purely secretarial. I suspect there are now very few people who
take professionmal accountacny aexams without already having a degree
behind them.

Post by Michael Saunby
Perhaps the truth is that at 18 damn few people want to be accountants,
though of course in time a large proportion of graduates become
accountants, just as many will marry, have children, buy an Audi, etc. If
it wasn't for the fantastic pay, travel and sex, hardly any would want to
be an academic expert in accountancy.

You would be surprised. There are hundreds upon huindreds of young
people who come to university claiming to want to be accountants or
business managers or the like. I have been dealing with almost nothing
else during Clearing. The Business Management degree courses filled up
quickly everywhere, so in Computer Science I've been left with all the
people with C and D grades in weak A-level who couldn't get into them
and are asking to go into our Computer Science and Business Management
degree programme, hoping it wouild serve as a backdoor to going into
Business Management.

Post by Michael Saunby
Of course a lot of folks go to university for the cheap beer and a few sad
individuals go because they want to "get a good job". It hardly matters
what they study.

In my experience this is completely wrong. Unfortunately, these days
most university applicants seem obsessed with wanting to "get a good
job" and instead of studying for the fun of it and in order to grow up
and expand intellectually, all they are interested in is doing
whatever it takes to get "a good job" and they mean being an
accountant etc. It is much harder and much less fun to teach such
people, because their minds are closed and they are not really
interested in what you're teaching them - they're just looking for a
meal ticket.

Matthew Huntbach

[Ian]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
In my experience this is completely wrong. Unfortunately, these days
most university applicants seem obsessed with wanting to "get a good
job" and instead of studying for the fun of it and in order to grow up
and expand intellectually, all they are interested in is doing whatever
it takes to get "a good job" and they mean being an accountant etc. It
is much harder and much less fun to teach such people, because their
minds are closed and they are not really interested in what you're
teaching them - they're just looking for a meal ticket.

I supppose we should then distinguish between computer science as a hobby
and computer science for a career.

I'd quite like the luxury of taking 3 years out to study computers for the
hell of it. Maybe when I retire I'll apply to come on your course for the
interest ;-)

On second thoughts, if I want to expand intellectually there are many
ways I can do it without the formal constraints of a university course
especially given the immediate availability of information these days.
Maybe universities as they used to be are just redundant?

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Ian

Post by Matthew Huntbach
In my experience this is completely wrong. Unfortunately, these days
most university applicants seem obsessed with wanting to "get a good
job" and instead of studying for the fun of it and in order to grow up
and expand intellectually, all they are interested in is doing whatever
it takes to get "a good job" and they mean being an accountant etc. It
is much harder and much less fun to teach such people, because their
minds are closed and they are not really interested in what you're
teaching them - they're just looking for a meal ticket.

I supppose we should then distinguish between computer science as a hobby
and computer science for a career.
I'd quite like the luxury of taking 3 years out to study computers for the
hell of it. Maybe when I retire I'll apply to come on your course for the
interest ;-)

Ah, but those who are doing it primarily out of interest tend to
emerge with the first class degrees and the real skill and
understanding in Computer Science. Those who are doing it "just to get
a good job" tend to struggle and to drop out as soon as it becomes a
bit intellectually demanding. My point is that people with a genuine
enthusiasm for life and all it offers tend to be better people -
better at studying, better at whatever job they turn to. So there
isn't the conflict you suggest, quite the reverse. Someone who is only
in it "to get a good job" is likely to become an employee who is only
in it "to get paid well" i.e. a shirker who won't put himself out and
will try and get by with thej minimum effort.

Post by Ian
On second thoughts, if I want to expand intellectually there are many
ways I can do it without the formal constraints of a university course
especially given the immediate availability of information these days.
Maybe universities as they used to be are just redundant?

The discipline of fitting into the constraints of a university degree
means your study is better directed and led by people who are
professionally involved in advancing the subject. What you say is a
bit like saying "I don't need to be taught to play a musical
instrument, or to go through all the constraints of playing scales etc
- I can just pick it up and do it". Of course, in some genres of music
this works, in others it doesn't. Same applies to work with computers.

Matthew Huntbach

[Ian]

Post by Ian

Post by Matthew Huntbach
In my experience this is completely wrong. Unfortunately, these days
most university applicants seem obsessed with wanting to "get a good
job" and instead of studying for the fun of it and in order to grow
up and expand intellectually, all they are interested in is doing
whatever it takes to get "a good job" and they mean being an
accountant etc. It is much harder and much less fun to teach such
people, because their minds are closed and they are not really
interested in what you're teaching them - they're just looking for a
meal ticket.

I supppose we should then distinguish between computer science as a
hobby and computer science for a career.
I'd quite like the luxury of taking 3 years out to study computers for
the hell of it. Maybe when I retire I'll apply to come on your course
for the interest ;-)

Ah, but those who are doing it primarily out of interest tend to emerge
with the first class degrees and the real skill and understanding in
Computer Science.

But I can do that without a first or a University course. There is plenty
of free information about and plenty of people I can consult. The only
real reason why I would go on a University course is for the social life
or to get a bit of paper to say I had done it and the only real reason to
do that is to get a job ;-)

Those who are doing it "just to get
a good job" tend to struggle and to drop out as soon as it becomes a bit
intellectually demanding.

That depends on how badly they want the job. I have taught a few wanabe
medics who slogged through A level physics because they wanted to be
Doctors not physicists and it was the Dr bit that motivated them enough to
get through.

My point is that people with a genuine enthusiasm for life and all it
offers tend to be better people -

I agree, but a genuine enthusiasm for life could be a genuine enthusiasm
for a particular type of job, different value systems to yours - in fact
most of the education research seems to point to the fact that a context
for learning that is motivating to the student is very important. The snag
is if the teacher believes their subject to be the only worthwhile context
in itself. That will only motivate a tiny minority who then become Uni.
lecturers and wonder why others aren't thinking as they do.

better at studying, better at whatever job they turn to. So there isn't
the conflict you suggest, quite the reverse. Someone who is only in it
"to get a good job" is likely to become an employee who is only in it
"to get paid well" i.e. a shirker who won't put himself out and will try
and get by with thej minimum effort.

Or conversely is so wrapped up in the elegance of their algorith they
forgot the company goes bankrupt because the customers need attention.
Look, I have employed all these types at one time or another. In business
what you really want is a focus on the business. The other stuff can well
be interesting - I enjoy computer programming but I don't get much time to
do it these days - but extending and growing the business is fun too.
Without the business there is no framework for the process. Good teachers
are generally interested in the process of learning, what motivates people
to learn, not primarily their subject although they are probably
interested in that too. Its not a case of one or the other.

Post by Ian
On second thoughts, if I want to expand intellectually there are many
ways I can do it without the formal constraints of a university course
especially given the immediate availability of information these days.
Maybe universities as they used to be are just redundant?

The discipline of fitting into the constraints of a university degree
means your study is better directed and led by people who are
professionally involved in advancing the subject.

:-) You would say that wouldn't you? I am a university graduate. I have a
MSc too but I doubt I need a university to provide the things you cite to
learn. I have learnt a lot more since Uni than at it. I direct my learning
to the things I'm interested in and need to know. Why take a course that
will teach me a load of things I'm not really interested in in order to
learn a few things that I am?

What you say is a
bit like saying "I don't need to be taught to play a musical instrument,

Some people don't and few people go to university to do it. In fact some
very accomplished and talented musicians have earned a lot of money
withoout the constraints of formal tuition and certainly not a university.

or to go through all the constraints of playing scales etc

Why do you have to go to Uni. to practise scales? My son spent hours and
hours practising scales in his teens and is very accomplished player. He
does a mean Bach Toccta Fugue. He did have a teacher but not at a
university and that teacher didn't teach him a set syllabus but adapted
the material to suit the players interest. My son still enjoys his music
and did a CAD degree at Uni. I'll let you guess which he does most now.
And he has great enthusiasm for life, playing football, racing cars,
powerlifting and working with me running the business. He didn't get a
first but who cares?

- I can just pick it up and do it". Of course, in some genres of music
this works, in others it doesn't. Same applies to work with computers.

I didn't say I could pick it up, but I have aquired the skills of learning
how to learn. If I need or want to know something I'll find out how to do
it - maybe from someone, from a book from the Internet or wherever. Those
skills could be taught pre-university but the dependency on formal
learning institutions tied to a formal exam system makes it very
difficult. The main role you fulfil is actually a filter for employers and
the same is largely true of secondary schools whether you like it or not.
Maybe its the only practical way of doing things. Who knows?

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Ian

Post by Ian

Post by Matthew Huntbach
In my experience this is completely wrong. Unfortunately, these days
most university applicants seem obsessed with wanting to "get a good
job" and instead of studying for the fun of it and in order to grow
up and expand intellectually, all they are interested in is doing
whatever it takes to get "a good job" and they mean being an
accountant etc. It is much harder and much less fun to teach such
people, because their minds are closed and they are not really
interested in what you're teaching them - they're just looking for a
meal ticket.

I supppose we should then distinguish between computer science as a
hobby and computer science for a career.
I'd quite like the luxury of taking 3 years out to study computers for
the hell of it. Maybe when I retire I'll apply to come on your course
for the interest ;-)

Ah, but those who are doing it primarily out of interest tend to emerge
with the first class degrees and the real skill and understanding in
Computer Science.

But I can do that without a first or a University course. There is plenty
of free information about and plenty of people I can consult. The only
real reason why I would go on a University course is for the social life
or to get a bit of paper to say I had done it and the only real reason to
do that is to get a job ;-)

Well, to some extent getting a degree is about using the sources of
information and the people to consult which the university provides.
Someone who is genuinely interested in the subject does that - they go
to the library and read what books they can find there, they knock on
the doors of the lecturers who are experts in the subject and ask them
questions, they make use of the computing facilities to explore
websites on the subject. But the student I am complaining about, the
one narrowly focussed on doing the degree to get a job does none of
this. Instead he expects lectures to spoonfeed him information, and
the only questiions he asks is "will this come up in the exam?" and
"is this piece of work marked?".

Post by Ian

My point is that people with a genuine enthusiasm for life and all it
offers tend to be better people -

I agree, but a genuine enthusiasm for life could be a genuine enthusiasm
for a particular type of job, different value systems to yours - in fact
most of the education research seems to point to the fact that a context
for learning that is motivating to the student is very important. The snag
is if the teacher believes their subject to be the only worthwhile context
in itself. That will only motivate a tiny minority who then become Uni.
lecturers and wonder why others aren't thinking as they do.

No, I don't believe the only worthwhile context of my subject is
itself. You do seem to have an enormous amount of prejudice against
academics, and this appears to be strongly colouring what you say,
leading you to issue this long anti-academic diatribe in reponse to a
simple point I made. The main thing in the point was actually to
counter someone who suggested that most students were mainly
interested in the social life and paid little attention to employment
prospects in a degree.

My point is that if you are the sort of person who given a task does
it with enthusiasm, you are likely to do any task you are given with
enthusiasm, whether that is getting a degree or doing a paid job.

Post by Ian

better at studying, better at whatever job they turn to. So there isn't
the conflict you suggest, quite the reverse. Someone who is only in it
"to get a good job" is likely to become an employee who is only in it
"to get paid well" i.e. a shirker who won't put himself out and will try
and get by with the minimum effort.

Or conversely is so wrapped up in the elegance of their algorith they
forgot the company goes bankrupt because the customers need attention.

That sounds like bad management in the company. Employ someone who is
good at algorithms to deal with algorithms, employ someone who is good
at customer relations to deal with customer relations. However, I find
*very* few of my students are the sort who would get obsessed with
elegant algorithms. These days it seems the sort of more theoretical
computer science you seem to think all students on a CS degree spend
all their time doing isn't very popular. I find most students chose
very practical things like network management or databases or website
construction for their final year projects. It's hard to find anyone
who is interested in doing something more theoretical.

Having said that, of course of you build a big system and the thing
runs at an appallingly slow rate because no-one thought through the
algorithms used and realised the time would blow up once applied to
real world amounts of data, you have a problem - and a not uncommon
problem judging by the manuy well documented software project
failures.

Post by Ian
Look, I have employed all these types at one time or another. In business
what you really want is a focus on the business. The other stuff can well
be interesting - I enjoy computer programming but I don't get much time to
do it these days - but extending and growing the business is fun too.

Sure, the same is true with me. I enjoy programming and computational
theory. But I also enjoy extending and growing the business i.e.
attracting good students and putting on a good and worthwhile degree.
If I didn't enjoy this side of it, I wouldn't have spent so many years
as admissions tutor.

Post by Ian
Without the business there is no framework for the process. Good teachers
are generally interested in the process of learning, what motivates people
to learn, not primarily their subject although they are probably
interested in that too. Its not a case of one or the other.

The process of learning interest me a great deal. In particular, why
it is that so many people find programming to be "hard", but a small
number take to it naturally. Having taken on the job of a lecturer, I
find the teaching and learning side of it fascinating, to the point
where my academic career has suffered since I don't do as much theory
research as I ought.

