How to cheat in exams using mobile phones and calculators

[C***@gmail.com]

thought this would make a good utility on cellphones -

http://www.getjar.com/products/1007/StudyME


Or easier still, you could just take photos of pages from books using
your cell-phone.



You could also put in formulas using graphical calculators.

Any recommendations anyone ? Which is better - CASIO or Texas
instruments?

Could English people recommend anywhere that sell these.. argos don't
seem to stock these caclulators.




ps - cheating is WRONG, IMMORAL and you will get caught. Do not cheat.
I am just curious.

[Al Reynolds]

Post by C***@gmail.com
thought this would make a good utility on cellphones -
http://www.getjar.com/products/1007/StudyME
Or easier still, you could just take photos of pages from books using
your cell-phone.
You could also put in formulas using graphical calculators.
Any recommendations anyone ? Which is better - CASIO or Texas
instruments?
Could English people recommend anywhere that sell these.. argos don't
seem to stock these caclulators.
ps - cheating is WRONG, IMMORAL and you will get caught. Do not cheat.
I am just curious.

It would be hard enough to get a mobile into a public exam and use it,
and if you are caught cheating at GCSE, you fail all your subjects AFAIR.

Al

[C***@gmail.com]

Post by Al Reynolds
It would be hard enough to get a mobile into a public exam and use it,
and if you are caught cheating at GCSE, you fail all your subjects AFAIR.
Al

I'm talking about 'tests' / 'mocks' not real exams.

[BORG]

Post by C***@gmail.com

Post by Al Reynolds
It would be hard enough to get a mobile into a public exam and use it,
and if you are caught cheating at GCSE, you fail all your subjects AFAIR.
Al

I'm talking about 'tests' / 'mocks' not real exams.

If your to stupid not to be able to do a GCSE then you shouldn't have
a mobile phone

[John Porcella]

Post by BORG
If your to stupid not to be able to do a GCSE then you shouldn't have
a mobile phone

If you are so ignorant of English grammar and/or spelling you should not
post on Usenet.

Two out of your first three words are wrong.

[Ian Johnston]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 19:39:36 UTC, "John Porcella"
<***@btinternet.com> wrote:

: If you are so ignorant of English grammar and/or spelling you should not
: post on Usenet.

That should have had a comma after "spelling".

Ian
--

[Pierian Spring]

Your remark would be correct only if the person whom you are
quoting intended that you would pause after you had
read his word, "spelling".

However, is there one rule for you and a different rule for
the person whom you are quoting?

By the rule that you suggested, your sentence, "That should
have had a comma after "spelling".", should have had a
comma after, "after".

(EOE :-) )

Post by Ian Johnston
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 19:39:36 UTC, "John Porcella"
: If you are so ignorant of English grammar and/or spelling you should not
: post on Usenet.
That should have had a comma after "spelling".

--

[d***@burnt.org.uk]

Post by Pierian Spring
Your remark would be correct only if the person whom you are
quoting intended that you would pause after you had
read his word, "spelling".
However, is there one rule for you and a different rule for
the person whom you are quoting?
By the rule that you suggested, your sentence, "That should
have had a comma after "spelling".", should have had a
comma after, "after".
(EOE :-) )

Post by Ian Johnston
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 19:39:36 UTC, "John Porcella"
: If you are so ignorant of English grammar and/or spelling you should not
: post on Usenet.
That should have had a comma after "spelling".

Whilst we're doing picky stuff... your post should have been placed at
the bottom.

In any case, a usenet grammar post isn't complete without a grammatical
error. I think it's in the handbook somewhere.

[guv]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 19:21:02 +0000, ***@burnt.org.uk wrote:

<snip>

Post by d***@burnt.org.uk

Post by Ian Johnston
: If you are so ignorant of English grammar and/or spelling you should not
: post on Usenet.
That should have had a comma after "spelling".

Whilst we're doing picky stuff... your post should have been placed at
the bottom.
In any case, a usenet grammar post isn't complete without a grammatical
error. I think it's in the handbook somewhere.

Agreed. There's nothing worse than grammer cops - apart from top
posters! ;-)

[Justin]

In sci.math guv <***@msn.com> wrote:

: Agreed. There's nothing worse than grammer cops - apart from top
: posters! ;-)

It's spelled "grammar".

Justin

[Guess who]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:07:57 +0000 (UTC), "Justin" <***@spam.com>
wrote:

I think he was being facetious. I hope I spelled that right, or is it
"spelt"? This is both top and bottom posted by the way.

Aside: "Stranger in a strange land" is one of my top choices of SF,
along with "The voyage of the space beagle" by Van Voght.

[Richard Henry]

Post by guv
<snip>

Post by d***@burnt.org.uk

Post by Ian Johnston
: If you are so ignorant of English grammar and/or spelling you should not
: post on Usenet.
That should have had a comma after "spelling".

Whilst we're doing picky stuff... your post should have been placed at
the bottom.
In any case, a usenet grammar post isn't complete without a grammatical
error. I think it's in the handbook somewhere.

Agreed. There's nothing worse than grammer cops - apart from top
posters! ;-)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/grammer

[Pierian Spring]

There's nothing wrong with top-posting, perhaps you prefer
this style, which is not top posted, but I have no doubt that
you will find it difficult if I respond to your main point
by referring you to Haupmann and Gradier, 1966?

Perhaps top posting is to be preferred?

[Pierian Spring]

No. No "should" about it. The issue of top or bottom posting is
an issue of personal preference.

Post by d***@burnt.org.uk
Whilst we're doing picky stuff... your post should have been placed at
the bottom.

[Robert Low]

Post by Pierian Spring
No. No "should" about it. The issue of top or bottom posting is
an issue of personal preference.

That's true. And the people who prefer top posting are
inconsiderate morons who choose to violate a well-established
ettiquette with a sound rational basis.

But of course, that's just my opinion.

[Pierian Spring]

Grow up, Robert Low!

Stupid boy.

Post by Robert Low

Post by Pierian Spring
No. No "should" about it. The issue of top or bottom posting is
an issue of personal preference.

That's true. And the people who prefer top posting are
inconsiderate morons who choose to violate a well-established
ettiquette with a sound rational basis.
But of course, that's just my opinion.

[Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)]

Post by Pierian Spring
Grow up, Robert Low!
Stupid boy.

*plonk*

[Jeremy Boden]

Post by Pierian Spring
No. No "should" about it. The issue of top or bottom posting is
an issue of personal preference.

Post by d***@burnt.org.uk
Whilst we're doing picky stuff... your post should have been placed at
the bottom.

Why?

[My question is either why deadmail is right or why Pierian is right]

[Pierian Spring]

Neither of us is right - it's merely a matter of personal
preference - the relevant RFC refers to both styles and
says that bottom posting is the personal preference
of the author of the RFC, but that it is not a rule.

Post by Jeremy Boden

Post by Pierian Spring
No. No "should" about it. The issue of top or bottom posting is
an issue of personal preference.

Post by d***@burnt.org.uk
Whilst we're doing picky stuff... your post should have been placed at
the bottom.

Why?
[My question is either why deadmail is right or why Pierian is right]

[Ivor Jones]

Post by Pierian Spring
No. No "should" about it. The issue of top or bottom
posting is an issue of personal preference.

There is also the matter of convention, not to mention whether or not you
want others to read and reply to your posts. I rarely reply to top posters
as I find it extremely difficult to follow a thread in this fashion. If
you are asking for help and you want me to answer, don't top post.

Bear in mind I might just one day be the only person that knows the answer
to your question.

Ivor

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?

[Pierian Spring]

Indeed, and two conventions are mentioned in the relevant
RFC. The author of the RFC mentions both top and bottom
postings as being extant.

As to following a thread; if you _ARE_ following it, then your
following of it means that you hold contemporaneous knowledge
of the subject matter to the extent that the positioning of quoted
material is irrelevant. Indeed, bottom posting is a nuisance because
you have to page down to get to it, rather than just sitting on the
"Next" button.

I'm not bothered whether you read my posts. My remarks are
not directed at the small-minded bigot, in any case, should there
be any posting to this NG.

If you choose not to read my posts, you should bear in mind that
one day I may be the only person who knows the answer to
yor question, however.

Post by Ivor Jones

Post by Pierian Spring
No. No "should" about it. The issue of top or bottom
posting is an issue of personal preference.

There is also the matter of convention, not to mention whether or not you
want others to read and reply to your posts. I rarely reply to top posters
as I find it extremely difficult to follow a thread in this fashion. If
you are asking for help and you want me to answer, don't top post.
Bear in mind I might just one day be the only person that knows the answer
to your question.

[Ivor Jones]

"Pierian Spring" <***@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message news:***@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

[snip]

Post by Pierian Spring
If you choose not to read my posts, you should bear in
mind that one day I may be the only person who knows the
answer to
yor question, however.

That I very much doubt. If you cannot see the reasons for not top posting
then it is highly unlikely you will ever know anything, much less a
question I don't know the answer to.

Goodnight.

Ivor

[Pierian Spring]

I wonder if your contribution to a uk education group is intended
to show an association with the staffroom, or an association
with the playground?

Your contribution below displays immaturity.

Grow up, Ivor Jones!

Stupid boy.

Post by Ivor Jones

Post by Pierian Spring
If you choose not to read my posts, you should bear in
mind that one day I may be the only person who knows the
answer to
yor question, however.

That I very much doubt. If you cannot see the reasons for not top posting
then it is highly unlikely you will ever know anything, much less a
question I don't know the answer to.
Goodnight.
Ivor

[Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)]

Post by Pierian Spring
No. No "should" about it. The issue of top or bottom posting is
an issue of personal preference.

