Subject: [OT] Re: was: Distributing OpenOffice to schools
From: Michael Gillson (Michael_Gillson@chugachelectric.com)
Date: Wed Aug 13 2003 - 17:05:29 AKDT
To agree with Bryan, I learned Pascal at UCSD in the late 70's. Boy, I
am getting old.
I program in Delphi now and I am learning how to use Kylix on RedHat.
Yet, even when I was forced to program in the
tool of the month, I could still conceptualize the problems in Pascal
and then applied it to the language I was using.
Pascal was/is a good teaching language because it helps teach good
thinking patterns that can be applied in other areas.
Another example from my senior year in high school. I learned how to
use a slide rule. Calculators were just coming out but this was the
last year the school taught slide rule. DO I remember how to use a
slide rule today? No. What I learned in slide rule that I still use
today
is the art of looking at an answer and seeing if the numbers are
plausible for the input data. I can usually estimate the answer quite
close.
To many people punch the numbers in a calculator and then just take the
number on the display.
I keep my ability sharp by adding up, in my head, the sales receipts
from Fred's or Sam's. Just by rounding the cents to the nearest
dollar,
my total is usually within 1 dollar of the actual total.
Lastly, how many times are we admonished to think outside the box.
This kind of thinking is what Americans tend to be good at. We take
what is
and combined it possibilities and we get some amazing things. In the
past, schools could have taught you to be an elevator operator but there
is
not much need now.
I am working on .NET stuff now but I have worked with JAVA before.
Both have a lot of things similar to Delphi. It is easy to learn any of
them
because the object models are nearly identical. I am always learning
new things and the ability to learn quickly is part of what makes me
successful at work.
>>> <bryan@ak.net> 08/13/03 03:46PM >>>
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 03:17:16PM -0800, Peter Q. Olsson
<olsson@koyukuk.at.uaa.alaska.edu> wrote:
> Bryan-
>
> I agree with you in theory, but employers are more and more looking
at ed.
> institutions to provide "off-the-shelf" employees that are good to
go
> straight out of the box.
<snip>
Ah, but that's their problem. Job training is the responsibility of
the employer. Schools are supposed to serve the students, not
employers.
What if a school prepares a student for the work force by giving
him/her
a 100% Microsoft curriculum, an employer's dream, and then MS loses a
DOJ
case, and gets broken up, bankrupted, or otherwise obliterated. That
world-class MS-trained student now has the marketable skills of a
portrait
painter.
Microsoft is just an example. What if a school prepares a student for
a
particular field, and because of some upswell in public opinion, or
major
scandal of some sort, the entire field disappears, or is relegated to
a
minor niche? Unless the student has an education in varied thought
processes and general skills, he/she will be up the creek without a
paddle.
I've heard it said that the average person changes careers seven times
during a lifetime. Job training will not give that person what he/she
needs. Only an education will suffice.
There. Now I've got that off *my* chest. :)
Sorry for the OT thread. And I'll leave the rest of your message
to those more qualified to discuss it.
-- Bryan Medsker bryan@ak.net--------- To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org> with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
--------- To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org> with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a23 : Wed Aug 13 2003 - 17:05:57 AKDT