Post by Ian

The discipline of fitting into the constraints of a university degree
means your study is better directed and led by people who are
professionally involved in advancing the subject.

:-) You would say that wouldn't you? I am a university graduate. I have a
MSc too but I doubt I need a university to provide the things you cite to
learn. I have learnt a lot more since Uni than at it. I direct my learning
to the things I'm interested in and need to know. Why take a course that
will teach me a load of things I'm not really interested in in order to
learn a few things that I am?

I have learnt a lot outside university as well. I have a passionate
interest and involvement in politics for example, but I've never
formally studied it. However, I do think the discipline of being made
to sit down and do a three year degree, study things I would never
otherwiuse have come across under the world experts in the subject,
having to sit tough assessments which enabled me to show I really had
absorbed what I had studied, was a useful part of my life which has
served me well in the years since.

Post by Ian

What you say is a
bit like saying "I don't need to be taught to play a musical instrument,

Some people don't and few people go to university to do it. In fact some
very accomplished and talented musicians have earned a lot of money
withoout the constraints of formal tuition and certainly not a university.

or to go through all the constraints of playing scales etc

Why do you have to go to Uni. to practise scales?

You've missed my point. I'm using learning to play a musical
instrument as an analogy, not citing it as a skill that has to be
learnt in university. If you are learnming to play a usical instrument
it helps to be guided by those who have themselves become experts in
it, and to go through the exercises they fell are the best way to
learn it, and to have their critical reponse to your attempts. You
can't kust pick it up by reading a book on your own.

Matthew Huntbach

[Ian]

No, I don't believe the only worthwhile context of my subject is itself.
You do seem to have an enormous amount of prejudice against academics,

Not at all, I'm currently negotiating a KTP with a Uni CS department, I
work with academics from time to time on Open Source projects too but I'm
not thinking of doing some formally taught course. I'll admit that I'm a
bit prejudice when it comes to blaming kids attitudes for poor learning
outcomes either in schools or unis. Ok, its not an easy job but part of
the job is to motivate. I wouldn't have a business if I blamed the
customers for not buying my products and some of them make really
unrealistic demands (IMHO). The bottom line is I either sacrifice them as
customers or try and win them round.

and this appears to be strongly colouring what you say, leading you to
issue this long anti-academic diatribe in reponse to a simple point I
made.

Thing is that your point isn't simple. It might appear to be but if you
could solve the issue of motivating young people to jump through academic
hoops in a simple set of universally appliable rules you'd be one of the
most famous people who ever lived. Neither is it a new phenomenon. The
difference is that less inherently bright kids now go to uni so they have
to be more motivated to get to the same levels.

The main thing in the point was actually to counter someone who
suggested that most students were mainly interested in the social life
and paid little attention to employment prospects in a degree.

Most students are interested in their social lives and getting a job and
passing their degree but not necessarily in any particular order on any
particular day for any particular individual.

My point is that if you are the sort of person who given a task does it
with enthusiasm, you are likely to do any task you are given with
enthusiasm, whether that is getting a degree or doing a paid job.

That's a no-brainer. But the really interesting issue is in how to
generate that enthusiasm in someone who is initially not that bothered?
That is the sign of a really good teacher. At least they chose to go to
Uni to study the subject. Think of all the school teachers who are
expected to motivate kids who have to do say maths and hate it and would
do anything to get out of doing anything mathematical but are forced to do
it.

Post by Ian

Post by Matthew Huntbach
better at studying, better at whatever job they turn to. So there
isn't the conflict you suggest, quite the reverse. Someone who is
only in it "to get a good job" is likely to become an employee who is
only in it "to get paid well" i.e. a shirker who won't put himself
out and will try and get by with the minimum effort.

Or conversely is so wrapped up in the elegance of their algorith they
forgot the company goes bankrupt because the customers need attention.

That sounds like bad management in the company. Employ someone who is
good at algorithms to deal with algorithms, employ someone who is good
at customer relations to deal with customer relations.

LOL. You don't know much about running a small business do you? Everyone
has to be multi-skilled. I our company everyone is involved in customer
relations because everyone deals with customers, everyone has technical
duties as well.

*very* few of my students are the sort who would get obsessed with
elegant algorithms. These days it seems the sort of more theoretical
computer science you seem to think all students on a CS degree spend all
their time doing isn't very popular. I find most students chose very
practical things like network management or databases or website
construction for their final year projects. It's hard to find anyone who
is interested in doing something more theoretical.

That's not too surprising. Educational research shows that most people are
motivated by practically useful things. A few aren't but then that is what
academia is for. While it was only for a few that wasn't a problem.

Having said that, of course of you build a big system and the thing runs
at an appallingly slow rate because no-one thought through the
algorithms used and realised the time would blow up once applied to real
world amounts of data, you have a problem - and a not uncommon problem
judging by the manuy well documented software project failures.

Oh I agree, you need look no further than Windows. I'm not saying we don't
need more excellence in programming, far from it. I'm saying you need to
understand individuals to know what makes them tick, know how to motivate
them and develop their EQ as well as their IQ. Its not one or the other
its both.

Sure, the same is true with me. I enjoy programming and computational
theory. But I also enjoy extending and growing the business i.e.
attracting good students and putting on a good and worthwhile degree. If
I didn't enjoy this side of it, I wouldn't have spent so many years as
admissions tutor.
You've missed my point. I'm using learning to play a musical instrument
as an analogy, not citing it as a skill that has to be learnt in
university. If you are learnming to play a usical instrument it helps to
be guided by those who have themselves become experts in it, and to go
through the exercises they fell are the best way to learn it, and to
have their critical reponse to your attempts. You can't kust pick it up
by reading a book on your own.

I agree, its just that there are many experts not in Unis that I can learn
from and even some in Unis I can learn from without attending a formal
course. I'm in such contact now sitting at home avoiding real work :-)
Internet communications makes such things a lot easier so I wouldn't be
surprised if we would actually need fewer formal courses if kids were
taught to learn using the potential of the available technology. It'll
take time because the current generation of teachers don't know how to do
it.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Ian

No, I don't believe the only worthwhile context of my subject is itself.
You do seem to have an enormous amount of prejudice against academics,

Not at all, I'm currently negotiating a KTP with a Uni CS department, I
work with academics from time to time on Open Source projects too but I'm
not thinking of doing some formally taught course. I'll admit that I'm a
bit prejudice when it comes to blaming kids attitudes for poor learning
outcomes either in schools or unis. Ok, its not an easy job but part of
the job is to motivate.

Isn't it a liberating attitude to get it across to kids that the key
to their success lies in their own hands? Adopt the attitude that this
is something that is fun and challenging and you will succeed. Adopt
the attitude that it's just a hoop to jump through and you will jump
through it with the minimal effort, and you will find success much
harder.

Post by Ian
I wouldn't have a business if I blamed the
customers for not buying my products and some of them make really
unrealistic demands (IMHO). The bottom line is I either sacrifice them as
customers or try and win them round.

Where have I said I don't do this? This whole argument seems to be
based around you reading a whole load of stuff into my comments that
wasn't there.

Post by Ian

and this appears to be strongly colouring what you say, leading you to
issue this long anti-academic diatribe in reponse to a simple point I
made.

Thing is that your point isn't simple. It might appear to be but if you
could solve the issue of motivating young people to jump through academic
hoops in a simple set of universally appliable rules you'd be one of the
most famous people who ever lived. Neither is it a new phenomenon. The
difference is that less inherently bright kids now go to uni so they have
to be more motivated to get to the same levels.

Yes, I am well aware of this. Where have I suggested I wasn't?

Post by Ian

The main thing in the point was actually to counter someone who
suggested that most students were mainly interested in the social life
and paid little attention to employment prospects in a degree.

Most students are interested in their social lives and getting a job and
passing their degree but not necessarily in any particular order on any
particular day for any particular individual.

No, the point of what I was saying, and what Andy Walker was saying is
that this varies. In Andy's subject and in his university, he finds
most kids are genuinely motivated by an interest in the subject for
its own sake. That's a fortunate position to be in. In my subject in
my university institution I find it more common for students to be
motivated by the job prospects at the end. That can make it more
difficult, particularly in those aspects of it that don't seem
immediately job related. That doesn't mean, contrary to what you seem
to be saying, that I can't be bothered to motivate such students. In
other subjects and in other institutions, it may well be the case that
most students are motivated primarily by the idea of going to
university to have a good social life. The main thing I was saying is
that most of my students aren't like that, indeed I suspect that
attitude is less common now fewer students live away from home and
there is a greater social mix so university is mo longer an upper
middle class finishing school.

Post by Ian

My point is that if you are the sort of person who given a task does it
with enthusiasm, you are likely to do any task you are given with
enthusiasm, whether that is getting a degree or doing a paid job.

That's a no-brainer. But the really interesting issue is in how to
generate that enthusiasm in someone who is initially not that bothered?
That is the sign of a really good teacher. At least they chose to go to
Uni to study the subject. Think of all the school teachers who are
expected to motivate kids who have to do say maths and hate it and would
do anything to get out of doing anything mathematical but are forced to do
it.

Sure. Where in what I wrote did I express disagreement with that? In
the case of Maths, the question is which serves better as a motivation
- trying to get kids to take a genuine interest in it, and see the fun
and achievement in building up mathematical skills, or agreeing with
them that it's dull and boring but telling them they have to do it
because it'll help them get a good job? I think the first of these is
better if it can be made to work, though the second is always a
fallback option.

Post by Ian

Post by Ian
Or conversely is so wrapped up in the elegance of their algorith they
forgot the company goes bankrupt because the customers need attention.

That sounds like bad management in the company. Employ someone who is
good at algorithms to deal with algorithms, employ someone who is good
at customer relations to deal with customer relations.

LOL. You don't know much about running a small business do you? Everyone
has to be multi-skilled. I our company everyone is involved in customer
relations because everyone deals with customers, everyone has technical
duties as well.

Yes, so let me say the same to you as you have said to me - you have
to work with the employees you can get. Now you seem to have a
stereotypical view of a Computer Science graduate who would not be
bothered with the more practical side of his or her job. But I just
don't recognise that stereotype - such people exist, yes, but they are
a tiny proportion. There may be roles for them, but I agree, probably
not in a small business like yours.

Post by Ian

*very* few of my students are the sort who would get obsessed with
elegant algorithms. These days it seems the sort of more theoretical
computer science you seem to think all students on a CS degree spend all
their time doing isn't very popular. I find most students chose very
practical things like network management or databases or website
construction for their final year projects. It's hard to find anyone who
is interested in doing something more theoretical.

That's not too surprising. Educational research shows that most people are
motivated by practically useful things. A few aren't but then that is what
academia is for.

NO IT IS NOT!! Sorry, but there you go again with your deep
anti-academic prejudice, automatically assuming that anyone in
academia must be the sort who is not interested in practical things.

Post by Ian

Having said that, of course of you build a big system and the thing runs
at an appallingly slow rate because no-one thought through the
algorithms used and realised the time would blow up once applied to real
world amounts of data, you have a problem - and a not uncommon problem
judging by the manuy well documented software project failures.

Oh I agree, you need look no further than Windows. I'm not saying we don't
need more excellence in programming, far from it. I'm saying you need to
understand individuals to know what makes them tick, know how to motivate
them and develop their EQ as well as their IQ. Its not one or the other
its both.

Yes, but where in what I wrote did I say it wasn't?

Post by Ian

You've missed my point. I'm using learning to play a musical instrument
as an analogy, not citing it as a skill that has to be learnt in
university. If you are learnming to play a usical instrument it helps to
be guided by those who have themselves become experts in it, and to go
through the exercises they fell are the best way to learn it, and to
have their critical reponse to your attempts. You can't kust pick it up
by reading a book on your own.

I agree, its just that there are many experts not in Unis that I can learn
from and even some in Unis I can learn from without attending a formal
course. I'm in such contact now sitting at home avoiding real work :-)
Internet communications makes such things a lot easier so I wouldn't be
surprised if we would actually need fewer formal courses if kids were
taught to learn using the potential of the available technology. It'll
take time because the current generation of teachers don't know how to do
it.

How is anyone to know what are the good websites, what are the bad
websites, what are the important aspects of the subject, what are
fringe issues? Plus it does seem many people need the formality of a
degree study to motivate them. If all the kids I had to teach were
people who would go out and research and read loads of different
websites to find things out, I'd have an easy job. But I find very few
of them are. As it is, in my course I actually prepare a whole page of
useful web links, including links to whole books and sets of notes.
Most students, however, make hardly any use of it. I know the real way
to learn what I am teaching is by doing exercises. It would be
wonderful if I had self-motivated kids who did all the exercises I
set. However I don't. You seem to be saying exactly what you accuse me
of saying - life would be much easier if we didn't actually have to go
and work at getting kids to learn.