No, it is a matter of common courtesy and sense. If you want to end up in
many killfiles, post how you like. If however, you want to communicate, then
do so in a legible and conventional manner. Posting upside down is just
showing your contempt for the readership at large.

[Pierian Spring]

It has nothing whatsoever to do with courtesy.

How do you claim so? Does it insult you?
Distress you? Insult your race, your colour, your creed,
your sexual orientation?

Perhaps not replying when I have something germane
to offer would be discourteous or even contemptuous,
but replying in a civilised and polite manner and laying
out my reply in a style of my own choosing is not
a matter of courtesy neither is it a matter of contempt,
it is merely a matter of style.

Posting in a style that I have come to prefer does not show
contempt nor does it show discourtesy.

What _DOES_ show discourtesy is the laying
into correspondents with the, frankly, rather silly and
ridiculous tirade such as you utter below.

As to contempt, by suggesting that you will ignore
those who reply to you surely you exhibit the very contempt
that you would seek to find fault with in others?

'ANG ON IN THERE A MINUTE!!!!! Surely if you were sincere in
your comments about discourtesy and contempt you would reply
to me top-posted in the style that I use. That you do not actually
means that _YOU_, the bottom poster, are hypocritically displaying
the very faults that you would seek to find in me!

As to legibility - the ASCII text presenting my post is the same ASCII
that presents yours. As to convention - the sentence structure and
words that
I use are from the same language that you use. What causes
you difficulty in reasing them?

Post by Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)

Post by Pierian Spring
No. No "should" about it. The issue of top or bottom posting is
an issue of personal preference.

No, it is a matter of common courtesy and sense. If you want to end up in
many killfiles, post how you like. If however, you want to communicate, then
do so in a legible and conventional manner. Posting upside down is just
showing your contempt for the readership at large.

[Al Reynolds]

Post by C***@gmail.com

Post by Al Reynolds
It would be hard enough to get a mobile into a public exam and use it,
and if you are caught cheating at GCSE, you fail all your subjects AFAIR.
Al

I'm talking about 'tests' / 'mocks' not real exams.

You've obviously overestimated their importance then.
There are much easier ways to cheat in non-public exams.

Al

[Bernard]

Post by C***@gmail.com

Post by Al Reynolds
It would be hard enough to get a mobile into a public exam and use it,
and if you are caught cheating at GCSE, you fail all your subjects AFAIR.
Al

I'm talking about 'tests' / 'mocks' not real exams.

Ignoring the morality of cheating for a moment, what is the point of
cheating in a mock. A mock is meant to provide exam practice or is that the
point, it is used to practise cheating.

Interestingly four years ago when my son took his GCSEs, someone took a
mobile into one exam despite all the warnings from the teachers, part-way
through the exam the lad's mother rang him up to find out how he was getting
on.

Regards

Bernard

[Guess who]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:11:09 +0000 (UTC), "Bernard"

Post by Bernard
Interestingly four years ago when my son took his GCSEs, someone took a
mobile into one exam despite all the warnings from the teachers, part-way
through the exam the lad's mother rang him up to find out how he was getting
on.

And the penalty? I had one occasion where a boy deliberately turned
to the exam, after the group was told to wait ...so that all would
have equal opportunity. Further, he didn't turn it back over until
after looking the page over. When taken from the exam room to the
office, they made him [let him] do it there instead. ?????

In any event, with regard to cheating, they realy cheat only
themselves if the system would allow. That is, if what they learn is
useful later, then what they have not learned is just as much a burden
to them all of their lives. The problem is that when a wave of
cheaters comes to the later study, and does not do well, who is held
to blame? Does the system stand by its present goals, or do those
goals then change to suit the circumstances? That is, just what is it
that perpetuates cheating? I know I'm getting on in years now, and
still recall the days when a cheat was simply expelled with no results
for that year, or a time before that when he would not even be allowed
back into the system. B.C.[before computers] one history major lost
his year when he could not afford to have his long major assignment
typed. He had been caught skelping hockey tickets and the fine sank
his funds. He had attempted to hand it in late. Too bad. He
shrugged and got it the following year. People don't shrug any more.
They want everything for nothing. Education used to be a privilege.
It still is.

[Anthony Buckland]

Post by Guess who
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:11:09 +0000 (UTC), "Bernard"

Post by Bernard
Interestingly four years ago when my son took his GCSEs, someone took a
mobile into one exam despite all the warnings from the teachers, part-way
through the exam the lad's mother rang him up to find out how he was getting
on.

And the penalty?

...

Something to get their attention: confiscate the phone on the spot and smash
it in front of the room full of students, then tell the offender to get
out and give
him a zero for the test.

[John Porcella]

Post by Anthony Buckland
Something to get their attention: confiscate the phone on the spot and smash
it in front of the room full of students, then tell the offender to get
out and give
him a zero for the test.

Then wait for a solicitor's letter!

[John Porcella]

Post by Guess who
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:11:09 +0000 (UTC), "Bernard"

Post by Bernard
Interestingly four years ago when my son took his GCSEs, someone took a
mobile into one exam despite all the warnings from the teachers, part-way
through the exam the lad's mother rang him up to find out how he was getting
on.

And the penalty? I had one occasion where a boy deliberately turned
to the exam, after the group was told to wait ...so that all would
have equal opportunity. Further, he didn't turn it back over until
after looking the page over. When taken from the exam room to the
office, they made him [let him] do it there instead. ?????

Sorry, could you translate that into English? I am not surprised that you
had to put five question marks after that paragraph as it is barely
literate! What were you doing at the school? Please do not tell me you are
a member of the teaching profession.

Post by Guess who
In any event, with regard to cheating, they realy cheat only
themselves if the system would allow. That is, if what they learn is
useful later, then what they have not learned is just as much a burden
to them all of their lives. The problem is that when a wave of
cheaters comes to the later study, and does not do well, who is held
to blame? Does the system stand by its present goals, or do those
goals then change to suit the circumstances? That is, just what is it
that perpetuates cheating? I know I'm getting on in years now, and
still recall the days when a cheat was simply expelled with no results
for that year, or a time before that when he would not even be allowed
back into the system.

Little has changed. Somebody found guilty of cheating will have all of the
examinations for that period set aside. Then they cannot take examinations
under the QCA auspices for a good while (up to three years).

[Guess who]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 19:47:36 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"

Post by John Porcella
Sorry, could you translate that into English?

Let's keep this simple. I just observed you nit-picking your way
through a series of messages leaving your trite, useless digs in your
wake, including this one. So don't take this too personally, but
[and I rarely use this common English expression]...

...Piss off !!!!

[Ian Johnston]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 01:03:19 UTC, Guess who <***@here.com>
wrote:

: On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 19:47:36 +0000 (UTC), "John Porcella"
: <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
:
: >Sorry, could you translate that into English?
:
: Let's keep this simple. I just observed you nit-picking your way
: through a series of messages leaving your trite, useless digs in your
: wake, including this one. So don't take this too personally, but
: [and I rarely use this common English expression]...
:
: ...Piss off !!!!

For once, I am in agreement with Mr Who.

Ian

[Bernard]

Post by Guess who
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:11:09 +0000 (UTC), "Bernard"

Post by Bernard
Interestingly four years ago when my son took his GCSEs, someone took a
mobile into one exam despite all the warnings from the teachers, part-way
through the exam the lad's mother rang him up to find out how he was getting
on.

And the penalty?

All I know is that he was escorted out of the exam hall and not allowed to
continue with the exam. Whether there were wider penalties imposed, I've no
idea.

Imagine the conversation.

Ring, Ring

"Hi son, how's the exam going"

"I'm just about to be disqualified mum"

Regards

Bernard

[Jeremy Boden]

Post by Bernard

Post by C***@gmail.com

Post by Al Reynolds
It would be hard enough to get a mobile into a public exam and use it,
and if you are caught cheating at GCSE, you fail all your subjects AFAIR.
Al

I'm talking about 'tests' / 'mocks' not real exams.

Ignoring the morality of cheating for a moment, what is the point of
cheating in a mock. A mock is meant to provide exam practice or is that the
point, it is used to practise cheating.
Interestingly four years ago when my son took his GCSEs, someone took a
mobile into one exam despite all the warnings from the teachers, part-way
through the exam the lad's mother rang him up to find out how he was getting
on.
Regards
Bernard

Is this an urban myth?
I've heard *exactly* the same story except with reference to "A" levels,
not GCSE's.

BTW As an ex-invigilator, why not write a few questions on your sleeve,
go to the toilet (accompanied) and get the answers sent via text to you?

You need to have a quick text finger though...

(Standard exclusions on the point in doing this obviously apply).

[Bernard]

Post by Jeremy Boden

Post by Bernard

Post by C***@gmail.com

Post by Al Reynolds
It would be hard enough to get a mobile into a public exam and use it,
and if you are caught cheating at GCSE, you fail all your subjects AFAIR.
Al

I'm talking about 'tests' / 'mocks' not real exams.

Ignoring the morality of cheating for a moment, what is the point of
cheating in a mock. A mock is meant to provide exam practice or is that the
point, it is used to practise cheating.
Interestingly four years ago when my son took his GCSEs, someone took a
mobile into one exam despite all the warnings from the teachers, part-way
through the exam the lad's mother rang him up to find out how he was getting
on.
Regards
Bernard

Is this an urban myth?

Not the way my son told me the story at the time, unless I wasn't listening
properly.

[John Porcella]

Post by C***@gmail.com

Post by Al Reynolds
It would be hard enough to get a mobile into a public exam and use it,
and if you are caught cheating at GCSE, you fail all your subjects AFAIR.
Al

I'm talking about 'tests' / 'mocks' not real exams.

You are not talking about anything.

Tests/mocks are real examinations.