Matthew Huntbach

[Dr A. N. Walker]

[...]. Unfortunately, these days
most university applicants seem obsessed with wanting to "get a good
job" [...].

No doubt this is subject-specific, but I have to say that
this is not the case, in my experience, for maths. Our students
arrive, broadly, keen to do maths, even to stop on and do research.
They know there is a real world out there in which many of them
will become accountants, but this is shoved to the back of their
minds until their third year. On open/visit days, it is parents
rather than applicants who want to know what mathematicians do
with their degrees.

Surprisingly many of my tutees creep in to my office in
their third year, looking rather guilty, and saying "Sorry, I
know I said I wanted to teach [do research] [spend a year in Oz,
Botswana, Peru, wherever] but I've taken a job with [XXX]". Of
course, there are also quite a lot who come wanting the job with
[XXX] from day one, but it's definitely not "most".

[Toby]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

[...]. Unfortunately, these days
most university applicants seem obsessed with wanting to "get a good
job" [...].

No doubt this is subject-specific, but I have to say that
this is not the case, in my experience, for maths. Our students
arrive, broadly, keen to do maths, even to stop on and do research.
They know there is a real world out there in which many of them
will become accountants, but this is shoved to the back of their
minds until their third year. On open/visit days, it is parents
rather than applicants who want to know what mathematicians do
with their degrees.
Surprisingly many of my tutees creep in to my office in
their third year, looking rather guilty, and saying "Sorry, I
know I said I wanted to teach [do research] [spend a year in Oz,
Botswana, Peru, wherever] but I've taken a job with [XXX]". Of
course, there are also quite a lot who come wanting the job with
[XXX] from day one, but it's definitely not "most".

Which jobs do your students go for - are they all investment wankers,
or teachers, accountants etc...Seems a bit weird to do a maths degree
and then accountancy, since you apparently (I was surprised to hear)
you don't even need A Level maths...Though I assume there are
different levels/complexities...?

[jess]

Post by Toby

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

[...]. Unfortunately, these days
most university applicants seem obsessed with wanting to "get a good
job" [...].

No doubt this is subject-specific, but I have to say that
this is not the case, in my experience, for maths. Our students
arrive, broadly, keen to do maths, even to stop on and do research.
They know there is a real world out there in which many of them
will become accountants, but this is shoved to the back of their
minds until their third year. On open/visit days, it is parents
rather than applicants who want to know what mathematicians do
with their degrees.
Surprisingly many of my tutees creep in to my office in
their third year, looking rather guilty, and saying "Sorry, I
know I said I wanted to teach [do research] [spend a year in Oz,
Botswana, Peru, wherever] but I've taken a job with [XXX]". Of
course, there are also quite a lot who come wanting the job with
[XXX] from day one, but it's definitely not "most".

Which jobs do your students go for

my boyf did a maths degree (and got a first!) and he's nearly an actuary
now.

[James Gregory]

Post by jess
my boyf did a maths degree (and got a first!) and he's nearly an actuary
now.

I thought you liked plumbers and builders or something? Or did you just
mean "people with money"?

James

[jess]

Post by James Gregory

Post by jess
my boyf did a maths degree (and got a first!) and he's nearly an
actuary now.

I thought you liked plumbers and builders or something? Or did you
just mean "people with money"?

heh, not at all.

being a plumber or builder is on the list, but it's not a deal breaker.

[Toby]

Post by jess

Post by Toby

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

[...]. Unfortunately, these days
most university applicants seem obsessed with wanting to "get a good
job" [...].

No doubt this is subject-specific, but I have to say that
this is not the case, in my experience, for maths. Our students
arrive, broadly, keen to do maths, even to stop on and do research.
They know there is a real world out there in which many of them
will become accountants, but this is shoved to the back of their
minds until their third year. On open/visit days, it is parents
rather than applicants who want to know what mathematicians do
with their degrees.
Surprisingly many of my tutees creep in to my office in
their third year, looking rather guilty, and saying "Sorry, I
know I said I wanted to teach [do research] [spend a year in Oz,
Botswana, Peru, wherever] but I've taken a job with [XXX]". Of
course, there are also quite a lot who come wanting the job with
[XXX] from day one, but it's definitely not "most".

Which jobs do your students go for

my boyf did a maths degree (and got a first!) and he's nearly an actuary
now.

But I thought Adam was still at Imperial...?


:P

Well! I'm just following the bandwagon ;D

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by Toby
Which jobs do your students go for - are they all investment wankers,
or teachers, accountants etc...

Finance [banks, accountants, actuaries] is where the big
money is, so that's where the students congregate. But a lot go
into computing/IT/similar, and a fair number do research, either
at uni or in industry, the civil service, etc. Then there are
the statisticians, who disappear into all parts of the economy
[inc finance, of course]. Teaching is rather unusual these days;
simply not well-enough paid, plus adverse working conditions. We
used to send around 30% of our graduates into teaching; but that
generation ['70s] is now well into middle age, and the current
figure is more like 3%. So maths teaching in schools is evermore
[and disastrously] the province of non-mathematicians.

Post by Toby
Seems a bit weird to do a maths degree
and then accountancy,

Why weird? The brightest of all students following up into
the best-paid professions? If ballet dancing or bar tending was
better paid than accountancy, our students would become ballet
dancers and bartenders. [Having said the which, two of my tutees
who recently graduated became (resp) a chef and a rock musician;
and one of our graduates (but not a tutee) became a model. You
don't *have* to take jobs in maths with a maths degree ....]

Post by Toby
since you apparently (I was surprised to hear)
you don't even need A Level maths...Though I assume there are
different levels/complexities...?

Well, yes. There are exams, from which our graduates are
partly/largely exempt. Innumerate accountants presumably fail at
the "what is 2+2?" level and leave the profession; those who could
have done maths A-level/degrees but chose not to presumably have to
work their way up the ladder, and find themselves a year or three
behind maths graduates.

[Toby]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Toby
Which jobs do your students go for - are they all investment wankers,
or teachers, accountants etc...

Finance [banks, accountants, actuaries] is where the big
money is, so that's where the students congregate. But a lot go
into computing/IT/similar, and a fair number do research, either
at uni or in industry, the civil service, etc. Then there are
the statisticians, who disappear into all parts of the economy
[inc finance, of course]. Teaching is rather unusual these days;
simply not well-enough paid, plus adverse working conditions. We
used to send around 30% of our graduates into teaching; but that
generation ['70s] is now well into middle age, and the current
figure is more like 3%. So maths teaching in schools is evermore
[and disastrously] the province of non-mathematicians.

Has Actuarial stuff always been trendy or is it new? I know I'm
ignorant but I've not heard much about until 'quite' recently...I
assume bankers are still at the top of the food chain though...

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Toby
Seems a bit weird to do a maths degree
and then accountancy,

Why weird? The brightest of all students following up into
the best-paid professions? If ballet dancing or bar tending was
better paid than accountancy, our students would become ballet
dancers and bartenders. [Having said the which, two of my tutees
who recently graduated became (resp) a chef and a rock musician;
and one of our graduates (but not a tutee) became a model. You
don't *have* to take jobs in maths with a maths degree ....]

hehe I know that you degree doesn't have to form the basis of your
job, I just meant that you can become an accountant without a maths
degree...But I forgot about exemptions...

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Toby
since you apparently (I was surprised to hear)
you don't even need A Level maths...Though I assume there are
different levels/complexities...?

Well, yes. There are exams, from which our graduates are
partly/largely exempt. Innumerate accountants presumably fail at
the "what is 2+2?" level and leave the profession; those who could
have done maths A-level/degrees but chose not to presumably have to
work their way up the ladder, and find themselves a year or three
behind maths graduates.

Hmmm my mind is too focussed/obsessed on university and grades
required as a pre-requisite...

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by Toby
Has Actuarial stuff always been trendy or is it new?

Neither. It's always been "there" as, um, I suppose a
shadowy, better paid, more intellectual version of accountancy.
As an interest of mathematicians, dates back to around the late
17thC, so is as old as calculus, mechanics, etc.

[Adam Atkinson]

Post by Toby
Has Actuarial stuff always been trendy or is it new? I know I'm
ignorant but I've not heard much about until 'quite' recently...I
assume bankers are still at the top of the food chain though...

Several of my mathematician friends were saying things about becoming
actuaries back in the mid 80s.

[David Haardt]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Why weird? The brightest of all students following up into
the best-paid professions?

Well if a student is really bright he or she would probably not be
able to cope with the dullness of accountancy for more than a year...

David Haardt

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

[...]. Unfortunately, these days
most university applicants seem obsessed with wanting to "get a good
job" [...].

No doubt this is subject-specific, but I have to say that
this is not the case, in my experience, for maths.

Maybe also location specific, community specific, university ranking
specific. Most of my intake tends to be from the various London Asian
communities, and I suspect this attitude is more common there. Also,
you've always told us you're inundated with grade A A-level
applicants, while I'm dealing with B (and that was a rarity this year)
downwards. It is, of coure, this plodding "I'm only in it for what I
can get out of it" mentality that leads people to get disappointing
grades.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Our students arrive, broadly, keen to do maths, even to stop on and do
research.

Again, I suspect you're more likely to find this attitude amongst
grade A A-level students than amongst those with lower grades. I
wouldn't say it's an attitude which is entirely absent amongst my
students, but I wouldn't say it's one which "broadly" exists.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
They know there is a real world out there in which many of them
will become accountants, but this is shoved to the back of their
minds until their third year. On open/visit days, it is parents
rather than applicants who want to know what mathematicians do
with their degrees.

Completely different to us, then. I find this question is what our
applicants are obsessed with.

Matthew Huntbach

[Ian]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Our students arrive, broadly, keen to do maths, even to stop on and do
research.

Again, I suspect you're more likely to find this attitude amongst grade
A A-level students than amongst those with lower grades. I wouldn't say
it's an attitude which is entirely absent amongst my students, but I
wouldn't say it's one which "broadly" exists.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
They know there is a real world out there in which many of them will
become accountants, but this is shoved to the back of their minds until
their third year. On open/visit days, it is parents rather than
applicants who want to know what mathematicians do with their degrees.

Completely different to us, then. I find this question is what our
applicants are obsessed with.

Its down to the fact that different people are motivated by different
things. If you take an interest in what motivates them rather than what
motivates you its usually a good starting point.

[Michael Saunby]

Post by Ian

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Our students arrive, broadly, keen to do maths, even to stop on and do
research.

Again, I suspect you're more likely to find this attitude amongst grade
A A-level students than amongst those with lower grades. I wouldn't say
it's an attitude which is entirely absent amongst my students, but I
wouldn't say it's one which "broadly" exists.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
They know there is a real world out there in which many of them will
become accountants, but this is shoved to the back of their minds until
their third year. On open/visit days, it is parents rather than
applicants who want to know what mathematicians do with their degrees.

Completely different to us, then. I find this question is what our
applicants are obsessed with.

Its down to the fact that different people are motivated by different
things. If you take an interest in what motivates them rather than what
motivates you its usually a good starting point.

It might also have something to do with the fact that what Matthew is
describing is "self-actualization"
http://www.performance-unlimited.com/samain.htm and Maslow estimated that
only a couple of percent of the population ever reach that state. Most
people remain in a state where they seek wealth, recognition, etc.

Back in the days when I was a student, and I guess the same was true for
Matt, then a fairly high proportion of students, and a very high proportion
of university staff, had achieved self-actualization, or soon would. Today
with a much broader intake they're going to be quite scarce except at the
very best universities.

Whether this matters depends on how much you care about whether the higher
needs of others are satisfied. To be honest I believe that in this case
they don't miss what they've never had - unlike those living with too
little food or in life threatening situations. So I tend to just ignore
them. Yes I'll mentor those wishing to learn to program for the joy of the
craft but those who think that it's a good way to earn cash can go on a
course and pay hard cash for their learning.

Michael Saunby

[Ian]

Post by Michael Saunby

Post by Ian

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Our students arrive, broadly, keen to do maths, even to stop on and
do research.

Again, I suspect you're more likely to find this attitude amongst
grade A A-level students than amongst those with lower grades. I
wouldn't say it's an attitude which is entirely absent amongst my
students, but I wouldn't say it's one which "broadly" exists.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
They know there is a real world out there in which many of them will
become accountants, but this is shoved to the back of their minds

until

Post by Ian

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
their third year. On open/visit days, it is parents rather than
applicants who want to know what mathematicians do with their degrees.

Completely different to us, then. I find this question is what our
applicants are obsessed with.

Its down to the fact that different people are motivated by different
things. If you take an interest in what motivates them rather than what
motivates you its usually a good starting point.

It might also have something to do with the fact that what Matthew is
describing is "self-actualization"
http://www.performance-unlimited.com/samain.htm and Maslow estimated
that only a couple of percent of the population ever reach that state.

And McClelland 10% are self-motivated achivers. Nature or nurture? Maybe
the style of education we serve up has something to do with this.