[a***@gmail.com]

Post by C***@gmail.com
thought this would make a good utility on cellphones -
http://www.getjar.com/products/1007/StudyME
Or easier still, you could just take photos of pages from books using
your cell-phone.
You could also put in formulas using graphical calculators.
Any recommendations anyone ? Which is better - CASIO or Texas
instruments?
Could English people recommend anywhere that sell these.. argos don't
seem to stock these caclulators.
ps - cheating is WRONG, IMMORAL and you will get caught. Do not cheat.
I am just curious.

I'd recommend memorizing the material - it's impossible to get caught
that way and is likely more reliable then most of those flakey picture
cell phones anyway.

[S***@mailinator.com]

Post by a***@gmail.com

Post by C***@gmail.com
thought this would make a good utility on cellphones -
http://www.getjar.com/products/1007/StudyME
Or easier still, you could just take photos of pages from books using
your cell-phone.
You could also put in formulas using graphical calculators.
Any recommendations anyone ? Which is better - CASIO or Texas
instruments?
Could English people recommend anywhere that sell these.. argos don't
seem to stock these caclulators.
ps - cheating is WRONG, IMMORAL and you will get caught. Do not cheat.
I am just curious.

I'd recommend memorizing the material - it's impossible to get caught
that way and is likely more reliable then most of those flakey picture
cell phones anyway.

A bunch of people cheated in my final exams using personal stereos.
They recorded their notes onto tape and played them back during the
exam.

One of them got the highest mark in the year!

[Justin]

In sci.math ***@mailinator.com wrote:

: A bunch of people cheated in my final exams using personal stereos.
: They recorded their notes onto tape and played them back during the
: exam.

(1) They were allowed to listen to stereos during the exam?!

(2) This doesn't seem particularly helpful. Was the exam merely the
regurgitating of notes? If not then how could you search through the
notes for the relevent material? Rewind-Fast Forward?!

Justin

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by a***@gmail.com
I'd recommend memorizing the material - it's impossible to get caught
that way and is likely more reliable then most of those flakey picture
cell phones anyway.

I'd recommend understanding the material. It has all the
advantages of memorising plus: you don't need to do the memorising
and it's a better foundation for more advanced work. Of course, it
won't work if you're stupid; but in that case neither will cheating
or memorising. Sadly, it seems to be out of fashion, and also to be
somewhat downplayed by the revision guides.

[Ian Johnston]

On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 11:28:39 UTC, ***@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N.
Walker) wrote:

: Sadly, it seems to be out of fashion, and also to be
: somewhat downplayed by the revision guides.

Welcome to the insane world of Outcomes Based Education.

Ian
:


--

[Barb Knox]

Post by Ian Johnston
: Sadly, it seems to be out of fashion, and also to be
: somewhat downplayed by the revision guides.
Welcome to the insane world of Outcomes Based Education.
Ian

The first time I heard the phrase "Outcomes Based Education" I thought
it must be a Good Thing, since obviously what we want is the results
(outcomes) of learning rather than sullen time-serving (by both students
and staff). But I soon got the point that greater "outcomes" doesn't
mean greater learning, it means having greater numbers who "come out" of
the sausage machine.

[John Porcella]

Post by Ian Johnston
: Sadly, it seems to be out of fashion, and also to be
: somewhat downplayed by the revision guides.
Welcome to the insane world of Outcomes Based Education.
Ian

Why "insane"?

[Ian Johnston]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 19:51:49 UTC, "John Porcella"
<***@btinternet.com> wrote:

:
: "Ian Johnston" <***@btinternet.com> wrote in message
: news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-***@localhost...
: > On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 11:28:39 UTC, ***@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N.
: > Walker) wrote:
: >
: > : Sadly, it seems to be out of fashion, and also to be
: > : somewhat downplayed by the revision guides.
: >
: > Welcome to the insane world of Outcomes Based Education.
: >
: > Ian
:
: Why "insane"?

Because it warps and twists the whole education process into something
devoted to the merely measurable. Of course, there'll be a nother fad
along in a minute, but by then the damage will have been done.

Ian

[Alun Harford]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
I'd recommend memorizing the material - it's impossible to get caught
that way and is likely more reliable then most of those flakey picture
cell phones anyway.

I'd recommend understanding the material.

Sadly, this is a bad idea.
Our education system is geared towards memorising things, rather
understanding and thinking for yourself.
I guess it's easier to test memory than it is to test understanding.

Alun Harford

[John Porcella]

Post by Alun Harford

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
I'd recommend memorizing the material - it's impossible to get caught
that way and is likely more reliable then most of those flakey picture
cell phones anyway.

I'd recommend understanding the material.

Sadly, this is a bad idea.
Our education system is geared towards memorising things, rather
understanding and thinking for yourself.
I guess it's easier to test memory than it is to test understanding.
Alun Harford

Not in the UK.

[Alun Harford]

Post by John Porcella

Post by Alun Harford

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
I'd recommend memorizing the material - it's impossible to get caught
that way and is likely more reliable then most of those flakey picture
cell phones anyway.

I'd recommend understanding the material.

Sadly, this is a bad idea.
Our education system is geared towards memorising things, rather
understanding and thinking for yourself.
I guess it's easier to test memory than it is to test understanding.

Not in the UK.

That's certainly not my experience.
For example (chosen based on the list of groups), A-level "Mathematics" was
memorising algorithms for solving set problems, and throwing the stuff on
the page when asked. No real mathematics was needed or wanted.
Yes - you can understand the material instead and derive everything as it's
needed, but that puts you at a significant time disadvantage, and if you're
not very careful you'll drop marks that those who memorise the material are
bound to get.

Alun Harford

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by Alun Harford
For example (chosen based on the list of groups), A-level "Mathematics" was
memorising algorithms for solving set problems, and throwing the stuff on
the page when asked. [...]

No it isn't. It's just that that's the way it is [too] often
taught, with encouragement from the Revision Guides.

Post by Alun Harford
Yes - you can understand the material instead and derive everything as it's
needed, but that puts you at a significant time disadvantage,

Not so in maths. Not at university, not at A-level, not at
GCSE level. If you *understand* what you are doing, you can be doing
your thinking while you are writing, and you will not be losing any
time at all. If you don't understand, it is often hard to be sure
which memories you're trying to recall.

Post by Alun Harford
and if you're
not very careful you'll drop marks that those who memorise the material are
bound to get.

If you're careless you'll lose marks anyway. My experience is
that those who try to memorise drop marks by not remembering sufficiently
accurately, and even more so by getting into a total mess with no way out,
whereas those who understand what they are doing are able to diagnose and
correct their mistakes.

It may be different in other disciplines ....

Elsewhere in the thread, the example was given of needing to know
how to do "least squares". Two comments -- (a) if you don't use it very
often, then you are much more likely to forget a mysterious formula than
to forget the understanding that leads to an "obvious" formula; (b) you
may possibly meet other similar situations, where memory won't help, but
an understanding will help you either to relate your new problem to the
ones you can do or to realise that "least squares" is no longer the right
way to proceed and that you need professional help.

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Not so in maths.

Indeed. The student who depends on memorization and rote is in for a
shock the first time he encounters an open book or take home exam.
What may be confusing the OP is the classes in public[1] schools that
are called Mathematics but have little or no Mathematical content. It
is possible to get through such classes with no understanding.

[1] I don't know what they equivalent UK term is. In the US a public
school is one that is funded by taxes rather than tuition.

[Alun Harford]

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Not so in maths.

Indeed. The student who depends on memorization and rote is in for a
shock the first time he encounters an open book or take home exam.

Anything you can take home makes preventing cheating difficult to say the
least.
To my knowledge, there are no open book exams in the UK examination system -
and I think that's very unfortunate.

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
What may be confusing the OP is the classes in public[1] schools that
are called Mathematics but have little or no Mathematical content.

So why isn't Mathematics taught in schools? Because it requires
*understanding* and that's harder to test.
BTW: The same applies for all the sciences.

Alun Harford

[Guess who]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 20:27:33 +0000 (UTC), "Alun Harford"

Post by Alun Harford
So why isn't Mathematics taught in schools? Because it requires
*understanding* and that's harder to test.

The first may be right these days. I would have argued with you 35
years back. The second is not the reason for the first. The reason
is political, absolutely out of control of the teachers, who here are
by and large university graduates in the areas they teach.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Alun Harford

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Indeed. The student who depends on memorization and rote is in for a
shock the first time he encounters an open book or take home exam.

Anything you can take home makes preventing cheating difficult to say the
least. To my knowledge, there are no open book exams in the UK examination
system - and I think that's very unfortunate.

Where I teach, having the main exams as "open book" would be hard to
fit in with exam regulations, but I've set term-time tests which are
in effect mini-exams, and count as a proportion of the course mark,
as "open book". It's quite a good learning exercise for the students
as they start off thinking "Wow, this is going to make it really easy"
and sit down to do the exam and find it doesn't help them much at all.

Matthew Huntbach

[Pubkeybreaker]

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:

<snip>

Post by Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Indeed. The student who depends on memorization and rote is in for a
shock the first time he encounters an open book or take home exam.
What may be confusing the OP is the classes in public[1] schools that
are called Mathematics but have little or no Mathematical content. It
is possible to get through such classes with no understanding.

I am reminded of a story I heard from my ex.

Caltech has a very strict honor code.

For a certain physics final examination, the professor told the class
that the
exam was open book and they could, quote: "Use any reference they
could carry in".

One enterprising student carried in a graduate student.

Under the rules, they had to allow it.

[Ian Johnston]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 20:27:25 UTC, "John Porcella"
<***@btinternet.com> wrote:

: "Alun Harford" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: news:dnc182$2p6$***@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

: > Our education system is geared towards memorising things, rather
: > understanding and thinking for yourself.
: > I guess it's easier to test memory than it is to test understanding.

: Not in the UK.

Any evidence for that? Your answer should cover the use of modular
examination in mathematics.

Ian

[a***@gmail.com]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
I'd recommend memorizing the material - it's impossible to get caught
that way and is likely more reliable then most of those flakey picture
cell phones anyway.

I'd recommend understanding the material. It has all the
advantages of memorising plus: you don't need to do the memorising
and it's a better foundation for more advanced work. Of course, it
won't work if you're stupid; but in that case neither will cheating
or memorising. Sadly, it seems to be out of fashion, and also to be
somewhat downplayed by the revision guides.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.

Although this is a widely held believe, I consider it false.
Understanding is not enough especially in more advanced courses where
new definitions and theorems are introduced at a blistering pace. It's
unrealistic to expect understanding without a clearly memorized
definition especially in a test enviorment. You might argue that closed
book testing isn't of value, but for those of us who have to
participate in them memorization cannot be replaced by meer
understanding.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by a***@gmail.com

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
I'd recommend memorizing the material - it's impossible to get caught
that way and is likely more reliable then most of those flakey
picture cell phones anyway.

I'd recommend understanding the material. It has all the
advantages of memorising plus: you don't need to do the memorising
and it's a better foundation for more advanced work.

Although this is a widely held believe, I consider it false.
Understanding is not enough especially in more advanced courses where
new definitions and theorems are introduced at a blistering pace. It's
unrealistic to expect understanding without a clearly memorized
definition especially in a test enviorment.

You are wrong. I have 16 years of university level teaching, and
in my experience the belief that learning==memorisation is the
second most common cause of student failure (behind only laziness).

I teach computer programming, and I suspect the same applies to
the sort of stuff Andy teaches. The number of actual facts we have
to teach is fairly small, but the concepts are quite abstract.
If you understand the concepts, you can build up detailed examples
as required to solve problems given to you. Examples are given in
teaching to explain the concepts. But there is a significant proportion
of the class whose approach is to memorise the examples while failing
to understand what they were given to illustrate. Sometimes they put
an immense amount of effort into memorisation - every year I have
students who randomly regurgitate examples I've shown in the class,
sometimes down to typing errors I forgot to remove, and they almost
always fail because what they regurgitate bears little relationship
to the question, which is asking them to apply a technique, not
to reproduce an example of that technique applied to some other
situation (and that's when they get as far as understanding the
question enough to give an example of the right technique).

There is plenty of evidence that memorising patterns without
understanding the structure of patterns is a hugely more difficult
task than getting to understand the structure then viewing those
patterns in terms of those structures.

Matthew Huntbach

[Ian Johnston]

On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 16:36:57 UTC, Matthew Huntbach <***@dcs.qmul.ac.uk>
wrote:

: There is plenty of evidence that memorising patterns without
: understanding the structure of patterns is a hugely more difficult
: task than getting to understand the structure then viewing those
: patterns in terms of those structures.

Hear hear. Anyone who claims that memorisation is to be preferred to
"mere understanding" simply hasn't a clue.

Ian

--

[Guess who]

On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 16:36:57 +0000, Matthew Huntbach

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by a***@gmail.com
Although this is a widely held believe, I consider it false.
Understanding is not enough especially in more advanced courses where
new definitions and theorems are introduced at a blistering pace. It's
unrealistic to expect understanding without a clearly memorized
definition especially in a test enviorment.

You are wrong. I have 16 years of university level teaching, and
in my experience the belief that learning==memorisation is the
second most common cause of student failure (behind only laziness).

Throughout these discussions, it should be mentioned which level of
learning is being discussed. Surely, the specific needs of university
students [or even graduate students] are quite different from those of
the broader selection found in high school, or even broader perhaps at
younger ages. Let's compare apples and apples. Rote learning is
definitely not applicable to those who will encounter the need for
generality. It is definitely applicable to those learning the
alphabet, or times tables, or how to tie shoelaces. It is likewise
partly at least applicable to those learning the fundamentals. You
have to be shown how to move the pieces before you can play chess, and
usually play a Hell of a lot of games, AND examine the similarities
and differences, AND study some master moves before gaining expertise
and broader application of technique. [No, I'm not a chess master,
but have played against a couple. I'm just trying to form an
analogy.]

[Dave L. Renfro]

Sometimes they put an immense amount of effort into
memorisation - every year I have students who randomly
regurgitate examples I've shown in the class, sometimes
down to typing errors I forgot to remove, and they almost
always fail because what they regurgitate bears little
relationship to the question, which is asking them to
apply a technique, not to reproduce an example of that
technique applied to some other situation (and that's
when they get as far as understanding the question
enough to give an example of the right technique).

Very nice touch at the end! I agree completely. Unfortunately,
I've seen many of these things myself. I can almost understand
a first year student whose major is in something like
hotel management doing this in a university required math
course, since this technique does tend to work in high
school, and even a few years in college if you're in
certain majors, but I've also seen this behavior with
some upper level mathematics majors.

Dave L. Renfro

[Richard Smith]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
You are wrong. I have 16 years of university level teaching, and
in my experience the belief that learning==memorisation is the
second most common cause of student failure (behind only laziness).
I teach computer programming, and I suspect the same applies to
the sort of stuff Andy teaches.

You are right regarding programming - it does require understanding.
However...

1. There are other subjects where memorisation is more important, e.g.
you can't pass a French exam if you haven't memorised a lot of vocab lists.

2. 1st/2nd year programming is the very easiest part of Computer
Science. It is no more difficult than learning to read, except I would
guess at least 70 percent of the population are suited for reading,
while less than 5 are suited for programming. Everyone I know who had a
brain suitable to learn programming had already taught himself how to do
it by the age of ten. You can't learn to read by memorising words (as
the government have finally realised it seems) and you can't learn to
program by memorising programs. You can have someone point you in the
right direction, but you really need to achieve the understanding on
your own, and if you don't have the aptitude for it then you won't ever
be able to do that.

I've taught undergraduates programming and found that some of them get
it 'instantly', probably because they already knew it and it is just
revision for them, while some of them never get it. Eventually they
memorise enough stuff to scrape through their exams, but they will never
be truly good at it because they don't have the right type of brains.

(And a few of them even manage to get 1st class Computer Science
degrees! Employers, you need to *test* these people at job interviews,
because I don't ever want to find myself on the same team as one of
them. That's not to say they shouldn't learn programming if they enjoy
it as a hobby. Although I'm rubbish at cookery, I still enjoy learning
it. The difference is I would never try to get a job as a chef, or
expect the tax payer to subsidise my taking a course in my hobby.)

In contrast, some of the 3rd and 4th year CS classes are much more
difficult and only a small percentage of students could ever be expected
to truly grep them. (This could be because you never truly understand
something until you use it to learn something else, so the only students
who go on to make use of the final year material are the few who do
PhDs. Or it could be that each of these courses is an introductions to
research level problems and so the scope it too broad to gain a feeling
of mastery within the time allowed.) But the majority of students can
still get good marks in these courses by memorising the formulae.

[Pierian Spring]

That's disgraceful!

You are part of the education infrastructure that awards degrees
that you say are meaningless and you expect the real
examinations to be conducted by prospective employers?

No wonder that any maths degree awarded in recent years is
only as good as the "A" levels of 30 years ago!

It used to be that all teachers had at least "O" Level passes
in Maths and English but even in this NG there are so-called
"teachers" whose spelling and grammar are appalling.

Post by Richard Smith
I've taught undergraduates programming and found that some of them get
it 'instantly', probably because they already knew it and it is just
revision for them, while some of them never get it. Eventually they
memorise enough stuff to scrape through their exams, but they will never
be truly good at it because they don't have the right type of brains.
(And a few of them even manage to get 1st class Computer Science
degrees! Employers, you need to *test* these people at job interviews,

[John Porcella]

Post by Pierian Spring
That's disgraceful!
You are part of the education infrastructure that awards degrees
that you say are meaningless and you expect the real
examinations to be conducted by prospective employers?
No wonder that any maths degree awarded in recent years is
only as good as the "A" levels of 30 years ago!
It used to be that all teachers had at least "O" Level passes
in Maths and English but even in this NG there are so-called
"teachers" whose spelling and grammar are appalling.

In very recent times, it has become a necessity to pass tests in literacy,
numeracy and ICT before being allowed to qualify as a teacher. I found the
three examinations quite straightforward, and mainly an insult to the
intelligence. As I was leaving the test centre, I asked the administrators
if many people failed, expecting them to say no. They admitted that loads
of people on PGCE courses failed these tests! The door opened behind me and
somebody came out of the examination room, in tears, because they failed one
of the tests! The administrator was right!

[d***@burnt.org.uk]

Post by John Porcella
In very recent times, it has become a necessity to pass tests in literacy,
numeracy and ICT before being allowed to qualify as a teacher. I found the
three examinations quite straightforward, and mainly an insult to the
intelligence. As I was leaving the test centre, I asked the administrators
if many people failed, expecting them to say no. They admitted that loads
of people on PGCE courses failed these tests! The door opened behind me and
somebody came out of the examination room, in tears, because they failed one
of the tests! The administrator was right!

Someone came out of the examination room in tears because they had
failed a test. I suppose the tests must be marked as they are taken
then.

[Lina & Niall]

Post by d***@burnt.org.uk

Post by John Porcella
In very recent times, it has become a necessity to pass tests in literacy,
numeracy and ICT before being allowed to qualify as a teacher. I found the
three examinations quite straightforward, and mainly an insult to the
intelligence. As I was leaving the test centre, I asked the
administrators
if many people failed, expecting them to say no. They admitted that loads
of people on PGCE courses failed these tests! The door opened behind me and
somebody came out of the examination room, in tears, because they failed one
of the tests! The administrator was right!