Post by Michael Saunby
people remain in a state where they seek wealth, recognition, etc.

Except Buddhists :-)

Post by Michael Saunby
Back in the days when I was a student, and I guess the same was true for
Matt, then a fairly high proportion of students, and a very high
proportion of university staff, had achieved self-actualization, or soon
would. Today with a much broader intake they're going to be quite scarce
except at the very best universities.

It also assumes that your interests in terms of self-actualisation are the
same as mine. Running a business might be my self-actualisation just as
researching CS might be his. Probably more people would reach
self-actualisation if we were more flexible about their views of what it
meant to them rather than our views of what it means to us.

Post by Michael Saunby
Whether this matters depends on how much you care about whether the
higher needs of others are satisfied. To be honest I believe that in
this case they don't miss what they've never had - unlike those living
with too little food or in life threatening situations. So I tend to
just ignore them. Yes I'll mentor those wishing to learn to program for
the joy of the craft but those who think that it's a good way to earn
cash can go on a course and pay hard cash for their learning.

But you aren't being paid to teach them I guess so its entirely up to you
to pick and choose what you want to do.

[Michael Saunby]

Post by Ian

Post by Michael Saunby

Post by Ian

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Our students arrive, broadly, keen to do maths, even to stop on and
do research.

Again, I suspect you're more likely to find this attitude amongst
grade A A-level students than amongst those with lower grades. I
wouldn't say it's an attitude which is entirely absent amongst my
students, but I wouldn't say it's one which "broadly" exists.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
They know there is a real world out there in which many of them will
become accountants, but this is shoved to the back of their minds

until

Post by Ian

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
their third year. On open/visit days, it is parents rather than
applicants who want to know what mathematicians do with their degrees.

Completely different to us, then. I find this question is what our
applicants are obsessed with.

Its down to the fact that different people are motivated by different
things. If you take an interest in what motivates them rather than what
motivates you its usually a good starting point.

It might also have something to do with the fact that what Matthew is
describing is "self-actualization"
http://www.performance-unlimited.com/samain.htm and Maslow estimated
that only a couple of percent of the population ever reach that state.

And McClelland 10% are self-motivated achivers. Nature or nurture? Maybe
the style of education we serve up has something to do with this.

Post by Michael Saunby
people remain in a state where they seek wealth, recognition, etc.

Except Buddhists :-)

And university lecturers.

Post by Ian

Post by Michael Saunby
Back in the days when I was a student, and I guess the same was true for
Matt, then a fairly high proportion of students, and a very high
proportion of university staff, had achieved self-actualization, or soon
would. Today with a much broader intake they're going to be quite scarce
except at the very best universities.

It also assumes that your interests in terms of self-actualisation are the
same as mine. Running a business might be my self-actualisation just as
researching CS might be his. Probably more people would reach
self-actualisation if we were more flexible about their views of what it
meant to them rather than our views of what it means to us.

I think the "self" bit handles that. It's not for me, or you, to achieve
self-actualization in others. Once their other needs are taken care of
it's for them to decide if they want to go any higher or just stick to
working, earning, collecting trinkets.

Post by Ian

Post by Michael Saunby
Whether this matters depends on how much you care about whether the
higher needs of others are satisfied. To be honest I believe that in
this case they don't miss what they've never had - unlike those living
with too little food or in life threatening situations. So I tend to
just ignore them. Yes I'll mentor those wishing to learn to program for
the joy of the craft but those who think that it's a good way to earn
cash can go on a course and pay hard cash for their learning.

But you aren't being paid to teach them I guess so its entirely up to you
to pick and choose what you want to do.

Even if I was being paid it would be work I had chosen to do. Why would I
bother with a job that didn't allow me to pick and choose what I do?

Michael Saunby

[Ian]

Post by Ian

Post by Michael Saunby
Back in the days when I was a student, and I guess the same was true
for Matt, then a fairly high proportion of students, and a very high
proportion of university staff, had achieved self-actualization, or
soon would. Today with a much broader intake they're going to be quite
scarce except at the very best universities.

It also assumes that your interests in terms of self-actualisation are
the same as mine. Running a business might be my self-actualisation just
as researching CS might be his. Probably more people would reach
self-actualisation if we were more flexible about their views of what it
meant to them rather than our views of what it means to us.

Post by Michael Saunby
Whether this matters depends on how much you care about whether the
higher needs of others are satisfied. To be honest I believe that in
this case they don't miss what they've never had - unlike those living
with too little food or in life threatening situations. So I tend to
just ignore them. Yes I'll mentor those wishing to learn to program
for the joy of the craft but those who think that it's a good way to
earn cash can go on a course and pay hard cash for their learning.

But you aren't being paid to teach them I guess so its entirely up to
you to pick and choose what you want to do.

I was thinking more of Matthew.

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

[...]. Unfortunately, these days
most university applicants seem obsessed with wanting to "get a good
job" [...].

No doubt this is subject-specific, but I have to say that
this is not the case, in my experience, for maths.

Maybe also location specific, community specific, university ranking
specific. [...]

Possibly. But I suspect that "subject" is more relevant
in this case. Let me try again.

Why does *anyone* do English or history [eg] at univ? You
don't see history companies on the high street, history jobs all
over the job centres, etc; apart from school teaching, there are
very few history jobs. So you do it 'cos you like history, and/or
were good at it at school, and want a degree not specifically to
prepare for a career in history but as a more general marker of
your education that may prepare you for a job in, eg, the civil
service, or anywhere that just wants clever people.

Why do people do degrees in medicine, engineering, law?
Well, there may be a few who just want a degree in something
interesting, but I'd guess that most intend [at least initially]
to practise m/e/l.

Why CS? Pretty much as m/e/l, except perhaps that the IT
end of it is a bit more money-grubby and businessy, and the "pure"
computing end more like a real "profession".

Why maths? Well, you and I know that mathematicians are
highly employable in directly relevant careers; but I don't think
most students quite see that -- as with history, there are no maths
shops on the high street. Of course, *some* are highly clued up as
to the value of maths, but a lot are doing it for interest, and are
pleasantly surprised to find it's a good career move as well.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Our students arrive, broadly, keen to do maths, even to stop on and do
research.

Again, I suspect you're more likely to find this attitude amongst
grade A A-level students than amongst those with lower grades.

Sure, though on UCAS forms even weak maths applicants very
often seem to have ambitions well beyond their likely capabilities
-- which is good, of course.

[Michael Saunby]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

[...]. Unfortunately, these days
most university applicants seem obsessed with wanting to "get a good
job" [...].

No doubt this is subject-specific, but I have to say that
this is not the case, in my experience, for maths.

Maybe also location specific, community specific, university ranking
specific. [...]

Possibly. But I suspect that "subject" is more relevant
in this case. Let me try again.

Depends on the university. At the better ones you might simply read
natural science, or engineering rather than Physics or Computing.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Why does *anyone* do English or history [eg] at univ? You
don't see history companies on the high street, history jobs all
over the job centres, etc; apart from school teaching, there are
very few history jobs. So you do it 'cos you like history, and/or
were good at it at school, and want a degree not specifically to
prepare for a career in history but as a more general marker of
your education that may prepare you for a job in, eg, the civil
service, or anywhere that just wants clever people.

Not forgetting that the desire to "get a good job" might require "get a
good degree" and hence study what you're good at, rather than which might
do some good. The civil service (and universities of course) provide
comfortable jobs and good pensions to anyone who can get a first from a
decent university - a pleasant enough way to spend the years from 21 to
death.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Why do people do degrees in medicine, engineering, law?
Well, there may be a few who just want a degree in something
interesting, but I'd guess that most intend [at least initially]
to practise m/e/l.

Perhaps but it is possible to be passionate about such things, especially
if the passion extends to wanting to make the world a better place - hard
to do through the direct application of history, or even mathematics, I'd
have thought.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Why CS? Pretty much as m/e/l, except perhaps that the IT
end of it is a bit more money-grubby and businessy, and the "pure"
computing end more like a real "profession".

Beats me, though IT does present the biggest engineering challenges of our
age, just as a century ago civil engineers were the guys building the big
stuff.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Why maths? Well, you and I know that mathematicians are
highly employable in directly relevant careers; but I don't think
most students quite see that -- as with history, there are no maths
shops on the high street. Of course, *some* are highly clued up as
to the value of maths, but a lot are doing it for interest, and are
pleasantly surprised to find it's a good career move as well.

And others do it because they were good at it at school. It's a long time
ago now and I'm sure things have changed but when I was at school my maths
teacher was very disappointed that I chose to study engineering at uni
rather than maths - "you could be a maths teacher" - yup, if life got
really bad I guess I could be. What my teachers didn't know was that my
background wasn't like theirs, I'm driven to do heroic things, not safe
things.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Our students arrive, broadly, keen to do maths, even to stop on and do
research.

Again, I suspect you're more likely to find this attitude amongst
grade A A-level students than amongst those with lower grades.

Sure, though on UCAS forms even weak maths applicants very
often seem to have ambitions well beyond their likely capabilities
-- which is good, of course.

It certainly is, and to those who over value qualifications and grades,
those ambitions no doubt seem at times unreasonable. Though as George
Bernard Shaw said "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the
unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

And engineers of course :-)

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.

Michael Saunby CEng MBCS

[Ian]

Post by Michael Saunby
The civil service (and universities of course) provide
comfortable jobs and good pensions to anyone who can get a first from a
decent university - a pleasant enough way to spend the years from 21 to
death.

To me it would be a living death. You seem to be fixated with assuming
your value systems are the same as those of others.

Post by Michael Saunby
And others do it because they were good at it at school. It's a long
time ago now and I'm sure things have changed but when I was at school
my maths teacher was very disappointed that I chose to study engineering
at uni rather than maths - "you could be a maths teacher" - yup, if
life got really bad I guess I could be. What my teachers didn't know
was that my background wasn't like theirs, I'm driven to do heroic
things, not safe things.

Which is why I keep questioning assertions such as the one above. Its
natural for academics to value academia for its own sake - they chose that
route for their life. Its rather strange that such bright people don't
seem to be able to grasp the fact that many others have very different
motivations. Why do we teach French when we do more trade with Germany?
Because we have a lot more French teachers teaching French than German
teachers. So we then end up with more French teachers. QED.

Post by Michael Saunby
It certainly is, and to those who over value qualifications and grades,
those ambitions no doubt seem at times unreasonable. Though as George
Bernard Shaw said "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the
unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
And engineers of course :-)

Unreasonable engineers would seem the best option though probably
dangerous.

[Michael Saunby]

Post by Ian

Post by Michael Saunby
The civil service (and universities of course) provide
comfortable jobs and good pensions to anyone who can get a first from a
decent university - a pleasant enough way to spend the years from 21 to
death.

To me it would be a living death. You seem to be fixated with assuming
your value systems are the same as those of others.

Not at all. I'm not saying it's good, just that that's how it is. Where
do you imagine that only those folks with good degrees go to? I've worked
in university and in government research and I've seen them. Go to other
places and you no longer find that 25% of staff have PhDs and most likely
therefore don't have 1st from Oxford, Cambridge and the like.

I'll accept that to many it would seem like a living death, and that might
well be why, to the disappointment of many teachers, not everyone values
extreme academic achievment.

Post by Ian

Post by Michael Saunby
And others do it because they were good at it at school. It's a long
time ago now and I'm sure things have changed but when I was at school
my maths teacher was very disappointed that I chose to study

engineering

Post by Ian

Post by Michael Saunby
at uni rather than maths - "you could be a maths teacher" - yup, if
life got really bad I guess I could be. What my teachers didn't know
was that my background wasn't like theirs, I'm driven to do heroic
things, not safe things.

Which is why I keep questioning assertions such as the one above. Its
natural for academics to value academia for its own sake - they chose that
route for their life. Its rather strange that such bright people don't
seem to be able to grasp the fact that many others have very different
motivations. Why do we teach French when we do more trade with Germany?

They're not as clever as you might expect. They're trained in research,
not thinking.

Post by Ian
Because we have a lot more French teachers teaching French than German
teachers. So we then end up with more French teachers. QED.

Rather like training folks in crafts. Each generation trains the next with
no thought to a changing world because a changing world is the one thing
such folks can't really cope with.

Post by Ian

Post by Michael Saunby
It certainly is, and to those who over value qualifications and grades,
those ambitions no doubt seem at times unreasonable. Though as George
Bernard Shaw said "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the
unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
And engineers of course :-)

Unreasonable engineers would seem the best option though probably
dangerous.

I try my best :-) But engineers rarely get to train the next generation
of engineers, except of course passing on the wisdom from father to son.
We depend rather too much on schools and universities these days.

Michael Saunby

[Ian]

Post by Michael Saunby
I'll accept that to many it would seem like a living death, and that
might well be why, to the disappointment of many teachers, not everyone
values extreme academic achievment.