Someone came out of the examination room in tears because they had
failed a test. I suppose the tests must be marked as they are taken
then.

Nah, sometimes you just know ;o)
One example would be if you failed to answer the majority of the questions.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Pierian Spring

Post by Richard Smith
I've taught undergraduates programming and found that some of them get
it 'instantly', probably because they already knew it and it is just
revision for them, while some of them never get it. Eventually they
memorise enough stuff to scrape through their exams, but they will never
be truly good at it because they don't have the right type of brains.
(And a few of them even manage to get 1st class Computer Science
degrees! Employers, you need to *test* these people at job interviews,

That's disgraceful!
You are part of the education infrastructure that awards degrees
that you say are meaningless and you expect the real
examinations to be conducted by prospective employers?
No wonder that any maths degree awarded in recent years is
only as good as the "A" levels of 30 years ago!
It used to be that all teachers had at least "O" Level passes
in Maths and English but even in this NG there are so-called
"teachers" whose spelling and grammar are appalling.

Richard was writing about Computer Science degrees, not Maths degrees.

To be fair, Computer Science is about a lot more than programming.
I've been quite heavily criticised by people in the IT industry when
I've been involved in this sort of discussion in the past for being so focussed
on programming. They tell me that only a small part of the workload in
IT these days is programming oriented, and they don't want a Computer
Science degree to be primarily a test of programming skills.

To me, it's still the core skill of the subject, and I'd expect anyone
with a 1st class degree in Computer Science to be a competent programmer.
But we do see people who have gained high marks in the other modules in
the Computer Science degrees, enough to be awarded a 1st class overall,
while not doing particularly well in the programming modules, and having
chosen modules which don't require programming skills wherever possible.

Matthew Huntbach

[Ian Johnston]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 04:58:43 UTC, Richard Smith
<***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

: 1. There are other subjects where memorisation is more important, e.g.
: you can't pass a French exam if you haven't memorised a lot of vocab lists.

I passed quite a few english exams at school without ever memorising
vocabulary. I didn't see the need for french or german either.

Ian


--

[Ian Johnston]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:45:39 UTC, "Ian Johnston"
<***@btinternet.com> wrote:

: On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 04:58:43 UTC, Richard Smith
: <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
:
: : 1. There are other subjects where memorisation is more important, e.g.
: : you can't pass a French exam if you haven't memorised a lot of vocab lists.
:
: I passed quite a few english exams at school without ever memorising
: vocabulary. I didn't see the need for french or german either.

Sorry, to be clear, I meant I didn't see the need for memorising
french or german vocabulary. That's a pretty last ditch strategy.

Ian

[John Porcella]

Post by Ian Johnston
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 04:58:43 UTC, Richard Smith
: 1. There are other subjects where memorisation is more important, e.g.
: you can't pass a French exam if you haven't memorised a lot of vocab lists.
I passed quite a few english exams at school without ever memorising
vocabulary.

So, if you did not memorise it, did you understand it? If so, then you
forgot that 'English', 'French' and 'German' have capital letters!

[Ian Johnston]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 20:29:48 UTC, "John Porcella"
<***@btinternet.com> wrote:

:
: "Ian Johnston" <***@btinternet.com> wrote in message
: news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-***@localhost...
: > On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 04:58:43 UTC, Richard Smith
: > <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
: >
: > : 1. There are other subjects where memorisation is more important, e.g.
: > : you can't pass a French exam if you haven't memorised a lot of vocab
: lists.
: >
: > I passed quite a few english exams at school without ever memorising
: > vocabulary.
:
: So, if you did not memorise it, did you understand it? If so, then you
: forgot that 'English', 'French' and 'German' have capital letters!

Sez who? It was a deliberate choice on my part.

Ian

[John Porcella]

Post by Richard Smith

Post by Matthew Huntbach
You are wrong. I have 16 years of university level teaching, and
in my experience the belief that learning==memorisation is the
second most common cause of student failure (behind only laziness).
I teach computer programming, and I suspect the same applies to
the sort of stuff Andy teaches.

You are right regarding programming - it does require understanding.
However...
1. There are other subjects where memorisation is more important, e.g.
you can't pass a French exam if you haven't memorised a lot of vocab lists.

But knowing lots of French vocabularly is useless if the student does not
understand how to use it correctly.

Post by Richard Smith
2. 1st/2nd year programming is the very easiest part of Computer
Science.

I feel that that is dependent on the student! I find it hard to believe
that all would think that.

It is no more difficult than learning to read, except I would

Post by Richard Smith
guess at least 70 percent of the population are suited for reading,
while less than 5 are suited for programming.

Programming is far, far more abstract.

Everyone I know who had a

Post by Richard Smith
brain suitable to learn programming had already taught himself how to do
it by the age of ten.

Of course! This looks very closed! In your definition of who has a brain
"suitable to learn programming" it is a necessary condition that the person
be male and self-taught by the age of the ten, then I am not surprised that
that is what you find, since you do not allow for the possibility that
somebody may be able to program, but not be male and self-taught by the age
of ten.

Post by Richard Smith
I've taught undergraduates programming and found that some of them get
it 'instantly', probably because they already knew it

Then they have 'got' nothing from you, since they already had it, as you
freely admit.

and it is just

Post by Richard Smith
revision for them, while some of them never get it.

So, in conclusion, you end up not teaching those who knew it already, and
those that do not know it already do not ever get it from you! So how are
you managing to get a salary from the educational establishment if you teach
nobody anything that they did not already know?

Eventually they

Post by Richard Smith
memorise enough stuff to scrape through their exams, but they will never
be truly good at it because they don't have the right type of brains.

Or they do not have the right type of university lecturer! After all, you
have admitted that you teach none of them!

Post by Richard Smith
(And a few of them even manage to get 1st class Computer Science
degrees! Employers, you need to *test* these people at job interviews,
because I don't ever want to find myself on the same team as one of
them. That's not to say they shouldn't learn programming if they enjoy
it as a hobby. Although I'm rubbish at cookery, I still enjoy learning
it. The difference is I would never try to get a job as a chef, or
expect the tax payer to subsidise my taking a course in my hobby.)

No, but the taxpayer is paying your wages, I assume, and you admit that you
do not teach anything to people!

Post by Richard Smith
In contrast, some of the 3rd and 4th year CS classes are much more
difficult and only a small percentage of students could ever be expected
to truly grep them.

"Grep"? Meaning?

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by John Porcella

Post by Richard Smith

Post by Matthew Huntbach
You are wrong. I have 16 years of university level teaching, and
in my experience the belief that learning==memorisation is the
second most common cause of student failure (behind only laziness).
I teach computer programming, and I suspect the same applies to
the sort of stuff Andy teaches.

You are right regarding programming - it does require understanding.
However...
2. 1st/2nd year programming is the very easiest part of Computer
Science.

I feel that that is dependent on the student! I find it hard to believe
that all would think that.

Yes, for Richard and I that is true - for a relatively small number
of people, programming is an easy task which comes naturally.

For a large number of people, even those who one assumes must have some
interest in it as they've chosen to do Computer Science degrees, it
doesn't. Look at any conference on Computer Science education, and
you'll find one of the main topics being discussed is why there's such
a high failure rate in 1st year programming, and why so many students
enter the 2nd year wanting to do as little programming as they can.

Post by John Porcella

Post by Richard Smith
Everyone I know who had a brain suitable to learn programming had already
taught himself how to do it by the age of ten.

Of course! This looks very closed! In your definition of who has a brain
"suitable to learn programming" it is a necessary condition that the person
be male and self-taught by the age of the ten, then I am not surprised that
that is what you find, since you do not allow for the possibility that
somebody may be able to program, but not be male and self-taught by the age
of ten.

Well, I had never touched a computer when I started my Computer Science
degree, but it still came naturally to me. These days it is unlikely that
anyone coming to university, particularly to do Computer Science, won't
have had extensive experience with computers, but not everyone will have
sat down and written programs. It's still the case that one gets a few people
who start programming at university and find they have a natural gift for it.
Richard's figure of about 5% of the population doesn't seem far off to me.
And they aren't all male!

Post by John Porcella

Post by Richard Smith
I've taught undergraduates programming and found that some of them get
it 'instantly', probably because they already knew it

Then they have 'got' nothing from you, since they already had it, as you
freely admit and it is just revision for them, while some of them never get it.
So, in conclusion, you end up not teaching those who knew it already, and
those that do not know it already do not ever get it from you! So how are
you managing to get a salary from the educational establishment if you teach
nobody anything that they did not already know?

Well, I am sure it is the same in other areas. Some people have a natural
aptitude for sport, some people have a natural aptitude for playing music.
That does not mean there is no role for sports coaches and music teachers.
I freely admit I have no aptitude whatsoever for either of these, and
anyone trying to teach me has had a frustrating job. Teaching people who already
have the natural skills is a far more enjoyable experience, because there's so
much more you can do with them.

In the case of self-taught programmers, I find many of them have some
quite naive ideas about programming, and it requires a lot of effort to
get them out of this and to think in a more structured and abstract style.
Indeed, there are some Computer Science educators, and I have some sympathy
for them, who warn against self-taught programming, feeling that it leads
into "bad habits" which are more difficult to teach people to get out of
than it is to teach progamming from scratch to someone who has never done
it before.

Post by John Porcella

Post by Richard Smith
Eventually they
memorise enough stuff to scrape through their exams, but they will never
be truly good at it because they don't have the right type of brains.

Or they do not have the right type of university lecturer! After all, you
have admitted that you teach none of them!