When I was a teacher I valued it for those who wanted it, but it wasn't
the be all and end all. Seems to me that its not so much teachers that
value extreme academic achievement above all else, but often those who are
extreme academic achievers. Its really obvious why. That is their value
system so they simply transfer it to others. I have no difficulty in
accepting that the quality of life of someone who is excellent in any
non-academic field might well be better than some one who is merely a good
academic. My priority was competitive sport at uni. a physics degree was
something to do between traiing sessions. Now I'm older I still do sport
but not at the same level and channel my "quality of life trip" into other
things. Qualty of life and self-actualisation is a very individual thing
but for most people the first need is to pay for the shelter and the food.

Post by Michael Saunby

Post by Ian

Post by Michael Saunby
And others do it because they were good at it at school. It's a long
time ago now and I'm sure things have changed but when I was at
school my maths teacher was very disappointed that I chose to study

engineering

Post by Ian

Post by Michael Saunby
at uni rather than maths - "you could be a maths teacher" - yup, if
life got really bad I guess I could be. What my teachers didn't know
was that my background wasn't like theirs, I'm driven to do heroic
things, not safe things.

Which is why I keep questioning assertions such as the one above. Its
natural for academics to value academia for its own sake - they chose

that

Post by Ian
route for their life. Its rather strange that such bright people don't
seem to be able to grasp the fact that many others have very different
motivations. Why do we teach French when we do more trade with Germany?

They're not as clever as you might expect. They're trained in research,
not thinking.

Oh I know which is why I said the education system is generally pretty
narrow and probably not that well-matched to the outputs the government
think are important and it never will be while the assumption that ever
increasing exam scores mean that the economic well being of the nature is
secure.

Post by Michael Saunby

Post by Ian
Because we have a lot more French teachers teaching French than German
teachers. So we then end up with more French teachers. QED.

Rather like training folks in crafts. Each generation trains the next
with no thought to a changing world because a changing world is the one
thing such folks can't really cope with.

Post by Ian

Post by Michael Saunby
It certainly is, and to those who over value qualifications and
grades, those ambitions no doubt seem at times unreasonable. Though
as George Bernard Shaw said "The reasonable man adapts himself to the
world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to
himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
And engineers of course :-)

Unreasonable engineers would seem the best option though probably
dangerous.

I try my best :-) But engineers rarely get to train the next
generation of engineers, except of course passing on the wisdom from
father to son. We depend rather too much on schools and universities
these days.

Agreed. More dependency culture.

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 21:54:17 +0100, "Michael Saunby"
<***@despammed.com> wrote:

. The civil service (and universities of course) provide

Post by Michael Saunby
comfortable jobs and good pensions to anyone who can get a first from a
decent university - a pleasant enough way to spend the years from 21 to
death.

Is this really true? Where is the evidence for this. Any links would
be welcome.

[Michael Saunby]

Post by
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 21:54:17 +0100, "Michael Saunby"
. The civil service (and universities of course) provide

Post by Michael Saunby
comfortable jobs and good pensions to anyone who can get a first from a
decent university - a pleasant enough way to spend the years from 21 to
death.

Is this really true? Where is the evidence for this. Any links would
be welcome.

Which aspect do you need evidence of? That civil service jobs,
particularly for graduates, are jobs for life is, I'd have thought, well
known. That the civil service and universities between then employ a large
proportion of those with the best degrees would also seem self evident.

Things are changing (slowly though) as this http://www.faststream.gov.uk/
suggests that just a 2:2 might now be enough to get a top job.

And http://www.ost.gov.uk/setstats/8.htm gives some idea of the scale of
goverment employment in one sector. Remember most civil servants aren't
scientists or engineers and will have degrees in history, classics, french,
etc. Similarly for university staff.

Michael Saunby

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Michael Saunby

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

[...]. Unfortunately, these days
most university applicants seem obsessed with wanting to "get a good
job" [...].

No doubt this is subject-specific, but I have to say that
this is not the case, in my experience, for maths.

Maybe also location specific, community specific, university ranking
specific. [...]

Possibly. But I suspect that "subject" is more relevant
in this case. Let me try again.

Depends on the university. At the better ones you might simply read
natural science, or engineering rather than Physics or Computing.

Which ones do you mean? Oxford and Cambridge used to have this
pattern, but
even they now offer Computer Science from the start in the UCAS
directory. None of the other leading universities have this pattern or
have had it for decades.

Post by Michael Saunby

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Why does *anyone* do English or history [eg] at univ? You
don't see history companies on the high street, history jobs all
over the job centres, etc; apart from school teaching, there are
very few history jobs. So you do it 'cos you like history, and/or
were good at it at school, and want a degree not specifically to
prepare for a career in history but as a more general marker of
your education that may prepare you for a job in, eg, the civil
service, or anywhere that just wants clever people.

Indeed. It would be possible for Computer Science to be viewed in this
way, as a good general training in logic and discipline. However, as
has been noted, it doesn't seem to attract many applicants who see it
like that.

Post by Michael Saunby

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Why maths? Well, you and I know that mathematicians are
highly employable in directly relevant careers; but I don't think
most students quite see that -- as with history, there are no maths
shops on the high street. Of course, *some* are highly clued up as
to the value of maths, but a lot are doing it for interest, and are
pleasantly surprised to find it's a good career move as well.

Computer Science has it the other way round - because computers are
now ubiquitous, people see it only in vocational terms. I do think
there are quite a few people who would enjoy CS, but are put off by
its vocational image.

Matthew Huntbach

[Matt]

Computer Science has it the other way round - because computers are now
ubiquitous, people see it only in vocational terms. I do think there are
quite a few people who would enjoy CS, but are put off by its vocational
image.

I had some trouble convincing my parents that it wasn't a vocational
degree as such. But I think they thought I'd be learning how to use Excel.
Possibly there are places where "Computer Science" /does/ mean learning
how to use Excel :(

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Matt

Computer Science has it the other way round - because computers are now
ubiquitous, people see it only in vocational terms. I do think there are
quite a few people who would enjoy CS, but are put off by its vocational
image.

I had some trouble convincing my parents that it wasn't a vocational
degree as such. But I think they thought I'd be learning how to use Excel.
Possibly there are places where "Computer Science" /does/ mean learning
how to use Excel :(

The problem is there are a lot of school tecahers and school careers
advisers who think it's learning how to use Excel. Seriously - I come
across a lot of school references on UCAS forms which clearly suggest
a CS degree is seen in those sort of terms.

Matthew Huntbach

[Ian]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Matt

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Computer Science has it the other way round - because computers are
now ubiquitous, people see it only in vocational terms. I do think
there are quite a few people who would enjoy CS, but are put off by
its vocational image.

I had some trouble convincing my parents that it wasn't a vocational
degree as such. But I think they thought I'd be learning how to use
Excel. Possibly there are places where "Computer Science" /does/ mean
learning how to use Excel :(

The problem is there are a lot of school tecahers and school careers
advisers who think it's learning how to use Excel. Seriously - I come
across a lot of school references on UCAS forms which clearly suggest a
CS degree is seen in those sort of terms.

But that's because the school curriculum is generally anti-hard
technology. Technology to the DfES is Design and Technology. What used to
be Woodwork, Metalwork, Cookery and Needlework. Ok its been modernised
around the "Design Process" but it still doesn't bear much resemblance to
what the man in the street would think of as technology. The other
technology subject is ICT which is to a lot Microsoft office and their
favourite computer assisted learning package. There is an active movement
to remove any technological understanding from the curriculum. They say
its only a tool (read you don't have to understand anything, just push the
buttons). Read the assessment criteria for KS3 ICT. Present information to
a critical and unfamiliar audience. That's English not technology. Look at
the decline in CScience for Computer Studies.

The whole sorry mess is quite frankly anti-technology education and its
why there are still so many technological philistines about.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Ian

Post by Matthew Huntbach
The problem is there are a lot of school tecahers and school careers
advisers who think it's learning how to use Excel. Seriously - I come
across a lot of school references on UCAS forms which clearly suggest a
CS degree is seen in those sort of terms.

But that's because the school curriculum is generally anti-hard
technology. Technology to the DfES is Design and Technology. What used to
be Woodwork, Metalwork, Cookery and Needlework. Ok its been modernised
around the "Design Process" but it still doesn't bear much resemblance to
what the man in the street would think of as technology. The other
technology subject is ICT which is to a lot Microsoft office and their
favourite computer assisted learning package. There is an active movement
to remove any technological understanding from the curriculum. They say
its only a tool (read you don't have to understand anything, just push the
buttons). Read the assessment criteria for KS3 ICT. Present information to
a critical and unfamiliar audience. That's English not technology. Look at
the decline in CScience for Computer Studies.

Indeed. Probably a majority of my applicants - and their school
advisers - think of a degree in Computer Science as "a degree in IT".
And by "IT" they assume is meant what you describe above. The result
is that it is considered as a degree subject suitable for the less
academically inclined student. Meanwhile, the sort of person who would
be most suited for it is put off because they think it lacks the sort
of intellectual challenge that excites them. This is what I was
getting at in my comments which you used to accuse me of lacking the
ability or interest to motivate my students.

Matthew Huntbach

[Ian]

Post by Ian

Post by Matthew Huntbach
The problem is there are a lot of school tecahers and school careers
advisers who think it's learning how to use Excel. Seriously - I come
across a lot of school references on UCAS forms which clearly suggest
a CS degree is seen in those sort of terms.

But that's because the school curriculum is generally anti-hard
technology. Technology to the DfES is Design and Technology. What used
to be Woodwork, Metalwork, Cookery and Needlework. Ok its been
modernised around the "Design Process" but it still doesn't bear much
resemblance to what the man in the street would think of as technology.
The other technology subject is ICT which is to a lot Microsoft office
and their favourite computer assisted learning package. There is an
active movement to remove any technological understanding from the
curriculum. They say its only a tool (read you don't have to understand
anything, just push the buttons). Read the assessment criteria for KS3
ICT. Present information to a critical and unfamiliar audience. That's
English not technology. Look at the decline in CScience for Computer
Studies.

Indeed. Probably a majority of my applicants - and their school advisers
- think of a degree in Computer Science as "a degree in IT". And by "IT"
they assume is meant what you describe above. The result is that it is
considered as a degree subject suitable for the less academically
inclined student. Meanwhile, the sort of person who would be most suited
for it is put off because they think it lacks the sort of intellectual
challenge that excites them. This is what I was getting at in my
comments which you used to accuse me of lacking the ability or interest
to motivate my students.

Thing is it was just the sort of comment I'd come across from teachers
when I was inspecting schools. You can't teach children like this <hard
sums> (substitute the subject) ...this is exactly what leads to the
situation above. It can't be done, I don't know how to do it, so take the
soft option and lower expectations. Result bored and under-challenged kids
Of course there are some children who have learnig difficulties that do
make it impossible to reach A at A level maths, but many children if
motivated can do a lot better than people think. I guess that applies to
Uni students too. Question is whose job is it to motivate them?

[`p]

Matthew Huntbach wrote in

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Computer Science has it the other way round - because computers are
now ubiquitous, people see it only in vocational terms. I do think
there are quite a few people who would enjoy CS, but are put off by
its vocational image.

Bloody hell, MH. We agree on something. It annoys me that people see
IT/CS as vocational; so many people who have no idea of the disciplines
involved in making it seem easy.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Our students arrive, broadly, keen to do maths, even to stop on and do
research.

Again, I suspect you're more likely to find this attitude amongst
grade A A-level students than amongst those with lower grades.

Sure, though on UCAS forms even weak maths applicants very
often seem to have ambitions well beyond their likely capabilities
-- which is good, of course.

Why is this good? Won't it lead to disappointment?

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Sure, though on UCAS forms even weak maths applicants very
often seem to have ambitions well beyond their likely capabilities
-- which is good, of course.

Why is this good? Won't it lead to disappointment?

(a) If you don't have ambitions, then you *certainly* won't
fulfil any of them. (b) The very worst sin in teaching is to kill
off ambition in those you teach. (c) Disappointment is not the
worst thing in real life.

A very few people experience genuine ambition-related
disappointment [you get your chance to play for Notts 2nd XI, and
realise rather suddenly and brutally that you are never going to be
good enough to play for the 1st XI, let alone for England]. Most of
us just ease into it [after a term or two of doing univ maths, you
find it harder than you expected, and your ambitions slowly lower
from solving the mysteries of life, the universe and everything,
through getting a first, to getting some sort of degree and a decent
job].

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
In my experience this is completely wrong. Unfortunately, these days
most university applicants seem obsessed with wanting to "get a good
job" and instead of studying for the fun of it and in order to grow up
and expand intellectually, all they are interested in is doing
whatever it takes to get "a good job" and they mean being an
accountant etc. It is much harder and much less fun to teach such
people, because their minds are closed and they are not really
interested in what you're teaching them - they're just looking for a
meal ticket.

And there endeth yet another diatribe about why the rest of us mere
mortals are not worthy.
Wonder why the old degrees are known as bread and cheese? Surely not
becasue they were cheap to run and because bread and cheese was all
that's needed to keep crusty Col Blimps'.
I wonder what would happen if the obviously much higher flyers who post
from <cough> another place had to try and "teach" instead of saying
"fofo" when asked a question by a student. ;-)

The majority of students I teach are from the more socially deprived
parts of London and have grade C or thereabouts A-levels. I am
passionately concerned with teaching these people and making sure they
have a good and worthwhile time at university. If a student knocks on
my office door and asks a question, I am happy to give up what I am
doing and spend maybe an hour discussing it with him.

All I am saying is that learning is a matter of attitude. If you come
to it with a grumpy "I'm not really interested in this, but I have to
do it" attitude, you won't do well, it'll all be drudgery. If you come
to it with a positive "I find this really interesting and wantg to do
it for its own sake" attitude, it'll be easy and life will bne mnuch
more fun. What in my saying this deserevs your stupid and complete
wrong and actually rather hurtful insults?

Matthew Huntbach

[Ian]

All I am saying is that learning is a matter of attitude. If you come to
it with a grumpy "I'm not really interested in this, but I have to do
it" attitude, you won't do well, it'll all be drudgery. If you come to
it with a positive "I find this really interesting and wantg to do it
for its own sake" attitude, it'll be easy and life will bne mnuch more
fun.

What I don't understand is why there is mutual exclusion? I mean an
attitude of this is really interesting and I'd like to use it in my chosen
career seems more logical. I'm looking to employ a fresh CS graduate or
similar. It would be easier if they had done some server management rather
than lots of programming. Snag is that the MCSEs we have interviewed are
not intellectually up to it and lack flexibility, the graduates need quite
a lot of training. Ok, its a generalisation but can't we have a computer
science course that does some network server stuff that is practically
based? Just a unit would do to get them kicked off.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Ian

All I am saying is that learning is a matter of attitude. If you come to
it with a grumpy "I'm not really interested in this, but I have to do
it" attitude, you won't do well, it'll all be drudgery. If you come to
it with a positive "I find this really interesting and wantg to do it
for its own sake" attitude, it'll be easy and life will bne mnuch more
fun.

What I don't understand is why there is mutual exclusion? I mean an
attitude of this is really interesting and I'd like to use it in my chosen
career seems more logical. I'm looking to employ a fresh CS graduate or
similar. It would be easier if they had done some server management rather
than lots of programming. Snag is that the MCSEs we have interviewed are
not intellectually up to it and lack flexibility, the graduates need quite
a lot of training. Ok, its a generalisation but can't we have a computer
science course that does some network server stuff that is practically
based? Just a unit would do to get them kicked off.

Eh? Where in what I have written does it say that CS graduates won't
have done any server management? Your reply seems to have assumed I
have written something completely different from what I have written.

I wrote nothing at all about the contents of a CS degree. All I did
was suggest those who came into it only with the view "I'm doing it to
get a good job" tend to do worse than those who come in with the
attitude "This is fun stuff, and I'm going to enjoy studying it".

Network management stuff most certainly is covered in our CS degree,
and the majority of final year projects these days seem to be based
around client-server stuff. I don't think we're atypical in that.
Sure, straightforward programming and understanding and appreciation
of algorithms are still core skills I'd expect any CS graduate to
have, but the idea that CS degrees consist of nothing else is
completely wrong. In fact in the degree I recruit for, we tend to pack
all the basic programming stuff into the first year, and there isn't
that much programming after that. We work on the basis that they've
done that, established it as a foundation, and then make use of it as
necessary in what comes later.

Matthew Huntbach

[Ian]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Ian

Post by Matthew Huntbach
All I am saying is that learning is a matter of attitude. If you come
to it with a grumpy "I'm not really interested in this, but I have to
do it" attitude, you won't do well, it'll all be drudgery. If you
come to it with a positive "I find this really interesting and wantg
to do it for its own sake" attitude, it'll be easy and life will bne
mnuch more fun.

What I don't understand is why there is mutual exclusion? I mean an
attitude of this is really interesting and I'd like to use it in my
chosen career seems more logical. I'm looking to employ a fresh CS
graduate or similar. It would be easier if they had done some server
management rather than lots of programming. Snag is that the MCSEs we
have interviewed are not intellectually up to it and lack flexibility,
the graduates need quite a lot of training. Ok, its a generalisation
but can't we have a computer science course that does some network
server stuff that is practically based? Just a unit would do to get
them kicked off.

Eh? Where in what I have written does it say that CS graduates won't
have done any server management?

I'm assuming that CS departments don't do it after reading about 50 recent
graduate CVs that say nothing about it despite being on the list of
requirements in the job spec.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Your reply seems to have assumed I
have written something completely different from what I have written.
I wrote nothing at all about the contents of a CS degree. All I did was
suggest those who came into it only with the view "I'm doing it to get a
good job" tend to do worse than those who come in with the attitude
"This is fun stuff, and I'm going to enjoy studying it".

You think that has nothing to do with the content of the degree? If they
are job motivated and the degree contains things likely to get them a job
and they can see that, they are more likely to be motivated. I can only go
on what you post but the impression you give is you know little about how
to motivate young people.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Network management stuff most certainly is covered in our CS degree, and
the majority of final year projects these days seem to be based around
client-server stuff. I don't think we're atypical in that.

I'd say based on a fairly random recent sample of CVs, either the careers
guidance is crap and they simply don't know how to target a job
application or you are indeed unusual.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Sure, straightforward programming and understanding and appreciation of
algorithms are still core skills I'd expect any CS graduate to have, but
the idea that CS degrees consist of nothing else is completely wrong. In
fact in the degree I recruit for, we tend to pack all the basic
programming stuff into the first year, and there isn't that much
programming after that. We work on the basis that they've done that,
established it as a foundation, and then make use of it as necessary in
what comes later.

It'll be interesting to interview some of these candidates and find out
why they said nothing about knowledge of servers in their applications
when the spec specifically said knowledge of Windows and Linux servers
would be an advantage.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Ian

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Eh? Where in what I have written does it say that CS graduates won't
have done any server management?

I'm assuming that CS departments don't do it after reading about 50 recent
graduate CVs that say nothing about it despite being on the list of
requirements in the job spec.

I am surprised by that.

Post by Ian

Post by Matthew Huntbach
I wrote nothing at all about the contents of a CS degree. All I did was
suggest those who came into it only with the view "I'm doing it to get a
good job" tend to do worse than those who come in with the attitude
"This is fun stuff, and I'm going to enjoy studying it".

You think that has nothing to do with the content of the degree? If they
are job motivated and the degree contains things likely to get them a job
and they can see that, they are more likely to be motivated. I can only go
on what you post but the impression you give is you know little about how
to motivate young people.

I simply posted a statement of fact - those who have a genuine
interest in the subject tend to do better than those who are only in
it to get a job. That does not mean I have no interest in making the
material in the degree relevant to the job market. In fact I am very
concerned that it *is* relevant, and welcome constructive criticism.

Post by Ian

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Network management stuff most certainly is covered in our CS degree, and
the majority of final year projects these days seem to be based around
client-server stuff. I don't think we're atypical in that.

I'd say based on a fairly random recent sample of CVs, either the careers
guidance is crap and they simply don't know how to target a job
application or you are indeed unusual.

Network management has grown up from something that was a fairly
esoteric sideline to something which is fundamental to modern use of
computers. I'd expect that to be reflected in a modern CS degree.

Matthew Huntbach

[Ian]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Network management has grown up from something that was a fairly
esoteric sideline to something which is fundamental to modern use of
computers.

Networks have been the dominant way of deploying computers in business for
at least 15 years - probably more.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
I'd expect that to be reflected in a modern CS degree.

Me too which is why I couldn't understand the job apps. On a more serious
and constructive note, I would like to see understanding of the
fundamnetal principles of how networks servers work including a range of
server types - File servers, print servers, thin client, databse etc. Once
the underlying principles of security etc are understood then take say
Windows and GNU/Linux to do some case studies and comparisons of how the
underlying principles are put into practice. To me that would be far
better than things like MCSE which people seem to be able to achieve
without understanding anything.

Since I'm also interested in FLOSS, I'd like students to understand some
of the wider issues surrounding technological change, open standards,
lock-in, copyright and licensing.

Regards,

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Ian

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Network management has grown up from something that was a fairly
esoteric sideline to something which is fundamental to modern use of
computers.

Networks have been the dominant way of deploying computers in business for
at least 15 years - probably more.

I was thinking more of the growth of the web which has created a much
more conscious use of networks than used to be the case.

Post by Ian

Post by Matthew Huntbach
I'd expect that to be reflected in a modern CS degree.

Me too which is why I couldn't understand the job apps. On a more serious
and constructive note, I would like to see understanding of the
fundamnetal principles of how networks servers work including a range of
server types - File servers, print servers, thin client, databse etc. Once
the underlying principles of security etc are understood then take say
Windows and GNU/Linux to do some case studies and comparisons of how the
underlying principles are put into practice.

OK, but it now seems you're asking for a more specialist degree in
which networks are a major component. What has happened is that
Computer Science has grown so that all sorts of things which might
once have been small peripheral issues are now major. Take design and
construction of user interfaces, which may have been a small thing in
the days of text-based interfaces, but now must be far more central.
There are many other things which now could easily take up several
course units as part of a degree. Also, with networks you may find
that Electronic Engineering degrees cover them more than Computer
Science degrees.

Looking through this year's UCAS directory I note that over forty
universities are advertised as offering degrees with "networks" in the
title. So your idea that they just aren't taught is far from the mark.
Maybe the advert you mentioned was just targetted at the wronf
audience. Don't forget that it tends to be the lower-ranking
universities which offer the more specialist and hands-on degrees.

Post by Ian
To me that would be far
better than things like MCSE which people seem to be able to achieve
without understanding anything.

Yes, agreed. Most commercial certification seems from what I have seen
to consist of rote memorisation without understanding, which is why I
regard it as worthless in recruiting for degrees.

Post by Ian
Since I'm also interested in FLOSS, I'd like students to understand some
of the wider issues surrounding technological change, open standards,
lock-in, copyright and licensing.

These issues receive a course unit in their own right in our degree,
and I would imagine in many others. It still seems to me that yuour
view of CS degrees is as they were some years ago, rather than as they
are now, and perhaps over-coloured by a few excessively theoretical
ones which tend to be offered by the most prestigious universities.

Matthew Huntbach

[Ian]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Ian

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Network management has grown up from something that was a fairly
esoteric sideline to something which is fundamental to modern use of
computers.

Networks have been the dominant way of deploying computers in business for
at least 15 years - probably more.

I was thinking more of the growth of the web which has created a much
more conscious use of networks than used to be the case.

Post by Ian

Post by Matthew Huntbach
I'd expect that to be reflected in a modern CS degree.

Me too which is why I couldn't understand the job apps. On a more serious
and constructive note, I would like to see understanding of the
fundamnetal principles of how networks servers work including a range of
server types - File servers, print servers, thin client, databse etc. Once
the underlying principles of security etc are understood then take say
Windows and GNU/Linux to do some case studies and comparisons of how the
underlying principles are put into practice.

OK, but it now seems you're asking for a more specialist degree in
which networks are a major component.

Yes, that would be fine. Since there are a lot more obscure subjects for
degrees these days why not?

Post by Matthew Huntbach
What has happened is that
Computer Science has grown so that all sorts of things which might
once have been small peripheral issues are now major. Take design and
construction of user interfaces, which may have been a small thing in
the days of text-based interfaces, but now must be far more central.
There are many other things which now could easily take up several
course units as part of a degree. Also, with networks you may find
that Electronic Engineering degrees cover them more than Computer
Science degrees.

I'd have thought maybe the hardware, but network hardware is easy. Its
server administration, customisation, software security, thin client
applications etc that need some brains.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Looking through this year's UCAS directory I note that over forty
universities are advertised as offering degrees with "networks" in the
title. So your idea that they just aren't taught is far from the mark.

Ah, but that depends what you mean by networks. Cisco do networking
certification but its generally useful to cable installers not server
managers. The word network is not helpful really. A degree in systems
design, development and administration would be a more useful description.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Maybe the advert you mentioned was just targetted at the wronf
audience. Don't forget that it tends to be the lower-ranking
universities which offer the more specialist and hands-on degrees.

Most of the applicants are from lower ranking universities. The
advertisement was Internet based and targeted on the sort of people likely
to be working in IT or recently graduating. We have got a small number of
possibles but few of them are the graduates. We might well end up
appointing an experienced non-graduate with the technical experience and a
new graduate to train up. But a lot of graduates have been simply rejected
and there seem to be a lot about without jobs since they graduated.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Ian
To me that would be far
better than things like MCSE which people seem to be able to achieve
without understanding anything.

Yes, agreed. Most commercial certification seems from what I have seen
to consist of rote memorisation without understanding, which is why I
regard it as worthless in recruiting for degrees.