Go and look at some of those papers in conferences on teaching Computer
Science. What Richard reports here, and it's my experience as well, seems
to be absolutely universal - you find people across the world saying
exactly the same thing. There are thousands of us doing the job -
are we ALL hopeless at it? NO-ONE, despite the thousands of us working
at it, seems to have found the magic trick which turns people who find
programming difficult into people who find it easy.

Matthew Huntbach

[Richard Smith]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
In the case of self-taught programmers, I find many of them have some
quite naive ideas about programming, and it requires a lot of effort to
get them out of this and to think in a more structured and abstract style.
Indeed, there are some Computer Science educators, and I have some sympathy
for them, who warn against self-taught programming, feeling that it leads
into "bad habits" which are more difficult to teach people to get out of
than it is to teach progamming from scratch to someone who has never done
it before.

When I said "self-taught by the age of ten" I only really meant Basic.
And I agree with you that someone who only knows Basic is quite likely
to have more problems when introduced to structured and object oriented
programming.

For my generation (and specific small group of friends), most started by
the age of ten with Basic, on 8 bit microcomputers. Throughout our
teenage years some of us moved 'up' to C and some 'down' to assembly
language on 16 bit machines. This was all quite easy in those days -
the machines often came with programming tools and manuals out of the
box. It was all quite low level and close to the machine - you couldn't
entirely trust your C compiler so it was still quite common for a C
programmer to hand-optimize the compiler's assembly output. (And the
assembly people seem to have ended up working on embedded systems and
hardware. I wonder if your choice of language at age 13 can predict
your future career.)

Personally, I think this is the best way of doing it. If you understand
what is really happening at the machine level, then when you are
introduced to objects at university you just shrug and say "oh that's a
more convenient higher level abstraction for what I'm already doing".
The biggest problem I saw with undergraduates was they couldn't
understand the abstraction because they hadn't experienced the problems
of programming without objects, and they didn't know what was being
abstracted.

I realise that advocates of the 'objects first' approach that seems
popular lately will disagree with me here!

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
In the case of self-taught programmers, I find many of them have some
quite naive ideas about programming, and it requires a lot of effort to
get them out of this and to think in a more structured and abstract style.
Indeed, there are some Computer Science educators, and I have some sympathy
for them, who warn against self-taught programming, feeling that it leads
into "bad habits" which are more difficult to teach people to get out of
than it is to teach progamming from scratch to someone who has never done
it before.

When I said "self-taught by the age of ten" I only really meant Basic. And I
agree with you that someone who only knows Basic is quite likely to have more
problems when introduced to structured and object oriented programming.

You are, of course, familiar with what Dijkstra said about Basic,
and if you won't take it from Dijkstra, Eric Raymond quotes him and
agrees:

http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/B/BASIC.html

I appreciate Basic has itself developed - are there still people who
use Basic as it was when I first started to program i.e. think of
a program as a long list of statements about which you jump using GOTOs?
I thought in its modern version it had at least caught up with structured
programming.

For my generation (and specific small group of friends), most started by the
age of ten with Basic, on 8 bit microcomputers. Throughout our teenage years
some of us moved 'up' to C and some 'down' to assembly language on 16 bit
machines. This was all quite easy in those days - the machines often came
with programming tools and manuals out of the box. It was all quite low
level and close to the machine - you couldn't entirely trust your C compiler
so it was still quite common for a C programmer to hand-optimize the
compiler's assembly output. (And the assembly people seem to have ended up
working on embedded systems and hardware. I wonder if your choice of
language at age 13 can predict your future career.)

Yes, I'm familiar with the sort, and yes, it's good to see people who
can quickly hack together code to do things when the majority of the programming
class have trouble getting that far. However, I do find a common phenomenon
with this sort of person is that they end up writing C programs in whatever
language you throw at them. Their approach to some problem is often some
incredibly complex mess. I've seen it happen plenty of times, and the
biggest problem is because they're good hackers, it's hard to convince them
of the benefit of switching to a more disciplined style.

Personally, I think this is the best way of doing it. If you understand what
is really happening at the machine level, then when you are introduced to
objects at university you just shrug and say "oh that's a more convenient
higher level abstraction for what I'm already doing". The biggest problem I
saw with undergraduates was they couldn't understand the abstraction because
they hadn't experienced the problems of programming without objects, and they
didn't know what was being abstracted.
I realise that advocates of the 'objects first' approach that seems popular
lately will disagree with me here!

My own experience is that constantly wanting to think of abstractions in
terms of "what really goes on underneath" serves as a barrier to good
use of them. So, yes, I am an objects first person - when I program in
an OO language I want to think of it in terms of abstract objects passing
messages between each other, and not as just one big block of code and one
big block of memory where the OO constructs are just a way of organising it.

A good example of the way in which wanting to see it in terms of what goes
on at machine level is the difficulty I've often experienced in teaching
self-taught hackers the use of recursion. Somehow they just can't get
away from thinking of it as "this calls that then that calls this, then,
oh woops, it's all too difficult, I'll cobble together something with
a while loop and global variables".

However, the big problem with the sort of argument we're having here is
that there isn't the control group of self-taught programmers who aren't
self-taught in Basic graduating to C. As you say, you all start that way.
We can't show that had you started from a more abstract language you'd
be better.

Matthew Huntbach

[Guess who]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 12:52:53 +0000, Matthew Huntbach
<***@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote:

On the discussion of programming technique:

I can not help but agree with all that you say. That is for very
good reason. You are clearly someone who can program at a higher
level than the amateur, or at least understand that level of
programming. In particular, I understand the concept of being well
organised initially, and that being facilitated through a dicsciplined
approach.

Is it not the same in all studies these days? No-one wants to go
through the tough bits, and just get to the meat and potatoes. All
want to play Chopin, but not practice their scales. Well, the result
is that you will be employable as a programmer and others, self
included, will not. It's sort of like typing skills. A
well-disciplined start gives good results. An undiciplined
hunt-and-peck, allows one to type, but... In my own case, I'm
probably still stuck at around 5wpm if you count the time to go back
and find then correct the many small erors ...some devilishly tough to
fathom. After all, if I wrote that program it HAS TO work, right? Two
days later still trying to find what in H... I did wrong, then lots of
head slapping. Companies in business don't have time for that.

[Barb Knox]

[snip]

[T]he biggest problem is because they're good hackers, it's hard to
convince them of the benefit of switching to a more disciplined style.

And they tend towards arrogance, with the attitude that they are good
enough to hack *anything*. This comes from only ever having worked on
self-selected hack-able problems -- they haven't yet met "the program
with their name on it", meaning one that is just too complex to hack
without doing a decent design first.

I had the fortunate early experience (although it didn't feel fortunate
at the time) of having to do a lot of maintenance work on large messy
programs, which convinced me in my bones of the need for clean design.

Personally, I think this is the best way of doing it. If you understand what
is really happening at the machine level, then when you are introduced to
objects at university you just shrug and say "oh that's a more convenient
higher level abstraction for what I'm already doing". The biggest problem I
saw with undergraduates was they couldn't understand the abstraction because
they hadn't experienced the problems of programming without objects, and they
didn't know what was being abstracted.
I realise that advocates of the 'objects first' approach that seems popular
lately will disagree with me here!

My own experience is that constantly wanting to think of abstractions in
terms of "what really goes on underneath" serves as a barrier to good
use of them. So, yes, I am an objects first person - when I program in
an OO language I want to think of it in terms of abstract objects passing
messages between each other, and not as just one big block of code and one
big block of memory where the OO constructs are just a way of organising it.

Yes, but.... The sad fact is that most students seem to be generally
hopeless at *anything* abstract. Of those students, the ones who have
some sort of concrete model of "what really goes on underneath" have a
big advantage over the ones who don't.

A good example of the way in which wanting to see it in terms of what goes
on at machine level is the difficulty I've often experienced in teaching
self-taught hackers the use of recursion. Somehow they just can't get
away from thinking of it as "this calls that then that calls this, then,
oh woops, it's all too difficult, I'll cobble together something with
a while loop and global variables".

Indeed. IMO, recursion is the /pons asinorum/ of introductory
programming, where the abstraction-challenged students visibly hit the
wall. But note that it can be taught in a less abstract manner, e.g. by
starting with recursive function patterns that are actually iterative in
structure (i.e., tail-recursion).

[Pierian Spring]

A number of contributors in this thread are making the mistake of
confusing
programming skill with knowledge of particular languages; one scribe
described the writing of C programs in languages other than C, for
example.

The language of implementation is irrelevant. A well-thought-out
program
will work equally well whether it is coded in machine code (binary,
octal, hex),
in assembler, in C, Pascal, RTL/2, CORAL, Delphi, VB, Algol, Fortran
66,
Fortran IV, or whatever.

There is also considerable arrogance displayed by the self-appointed
experts - many of those whom they would criticise are picking up
some sort of programming experience in their tender years; far, far
earlier than the late teen years or the early graduate years when these
so-called experts had their first exposure.

To suggest that those being criticised are incapable of being trained
in good ways of working is pure arrogance, no more, no less.

The attitude of these self-appointed experts is laughable.

Post by Barb Knox
[snip]

[T]he biggest problem is because they're good hackers, it's hard to
convince them of the benefit of switching to a more disciplined style.

And they tend towards arrogance, with the attitude that they are good
enough to hack *anything*. This comes from only ever having worked on
self-selected hack-able problems -- they haven't yet met "the program
with their name on it", meaning one that is just too complex to hack
without doing a decent design first.

[Jeremy Boden]

Post by Pierian Spring
A number of contributors in this thread are making the mistake of
confusing
programming skill with knowledge of particular languages; one scribe
described the writing of C programs in languages other than C, for
example.
The language of implementation is irrelevant. A well-thought-out
program
will work equally well whether it is coded in machine code (binary,
octal, hex),
in assembler, in C, Pascal, RTL/2, CORAL, Delphi, VB, Algol, Fortran
66,
Fortran IV, or whatever.