Its pretty worthless recruiting for business. Unfortunately people
believe marketing hype.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Ian
Since I'm also interested in FLOSS, I'd like students to understand some
of the wider issues surrounding technological change, open standards,
lock-in, copyright and licensing.

These issues receive a course unit in their own right in our degree,
and I would imagine in many others.

Good, interestingly I sent out a further series of questions on some of
these issues to the "long list" and so far the response is from clueless
to seems to know a bit.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
It still seems to me that yuour
view of CS degrees is as they were some years ago, rather than as they
are now, and perhaps over-coloured by a few excessively theoretical
ones which tend to be offered by the most prestigious universities.

All I have to make judgements is what comes back when I send out a job
advert.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach

Post by Ian
Most of the applicants are from lower ranking universities. The
advertisement was Internet based and targeted on the sort of people likely
to be working in IT or recently graduating. We have got a small number of
possibles but few of them are the graduates. We might well end up
appointing an experienced non-graduate with the technical experience and a
new graduate to train up. But a lot of graduates have been simply rejected
and there seem to be a lot about without jobs since they graduated.

How many applicants do you tend to get when you advertise jobs? Why do
you reject them, how do you whittle them down? Is it common to find
badly done CVs eg spelling mistakes and poor English, such as
to/too/two know/now/knew/new etc or other appalling applicants.

On the whole would you say the lower the university the worse the
applicant?

[Ian]

Post by

Post by Ian
Most of the applicants are from lower ranking universities. The
advertisement was Internet based and targeted on the sort of people
likely to be working in IT or recently graduating. We have got a small
number of possibles but few of them are the graduates. We might well end
up appointing an experienced non-graduate with the technical experience
and a new graduate to train up. But a lot of graduates have been simply
rejected and there seem to be a lot about without jobs since they
graduated.

How many applicants do you tend to get when you advertise jobs?

This last one it must be about 30-40 so far.

Post by
Why do
you reject them, how do you whittle them down?

The most annoying thing is that many just send a general CV and do not
attempt to say why they fit the job specification. Few do any research. I
mean how hard is it to log on and look at our web site to see the sort of
thing we do and then focus on why they can help? To be honest, it should
be pretty easy to get a job interview *if* you are prepared to put a bit
of effort into the application. 3 or 4 well researched and focussed ones
are better than 300 generic CVs that do not differentiate you from the
next candidate.

Post by
Is it common to find
badly done CVs eg spelling mistakes and poor English, such as
to/too/two know/now/knew/new etc or other appalling applicants.

Not uncommon but I'd forgive this personally if the rest was targeted. The
thing is that anyone with the nouse to do the above is going to take the
time to spellcheck their CV. I usually send the long list a couple of
questions based on the sort of things we do asking for an E-mail reply.
That sorts out another lot preventing waste of time on their part and
ours. If they can't be arsed to spend half an hour thinking about the
questions and structuring a decent reply they are not likely to be much
good to us.

Post by
On the whole would you say the lower the university the worse the
applicant?

Not too sure about that but I have also looked at hundreds of applicants
for teaching jobs and in general I'd say the standard of job applications
is mostly mediocre. That's why someone who really takes it seriously
should have no problem getting to interview. Personally, when I was in a
position of applying I treated it as a full-time job and tailored every
application to the job spec supplied. Its pointless just chucking in a CV
- well you are extremely lucky if it gets you anywhere if there is any
significant competition. With any application for anything, grants, jobs,
whatever you *must* hit the criteria they use to choose and these are
usually spelt out in the job spec. If it says Linux servers, waxing
lyrical about a lot of Windows experience isn't going to help and vice
versa. A smart candidate would use his knowledge and a bit of research to
show they knew something in the required area even if it wasn't something
they had much experience of.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Ian

Post by Matthew Huntbach
OK, but it now seems you're asking for a more specialist degree in
which networks are a major component.

Yes, that would be fine. Since there are a lot more obscure subjects for
degrees these days why not?

As I suggested, it also has to do with the expansion of computing as a
subject. Back in the 1970s you could cover a reasonable amount of
almost everything that was significant in a single three year degree.
Now there's so much more to cover, which means you either have to
specialise or cover some aspects to less depth than would be ideal.

Post by Ian

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Also, with networks you may find that Electronic Engineering degrees cover them more
than Computer Science degrees.

I'd have thought maybe the hardware, but network hardware is easy. Its
server administration, customisation, software security, thin client
applications etc that need some brains.

Where I am, the Electronic Engineering department does a lot of stuff
which is more software, though systems software, than hardware. Again,
it's due to the expansion of the subject, CS departments may have met
this by dropping some of the more systems and hardware oriented
aspects of what they used to do, and this has been picked up by EE
departments.

Post by Ian

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Looking through this year's UCAS directory I note that over forty
universities are advertised as offering degrees with "networks" in the
title. So your idea that they just aren't taught is far from the mark.

Ah, but that depends what you mean by networks. Cisco do networking
certification but its generally useful to cable installers not server
managers. The word network is not helpful really. A degree in systems
design, development and administration would be a more useful description.

I'm only noting what's in the UCAS directory. One would have to move
from this to lok atb the individual universities and the details of
the degrees they offer to see exactlyn what is meant by it. However, I
would suppose if it is taught at degree level, it would be more than
cable installation.

Matthew Huntbach

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Ian

Maybe the advert you mentioned was just targetted at the wrong
audience. Don't forget that it tends to be the lower-ranking
universities which offer the more specialist and hands-on degrees.

Most of the applicants are from lower ranking universities. The
advertisement was Internet based and targeted on the sort of people likely
to be working in IT or recently graduating. We have got a small number of
possibles but few of them are the graduates. We might well end up
appointing an experienced non-graduate with the technical experience and a
new graduate to train up. But a lot of graduates have been simply rejected
and there seem to be a lot about without jobs since they graduated.

OK, I think I can see what's happening. "ICT" is regarded as a "doss
subject" to use schoolchild slang, something those who can't cope with
more academic subjects are pushed towards. Computer Science degrees
are seen in schools as an extension of this. I have actually had it
said to me "In Asian families, Computer Science is seen as something
for thickies" (most of my applicants are from Asian families) i.e. the
bright ones are pushed into Medicine and Law and maybe Engineering
after that. It's also, let us be honest, a subject which attracts the
less socially able, who may be able to cope very well with the
technical side of the subject, but fall down on all the human
interaction things you want.

So I think part of your problem with the product of CS degrees isn't
to do with the degrees themselves, but to do with the sort of person
who takes those degrees. I find a similar thing with ICT A-level -
there's some useful stuff in it, though it's not as closely related to
Computer Science as many suppose, but the very fact that someone is
taking it acts as a marker that they have been pushed or have chosen
themselves to take what they consider is an "easy option" subject, and
that means they are someone who lacks qualities I require.

In a CS department in a middle ranking university institution such as
mine, we still have some selection over who comes on the degree, so
despite the many unsuitable applicants we can still find enough who
are reasonable. Although that's much harder this year with the slump
in CS applications. At the lower end of the market, they have to take
who they can - there are administrators who are saying "look, you've
got large numbers of applicants, so you can take them on". I do think
the number of CS and IT degree places was over-expanded in the boom
years when there were students flocking to take them, and that has had
the consequence of weakening the quality of the output of those
degrees.

My response to this is to insist of maintaining the quality of the
degree, even if this means a large number of failures, as those who
are unsuitable drop out when they find it's actually an intellectually
demanding subject that also requires a lot of hard work. However, in
the UK, a high failure rate on a degree is regarded as a bad thing,
the main consequence of having one is that you get dragged down the
league tables so end up having even worse students. If you're a
lecturer who insists on high quality maintained if necessary by a high
failure rate, you may well get condemned as a "bad lecturer" who is
unable to motivate his students. Reducing the failure rate is
easy-peasy - you just drop all the exam questions that require hard
thinking and make the exam based on rote memorisation, and you make
more of the assessment based on coursework and ignore the reality that
most of your students will plagiarise like mad.

Post by Ian

Post by Ian
To me that would be far
better than things like MCSE which people seem to be able to achieve
without understanding anything.

Yes, agreed. Most commercial certification seems from what I have seen
to consist of rote memorisation without understanding, which is why I
regard it as worthless in recruiting for degrees.

Its pretty worthless recruiting for business. Unfortunately people
believe marketing hype.

Indeed, and that answers your point about "Why take a degree? - I can
find out about the subject myself". If people are looking to learn for
themselves about computing, chances are they will come across things
like the MSCE and other commercial certification and think that's what
it is. I come across plenty of degree applicants who thgink they are
"computer experts" who have taught themselves through what they can
find on websites and in books, but their level of knowledge and
ability is of the sort you find and dismiss in people with various
commercial certificates.

Matthew Huntbach

[Ian]

So I think part of your problem with the product of CS degrees isn't to
do with the degrees themselves, but to do with the sort of person who
takes those degrees.

WMaybe my expectation that the degree helps mould the whole person is too
high an expectation.

I find a similar thing with ICT A-level - there's some useful stuff in
it, though it's not as closely related to Computer Science as many
suppose,

But there are degree in computer studies now which are more like ICT.
Again I guess maths is the discriminator. That says something about
intellectual capacity. In some ways I might as well just take a kid with
good maths A level grades and train them myself - of course there are not
too many of those available as you yourself acknowledge.

but the very fact that someone is
taking it acts as a marker that they have been pushed or have chosen
themselves to take what they consider is an "easy option" subject, and
that means they are someone who lacks qualities I require.

I think that is far too simplistic. It assumes everyone has the same
intellectual capacity and its just a matter of motivation and drive. While
the latter two are important, its also apparent that for some kids getting
3 Cs in say DT, Bi, and ICT is better than getting 3 Us in Ma, Ph, Ch

That particular kid might have worked extremely hard to get to that point.
I know people with Ds and Es that have got 2.1s and firsts and someone
with straight As that got a Desmond. I would also employ someone with good
interpersonal skills and a 2.2 in computer studies rather than a
technonerd with a first in comp sc. Ok a first in CS and brilliant
interpersonal skills would be my first choice but I doubt I could afford
such a person if I could find them.

In a CS department in a middle ranking university institution such as
mine, we still have some selection over who comes on the degree, so
despite the many unsuitable applicants we can still find enough who are
reasonable. Although that's much harder this year with the slump in CS
applications. At the lower end of the market, they have to take who they
can - there are administrators who are saying "look, you've got large
numbers of applicants, so you can take them on". I do think the number
of CS and IT degree places was over-expanded in the boom years when
there were students flocking to take them, and that has had the
consequence of weakening the quality of the output of those degrees.

Well that might be so but I'll come back to the original point. The main
issue for me is that students don't seem to know how to apply for a job
and the things on their CVs don't seem that geared to network admin. So
maybe I need to find a university that has a degree called Principles of
building maintaining and administering networks and that teaches students
how to target a job application. All is not lost. I'll find decent people,
it just seems to be more of a hassle than it needs to be.

My response to this is to insist of maintaining the quality of the
degree, even if this means a large number of failures, as those who are
unsuitable drop out when they find it's actually an intellectually
demanding subject that also requires a lot of hard work. However, in the
UK, a high failure rate on a degree is regarded as a bad thing, the main
consequence of having one is that you get dragged down the league tables
so end up having even worse students. If you're a lecturer who insists
on high quality maintained if necessary by a high failure rate, you may
well get condemned as a "bad lecturer" who is unable to motivate his
students.

Externally set exams would knock that on the head.

Reducing the failure rate is
easy-peasy - you just drop all the exam questions that require hard
thinking and make the exam based on rote memorisation, and you make more
of the assessment based on coursework and ignore the reality that most
of your students will plagiarise like mad.

Post by Ian

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Ian
To me that would be far
better than things like MCSE which people seem to be able to achieve
without understanding anything.

Yes, agreed. Most commercial certification seems from what I have
seen to consist of rote memorisation without understanding, which is
why I regard it as worthless in recruiting for degrees.

Its pretty worthless recruiting for business. Unfortunately people
believe marketing hype.

Indeed, and that answers your point about "Why take a degree? - I can
find out about the subject myself". If people are looking to learn for
themselves about computing, chances are they will come across things
like the MSCE and other commercial certification and think that's what
it is.

Your devalued degrees don't seem that good an alternative ;-). Anyway I'm
assuming that the people with the brains to do your more demanding degree
would also have the brains to look at MCSE and realise its shortcomings.
They will probably do it anyway for the same reason they would do a degree
- it makes them more employable. It it was just about intellectual
stimulation they can get that from other sources.

I come across plenty of degree applicants who thgink they are "computer
experts" who have taught themselves through what they can find on
websites and in books, but their level of knowledge and ability is of
the sort you find and dismiss in people with various commercial
certificates.

Well expertise is relative and it depends on the focus of your knowledge.
There are plenty of areas in computing that I know nothing about and don't
really want to know. Others I'd say I knew as much about as anyone.
Depends on what you compare and what you think its important to know.

[Dr A. N. Walker]

[...]. The main
issue for me is that students don't seem to know how to apply for a job
and the things on their CVs don't seem that geared to network admin.

There is a "horse to water" problem hereabouts. We spend
quite a lot of time in our courses "encouraging" our students to
complete practice CV's, discuss them with tutors [perhaps *not* all
that useful ...] and with the careers people [*should* be useful],
reflect on progress, etc., etc. Broadly, those students who don't
need to worry about all this do what we ask, and those who do don't.
IYSWIM. And of course there is no guarantee that a student who is
good at [in our case] maths is also good at CV-writing, even after
being shown how to do it. At an earlier stage, many [most?] UCAS
forms are quite badly written -- I wish schools would do more to
get advice from ATs [as opposed to UCAS and univ administrators]
and to act on it.

Somewhat OT, but you often see people on telly bemoaning the
fact that despite their degree in semiotics-with-dance from Bog End
FPU or their IT certificate from Gas Lane FE college, they *still*
can't get a job, despite applying for *hundreds*. It never seems
to occur to them that there may be something wrong with their CV's,
or with their interview techniques, or with *them* ....

[MMH:]

[...]. If you're a lecturer who insists
on high quality maintained if necessary by a high failure rate, you may
well get condemned as a "bad lecturer" who is unable to motivate his
students.

If so, this is an institutional [at some level] problem.
If it is a problem for *you*, then it means you are out of step
with your dept; if for your dept, it is out of step with your
institution; if for your inst, then with some mix of govt and
the media. But I've spent enough years as a round peg in a square
hole myself to know that being out of step is sometimes necessary,
and you have my sympathy.

Externally set exams would knock that on the head.

Yes, but they are not a practical solution. Even at
first-year level, who is going to set them? Or are you going
to insist that Cambridge and Bog End work to the same syllabus?
Or if there is not a common syllabus, then you are creating a
huge amount of work for setters who do not know the details of
what is being taught at [eg] Cambridge. Getting adequate
external *moderation* is already a problem. For final-year
options, it would be hopeless -- not that much easier than
trying to supervise someone else's PhD student.

[Ian]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

[...]. The main

Yes, but they are not a practical solution. Even at
first-year level, who is going to set them?

Schools seem to manage.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Or are you going
to insist that Cambridge and Bog End work to the same syllabus?

Well if they are both issuing a degree with the same class and levels the
naive employer might thnk they are equivalent ;-)

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Or if there is not a common syllabus, then you are creating a huge
amount of work for setters who do not know the details of what is being
taught at [eg] Cambridge. Getting adequate external *moderation* is
already a problem. For final-year options, it would be hopeless -- not
that much easier than trying to supervise someone else's PhD student.

Ok, it will cost money. Its not that its not possible, its that the cost
is not thought worth it. So we carry on with an MSC in subject X in Uni Y
that is easier than the A levels everyone thinks are too easy :-)

[Rachel]

I saw your dept. in the paper (guardian maybe?) - some girl saying the
department was like a
little family and they stay in the computer lab geeking until 10 pm every
night - bless.... i'm sure there was a subject or topic for the article
just can't remember it... the theme ?

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Rachel
I saw your dept. in the paper (guardian maybe?) - some girl saying the
department was like a little family and they stay in the computer lab
geeking until 10 pm every night - bless.... i'm sure there was a subject
or topic for the article just can't remember it... the theme ?

I think it was in the Guardian Clearing supplement. I think she said
some nice positive things about are department. On the whole we find
that once students have passed the hurdle of the first year, they do
get enthusiastic and motivated and like what we're offering.

There was an amusing article in the Observer on Sunday quoting a girl
who had wanted to go to Warwick but ended up going to Reading. She
said she felt Reading would be a horrible place, but was warming to
it, thinking "a new university like Reading" might be more friendly
than "an old one like Warwick". Of course, Warwick is actually the
newer university, which used to have a reputation as a horrible place.
A couple of decades ago the comment would have been the other way
round.

Matthew Huntbach

[`p]

Matthew Huntbach wrote in

Post by Matthew Huntbach
The majority of students I teach are from the more socially deprived
parts of London and have grade C or thereabouts A-levels. I am
passionately concerned with teaching these people and making sure they
have a good and worthwhile time at university. If a student knocks on
my office door and asks a question, I am happy to give up what I am
doing and spend maybe an hour discussing it with him.

Thank goodness for that. *Now* you're beginning to sound like a
teacher.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
All I am saying is that learning is a matter of attitude. If you come
to it with a grumpy "I'm not really interested in this, but I have to
do it" attitude, you won't do well, it'll all be drudgery. If you come
to it with a positive "I find this really interesting and wantg to do
it for its own sake" attitude, it'll be easy and life will bne mnuch
more fun. What in my saying this deserevs your stupid and complete
wrong and actually rather hurtful insults?

But it also cuts both ways. Quite often you come across as being dry and
only concerned about the "quality" of the students that you get on your
course. Yes, I know that you find that a good Maths A level pass is a
good precursor for CS, and I cannot argue with that from your
perspective, however, I find a lot of what you post to be just whinges
about the abilities of the kids who want to do CS. Whatever their
motives are in the long run, there are a lot of kids who want to learn,
even when their intellectual ability is probably weak by your standards
but it's their choice. Sometimes sheer bloody-mindedness on the part
of a kid can achieve wonderful results.

If you find my posts are stupid and wrong then that's your perogative; I
have absolutely no inclination to change your mind. However, I will say
this, I have found many of your previous posts over the years about IT
to be have prejudiced and wrong when you have directly compared IT with
CS. Particlary when you have laid the blame about kids choosing CS on
their teachers because they're "good" with computers. IT teachers
don't make that mistake; we know the difference between the front and
back end, the human and the machine interfaces. So when you've posted
about IT being fit only for secretaries that's well and truly got my
knife highly honed. And the irony is that the IT portion of my degree
was accredited through the study of Informatics. So should I be
agreeing with you through some kind of quasi-hybridised subject
symbiosis because of that link between IT and CS? No. If a kid's keen
and willing, I'll always give the kid a chance regardless of indicators
and precursors; there are always exceptions that test the rules. No
matter how many times the rules have been proved before.

[John Porcella]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
In my experience this is completely wrong. Unfortunately, these days
most university applicants seem obsessed with wanting to "get a good
job" and instead of studying for the fun of it and in order to grow up
and expand intellectually, all they are interested in is doing
whatever it takes to get "a good job" and they mean being an
accountant etc. It is much harder and much less fun to teach such
people, because their minds are closed and they are not really
interested in what you're teaching them - they're just looking for a
meal ticket.

Who can blame them, frankly? After all, they will graduate with debts that
your generation and mine never had to think about.

[jess]

Post by Jeremey Williams
I think this probably applies in particular to computer related
degrees, where lots of the need for maths and programming are removed
from the degrees the new universities run.

YAMMHAICMFP

[Alun Harford]

Post by jess

Post by Jeremey Williams
I think this probably applies in particular to computer related
degrees, where lots of the need for maths and programming are removed
from the degrees the new universities run.

YAMMHAICMFP

Your search - YAMMHAICMFP - did not match any documents.
No pages were found containing "yammhaicmfp".

Suggestions:

- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Try different keywords.
- Try more general keywords.

Also, you can try Google Answers for expert help with your search.

[Alex Warren]

Post by Alun Harford

Post by jess
YAMMHAICMFP

Your search - YAMMHAICMFP - did not match any documents.
No pages were found containing "yammhaicmfp".

Clue: FP = Five Pounds


Alex

[James Gregory]

Post by Alex Warren

Post by Alun Harford

Post by jess
YAMMHAICMFP

Your search - YAMMHAICMFP - did not match any documents.
No pages were found containing "yammhaicmfp".

Clue: FP = Five Pounds

Yet another Matthew M Huntbach and I claim my five pounds?

Hmm, nope, must think more...

James

[jess]

Post by James Gregory

Post by Alex Warren

Post by Alun Harford

Post by jess
YAMMHAICMFP

Your search - YAMMHAICMFP - did not match any documents.
No pages were found containing "yammhaicmfp".

Clue: FP = Five Pounds

Yet another Matthew M Huntbach and I claim my five pounds?

close, but no cigar.

[Ray Pang]

Post by jess

Post by James Gregory

Post by Alex Warren

Post by Alun Harford

Post by jess
YAMMHAICMFP

Your search - YAMMHAICMFP - did not match any documents.
No pages were found containing "yammhaicmfp".

Clue: FP = Five Pounds

Yet another Matthew M Huntbach and I claim my five pounds?

close, but no cigar.

You are MMH and I claim my five pounds?

[jess]

Post by Ray Pang

Post by jess

Post by James Gregory

Post by Alex Warren

Post by Alun Harford

Post by jess
YAMMHAICMFP

Your search - YAMMHAICMFP - did not match any documents.
No pages were found containing "yammhaicmfp".

Clue: FP = Five Pounds

Yet another Matthew M Huntbach and I claim my five pounds?

close, but no cigar.

You are MMH and I claim my five pounds?

exactly.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by jess

Post by Ray Pang

Post by jess

Post by James Gregory

Post by Alex Warren

Post by Alun Harford

Post by jess
YAMMHAICMFP

Your search - YAMMHAICMFP - did not match any documents.
No pages were found containing "yammhaicmfp".

Clue: FP = Five Pounds

Yet another Matthew M Huntbach and I claim my five pounds?

close, but no cigar.

You are MMH and I claim my five pounds?

exactly.

I post only under my own name, though today I'm having to use a Google
groups account as due to some system problems almost nothing is
working in my department's computer services.

Matthew Huntbach

[jess]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by jess

Post by Ray Pang

Post by jess

Post by James Gregory

Post by Alex Warren

Post by Alun Harford

Post by jess
YAMMHAICMFP

Your search - YAMMHAICMFP - did not match any documents.
No pages were found containing "yammhaicmfp".

Clue: FP = Five Pounds

Yet another Matthew M Huntbach and I claim my five pounds?

close, but no cigar.

You are MMH and I claim my five pounds?

exactly.

I post only under my own name, though today I'm having to use a Google
groups account as due to some system problems almost nothing is
working in my department's computer services.

it was a joke, matthew.

[OK]

Post by jess

Post by Jeremey Williams
I think this probably applies in particular to computer related
degrees, where lots of the need for maths and programming are removed
from the degrees the new universities run.

YAMMHAICMFP

The probably are considering their lower entry requirements and the huge
numbers who enter through clearning.... and not only this but they allow
many of their students to fail and then retake and normally a much more
prestigous university would probablyu kick you off the course....

[a***@yahoo.com]

Post by Ian
I'm looking to employ a fresh CS graduate or
similar. It would be easier if they had done some server management

rather

Post by Ian
than lots of programming. Snag is that the MCSEs we have interviewed

are

Post by Ian
not intellectually up to it and lack flexibility, the graduates need

quite

Post by Ian
a lot of training. Ok, its a generalisation but can't we have a

computer

Post by Ian
science course that does some network server stuff that is

practically

Post by Ian
based? Just a unit would do to get them kicked off.

If you're looking for a BOFH you need to find and hire a BOFH. They may
or may not have a degree in computer science. "Server Management" is
not computer science (well maybe if you're designing and creating new
ways to manage servers then yes, but otherwise no), so why on earth do
you expect it to be covered in a computer science degree?

BTW, the best way to find a BOFH is to ask another BOFH. Very few
people worth employing have an MCSE, as people worth employing don't
need to pay thousands of pounds for a qualification a very stupid
monkey could get.

[Robert de Vincy]

***@yahoo.com did write:

[snip]

Post by a***@yahoo.com
If you're looking for a BOFH you need to find and hire a BOFH. They may
or may not have a degree in computer science. "Server Management" is
not computer science (well maybe if you're designing and creating new
ways to manage servers then yes, but otherwise no), so why on earth do
you expect it to be covered in a computer science degree?
BTW, the best way to find a BOFH is to ask another BOFH. Very few
people worth employing have an MCSE, as people worth employing don't
need to pay thousands of pounds for a qualification a very stupid
monkey could get.

BOFH = Bringer Of False Hope?

[Matt Johnson]

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by a***@yahoo.com
If you're looking for a BOFH you need to find and hire a BOFH.

BOFH = Bringer Of False Hope?

Bastard Operator From Hell, I think.

http://bofh.ntk.net/

- --M

- --
Matt Johnson <***@doc.ic.ac.uk>
Junior Systems Programmer
Computing Support Group

"Computers come in two varieties: The Prototype, and The Obsolete."
- Anon

[Robert de Vincy]

Matt Johnson did write:

[PGP garbage snipped]

Post by Matt Johnson

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by a***@yahoo.com
If you're looking for a BOFH you need to find and hire a BOFH.

BOFH = Bringer Of False Hope?

Bastard Operator From Hell, I think.
http://bofh.ntk.net/

Oh. That's not even half as much fun as the image I had in mind.
Stupid reality.