<snip>

Therefore I should use FORTRAN IV to do a bit of heavy string
processing?
or perhaps I should use machine code to write a compiler compiler?

Or perhaps not...

[Pierian Spring]

If Fortran IV or machine code are the only tools available
to you, and your program design is sound, then there
is no reason for you not to use those tools - if your design
is sound, then, then these approaches are as good as any
other for implementation.

Admittedly, there are some so-called computer professionals
who do not understand their underlying machines (and are therefore
_NOT_ computer experts), but both languages give you the fundamental
operations from which all string handling derives; consider the
oft-published string-handling routines of C - strlen starts at the
beginning of an array and iterates through until a zero byte
is found. It will be a fairly short effort in either machine language
of Fortran IV to produce such routines. OK - in Fortran IV greater
care is needed because all parameters are passed by reference.

Post by guv

Post by Pierian Spring
A number of contributors in this thread are making the mistake of
confusing
programming skill with knowledge of particular languages; one scribe
described the writing of C programs in languages other than C, for
example.
The language of implementation is irrelevant. A well-thought-out
program
will work equally well whether it is coded in machine code (binary,
octal, hex),
in assembler, in C, Pascal, RTL/2, CORAL, Delphi, VB, Algol, Fortran
66,
Fortran IV, or whatever.

<snip>
Therefore I should use FORTRAN IV to do a bit of heavy string
processing?
or perhaps I should use machine code to write a compiler compiler?
Or perhaps not...

[Alun Harford]

Post by Pierian Spring
A number of contributors in this thread are making the mistake of
confusing
programming skill with knowledge of particular languages; one scribe
described the writing of C programs in languages other than C, for
example.
The language of implementation is irrelevant. A well-thought-out
program
will work equally well whether it is coded in machine code (binary,
octal, hex),
in assembler, in C, Pascal, RTL/2, CORAL, Delphi, VB, Algol, Fortran
66,
Fortran IV, or whatever.

Well I carefully thought it through, but my POSIX-compliant operating system
written in
SPL(http://shakespearelang.sourceforge.net/report/shakespeare/shakespeare.html)
is buggy. Please can you resolve this for me?

Alun Harford

[Alun Harford]

Post by Alun Harford
Well I carefully thought it through, but my POSIX-compliant operating
system written in
SPL(http://shakespearelang.sourceforge.net/report/shakespeare/shakespeare.html)
is buggy. Please can you resolve this for me?

(Sorry for replying to myself)

While I'm at it, can you fix my web browser written in Java2K. It only
renders pages correctly about half the time (better then IE, but I'm sure it
can be improved)

Alun Harford

[Pierian Spring]

See my other reply to you.

Post by Alun Harford

Post by Alun Harford
Well I carefully thought it through, but my POSIX-compliant operating
system written in
SPL(http://shakespearelang.sourceforge.net/report/shakespeare/shakespeare.html)
is buggy. Please can you resolve this for me?

(Sorry for replying to myself)
While I'm at it, can you fix my web browser written in Java2K. It only
renders pages correctly about half the time (better then IE, but I'm sure it
can be improved)
Alun Harford

[Pierian Spring]

Then, despite your claims to the contrary, it is not
well thought through, whatever it is. For one thing, if
it is full of bugs, then it most certainly is not POSIX
compliant.

I will be happy to negotiate terms for sorting out the
bugs which you are unable to sort out yourself due
to the limitations of your thinking-through process.

I do not (yet?) know the computer language SPL,
however in 33 years of being a computer professional,
which has included the design of several operating
systems, I do not envisage any difficulties in acquainting
myself with a new language. Obviously, the cost to you
will increase to cover such training time.

Post by Alun Harford

Post by Pierian Spring
A number of contributors in this thread are making the mistake of
confusing
programming skill with knowledge of particular languages; one scribe
described the writing of C programs in languages other than C, for
example.
The language of implementation is irrelevant. A well-thought-out
program
will work equally well whether it is coded in machine code (binary,
octal, hex),
in assembler, in C, Pascal, RTL/2, CORAL, Delphi, VB, Algol, Fortran
66,
Fortran IV, or whatever.

Well I carefully thought it through, but my POSIX-compliant operating system
written in
SPL(http://shakespearelang.sourceforge.net/report/shakespeare/shakespeare.html)
is buggy. Please can you resolve this for me?

[Guess who]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:00:52 +0000, Richard Smith

Post by Richard Smith

Post by Matthew Huntbach
In the case of self-taught programmers, I find many of them have some
quite naive ideas about programming, and it requires a lot of effort to
get them out of this and to think in a more structured and abstract style.
Indeed, there are some Computer Science educators, and I have some sympathy
for them, who warn against self-taught programming, feeling that it leads
into "bad habits" which are more difficult to teach people to get out of
than it is to teach progamming from scratch to someone who has never done
it before.

When I said "self-taught by the age of ten" I only really meant Basic.
And I agree with you that someone who only knows Basic is quite likely
to have more problems when introduced to structured and object oriented
programming.

But he's still quite right in general. I've said the same about math
that it's far more difficult to undo bad habits than to teach good
ones from scratch [check out my typing for example.] That underlying
problem is lack of patience. People want to call themselves
programmers NOW, only because they mastered the FOR-NEXT loop. They
don't want to do all of the necessary basic training, and so quickly
reach a limit because of that lack of understanding of basic
principles [that's small-letter 'basic'.] Some learn to add a column
of numbers in a spreadsheet and also think of that as programming.

On the lighter side, I had taught myself BASIC many years back [hence
my understanding of the problems], and had a few years ago decided to
get out of the house. So I signed up for a college night course in
Visual Basic. I told my wife that I was wondering if I'd remember any
of the stuff I had done so long ago [I did.] She said I'd be lucky if
I could remember where I'd put the car in the parking lot. ...Why
we're married.

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by Richard Smith

Post by Matthew Huntbach
In the case of self-taught programmers, I find many of them have some
quite naive ideas about programming, and it requires a lot of effort to
get them out of this and to think in a more structured and abstract style.

Absolutely. The main problem, IMHO, is that they have almost
certainly never *constructed* a program, but only ever thrown one
together. It's like being shown how to cook after only ever going to
the fridge and "grazing".

[...]

Post by Richard Smith
When I said "self-taught by the age of ten" I only really meant Basic.
And I agree with you that someone who only knows Basic is quite likely
to have more problems when introduced to structured and object oriented
programming.

Whoa! Modern [ie, last 25 years or so ...!] Basics are quite
decent languages, with usable procedures, structures, constructs and
no need for spaghetti; and [in all the cases they're likely to come
across] quite adequate facilities for simple graphics. Self-taught
Basic is surely no worse than self-taught Pascal/C/Java/whatever?
The problem is still very likely to be that the resulting program is
hard to debug, inflexible, etc., etc., primarily because no thought
has been given to the overall design.

In reality, I see very few programmers at all, self-taught or
otherwise, these days. The box is too black. You just can't compete
with the big boys, with their slick graphics and surround sound and
splash screens and exciting buttons, and web sites with all manner of
extra gizmos. So there is no payoff at all from the early stages of
rolling your own, apart from the intellectual challenge.

Post by Richard Smith
[...] If you understand
what is really happening at the machine level, then when you are
introduced to objects at university you just shrug and say "oh that's a
more convenient higher level abstraction for what I'm already doing".

I gave up on that after the PDP 11. Up to then, I learned the
machine code of every computer I used, occasionally wrote assembler
programs, and more-or-less understood the machine architecture. After
that, black boxes struck again. Your PC has several thinggies clipped
to boards; you have to be a real geek to know what they all are, once
you're past "this is the processor, this is memory, that's the fan".
If you do learn the machine code, it's not really the machine code at
all, but a high-level version of the actual microcode. You can't
compete with modern compilers, with their expert knowledge of the
cache behaviour, etc. So at best you write a compiler that converts
your favourite language into C.

The same has happened to consumer goods. The heater packed up
on my car the other day. Twenty, thirty years ago, it would have been
a mechanical problem easily fixed by a local mechanic. Today, the
garage decided it was the "controller", some expensive box buried
several hours deep into dismantling half the car; having uncovered
that and found it was OK, the next step would be some other expensive
box buried several hours deeper into dismantling the rest, costing
more than the car is worth. So my choice seems to be to scrap the car
or shiver ....

[Wayne Brown]

Post by John Porcella

Post by Richard Smith
In contrast, some of the 3rd and 4th year CS classes are much more
difficult and only a small percentage of students could ever be expected
to truly grep them.

"Grep"? Meaning?

grep is a Unix utility that searches for character patterns in text
files. I assume Mr. Smith is using it in the allegorical sense of
"grepping" through the course material to gain the valuable knowledge and
understanding contained within it. (He also may be making a pun from
the similarity between the programming term "grep" and the pop-culture
term "grok," which was coined by Robert Heinlein in "Stranger in a
Strange Land" and is used to indicate deep understanding of a subject
or situation.)

[Richard Smith]

Post by Wayne Brown
grep is a Unix utility that searches for character patterns in text
files. I assume Mr. Smith is using it in the allegorical sense of
"grepping" through the course material to gain the valuable knowledge and
understanding contained within it. (He also may be making a pun from
the similarity between the programming term "grep" and the pop-culture
term "grok," which was coined by Robert Heinlein in "Stranger in a
Strange Land" and is used to indicate deep understanding of a subject
or situation.)

Heh, I actually meant 'grok' but I had been up late doing a lot of unix
scripting the night I wrote that ;-)

[Wayne Brown]

Post by Richard Smith

Post by Wayne Brown
grep is a Unix utility that searches for character patterns in text
files. I assume Mr. Smith is using it in the allegorical sense of
"grepping" through the course material to gain the valuable knowledge and
understanding contained within it. (He also may be making a pun from
the similarity between the programming term "grep" and the pop-culture
term "grok," which was coined by Robert Heinlein in "Stranger in a
Strange Land" and is used to indicate deep understanding of a subject
or situation.)

Heh, I actually meant 'grok' but I had been up late doing a lot of unix
scripting the night I wrote that ;-)

I know what you mean. After a long day (and/or night) of sysadmin work
I sometimes find myself thinking in "shell-scriptese". :-)

[John Porcella]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
You are wrong. I have 16 years of university level teaching, and
in my experience the belief that learning==memorisation is the
second most common cause of student failure (behind only laziness).

What I like about the A/S and A2 system is that there is some attempt to
reward analysis and evaluation, not mere rote learning.

I am surprised that at you have found that students believe that learning
and memory are equated so directly.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
I teach computer programming, and I suspect the same applies to
the sort of stuff Andy teaches. The number of actual facts we have
to teach is fairly small, but the concepts are quite abstract.
If you understand the concepts, you can build up detailed examples
as required to solve problems given to you.

I always prefer understanding the material, since it takes the strain from
having to memorise the wretched material.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Matthew Huntbach wrote:>

Post by Matthew Huntbach
You are wrong. I have 16 years of university level teaching, and
in my experience the belief that learning==memorisation is the
second most common cause of student failure (behind only laziness).

What I like about the A/S and A2 system is that there is some attempt to
reward analysis and evaluation, not mere rote learning.
I am surprised that at you have found that students believe that learning
and memory are equated so directly.

Not all of the do, but it's a significant portion. There still seems to
be a widespread assumption in our society - look at any newspaper article
about exams - that examinations are all about memorisation and regurgitation.
Maybe that's because most of the people who write newspaper articles come
from an arts background where memorisation plays a more prominent place in
exams. However, I find the most pathological cases tend to come from
overseas backgrounds, or from cultures which place a heavy emphasis on
memorisation.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
I teach computer programming, and I suspect the same applies to
the sort of stuff Andy teaches. The number of actual facts we have
to teach is fairly small, but the concepts are quite abstract.
If you understand the concepts, you can build up detailed examples
as required to solve problems given to you.

I always prefer understanding the material, since it takes the strain from
having to memorise the wretched material.

Indeed. But getting kids to understand this isn't always easy, particularly
if memorisation has been a reasonably successful tactic in the past.

Matthew Huntbach

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by John Porcella
I always prefer understanding the material, since it takes the strain from
having to memorise the wretched material.

Indeed. But getting kids to understand this isn't always easy, [...].

But do they memorise this?

[Alasdair]

On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 16:36:57 +0000, Matthew Huntbach

Post by Matthew Huntbach
You are wrong. I have 16 years of university level teaching, and
in my experience the belief that learning==memorisation is the
second most common cause of student failure (behind only laziness).
I teach computer programming, and I suspect the same applies to
the sort of stuff Andy teaches. The number of actual facts we have
to teach is fairly small, but the concepts are quite abstract.
If you understand the concepts, you can build up detailed examples
as required to solve problems given to you. Examples are given in
teaching to explain the concepts. But there is a significant proportion
of the class whose approach is to memorise the examples while failing
to understand what they were given to illustrate. Sometimes they put
an immense amount of effort into memorisation - every year I have
students who randomly regurgitate examples I've shown in the class,
sometimes down to typing errors I forgot to remove, and they almost
always fail because what they regurgitate bears little relationship
to the question, which is asking them to apply a technique, not
to reproduce an example of that technique applied to some other
situation (and that's when they get as far as understanding the
question enough to give an example of the right technique).
There is plenty of evidence that memorising patterns without
understanding the structure of patterns is a hugely more difficult
task than getting to understand the structure then viewing those
patterns in terms of those structures.

In subjects like maths and the sciences, I agree that understanding
first principles and being able to apply them is much more important
than merely memorising facts. A certain amount of memorising is
indespensable, however, especially at GCSE and A levels. It is very
difficult to pass a science exam without memorising some formulae for
example. School students are rarely taught the maths behind the
formulae.

I have taught law and a good memory there is much more important. I
have taught my students to remember the mnemonic IDEAR (the way
English people pronounce Idea) when sitting exams.

Identify the legal principles which the question demands.
Define legal terms so that the examiner will know that you understand
the meaning of what you say.
Evaluate the importance of the various aspects of the question.
Apply your knowledge of the law (case law and statute) to the problem
in hand and what many students fail to mention
Set out the Remedies available to the winning party.

Students are expected to know the names of decided cases and not only
the decision of the court but the reasons given by the judge(s) for
arriving at that decision. This all requires memory.

[John Porcella]

Post by a***@gmail.com
Although this is a widely held believe, I consider it false.
Understanding is not enough especially in more advanced courses where
new definitions and theorems are introduced at a blistering pace. It's
unrealistic to expect understanding without a clearly memorized
definition especially in a test enviorment. You might argue that closed
book testing isn't of value, but for those of us who have to
participate in them memorization cannot be replaced by meer
understanding.

Did you not memorise now to spell 'mere'? You use it properly, so you
clearly understand it! Contradicting your own argument, methinks!

[The Drone]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
I'd recommend understanding the material. It has all the
advantages of memorising plus: you don't need to do the memorising
and it's a better foundation for more advanced work.

So far as it goes, I agree - particularly with understanding being "a
better foundation for more advanced work." in which case I would have
thought it was axiomatic.

This isn't necessarily the case where there is no aim for more advanced
work. Knowing a particular thing might be useful but its understanding
might be so difficult that it detracts from other, more appropriate
learning. I never understood the "least squares" (?) calculation for the
best fit of a straight line through a set of points but I've used the
formula several times. Sadly, I've used it so rarely that I never
memorised it either so I have to look it up (or use Excel!) but if I
needed it regularly, it would be remembered easily enough. For me, it's
enough to know it exists and what it does.

[David R Tribble]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
I'd recommend memorizing the material - it's impossible to get caught
that way and is likely more reliable then most of those flakey picture
cell phones anyway.

I'd recommend understanding the material. It has all the
advantages of memorising plus: you don't need to do the memorising
and it's a better foundation for more advanced work. Of course, it
won't work if you're stupid; but in that case neither will cheating
or memorising.

Fortunately, there is a correcting force, known as "your first job out
of college". Employers (and graduate schools) tend to find out fairly
quickly who knows what and who doesn't.

I'm a software engineer, and usually three or four of us interview
candidates. Two of us do technical interviews, and we can rate a
person's proficiency and experience pretty quickly. We don't expect
memorization of things that we ourselves have to look up, but we
do expect understanding of relevant programming concepts.
The most revealing questions are, "so tell me what problems you
had on your last big project and how you solved them".

[Guess who]

Post by David R Tribble
Fortunately, there is a correcting force, known as "your first job out
of college". Employers (and graduate schools) tend to find out fairly
quickly who knows what and who doesn't.

Perhaps, but BS baffles brains even there. I still haven't figured
out quite yet which of the two most commonly wind up in management,
but I've met my fill of those who did, and belonged definitely and
firmly with the latter group.

[John Porcella]

Post by David R Tribble
I'm a software engineer, and usually three or four of us interview
candidates. Two of us do technical interviews, and we can rate a
person's proficiency and experience pretty quickly. We don't expect
memorization of things that we ourselves have to look up, but we
do expect understanding of relevant programming concepts.
The most revealing questions are, "so tell me what problems you
had on your last big project and how you solved them".

It is the answers that are revealing, not the questions.

[Ian Johnston]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 20:29:31 UTC, "John Porcella"
<***@btinternet.com> wrote:

:
: > I'm a software engineer, and usually three or four of us interview
: > candidates. Two of us do technical interviews, and we can rate a
: > person's proficiency and experience pretty quickly. We don't expect
: > memorization of things that we ourselves have to look up, but we
: > do expect understanding of relevant programming concepts.
: > The most revealing questions are, "so tell me what problems you
: > had on your last big project and how you solved them".
:
: It is the answers that are revealing, not the questions.

That's just smug pedantry, along the lines of "What do you teach?" "I
teach maths" "We'd prefer someone who teaches children".

Ian

[OldBill]

Post by David R Tribble
I'm a software engineer, and usually three or four of us interview
candidates. Two of us do technical interviews, and we can rate a
person's proficiency and experience pretty quickly. We don't expect
memorization of things that we ourselves have to look up, but we
do expect understanding of relevant programming concepts.
The most revealing questions are, "so tell me what problems you
had on your last big project and how you solved them".

That sounds like a sensible interview method, unlike many IT interviews
I've attended where they insist on a pathetic "technical test" which is
put together by someone who must've had to look up the answers himself.
In one recent one there was a rough pad which had been used by a
previous candidate and it appeared he had phoned a mate for help.
He got the job but I heard later he was hopeless at trouble shooting.

[d***@burnt.org.uk]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by a***@gmail.com
I'd recommend memorizing the material - it's impossible to get caught
that way and is likely more reliable then most of those flakey picture
cell phones anyway.

I'd recommend understanding the material. It has all the
advantages of memorising plus: you don't need to do the memorising
and it's a better foundation for more advanced work. Of course, it
won't work if you're stupid; but in that case neither will cheating
or memorising. Sadly, it seems to be out of fashion, and also to be
somewhat downplayed by the revision guides.

Depends on the subject. With Electronic Engineering there was a large
degree of memory needed as well as understanding.