[KLUG Advocacy] Re: Let's get this CS v. CIS v. moron v. other party started -- technical knowledge

[Bryan J. Smith]

Quoting Adam Tauno Williams <adam@morrison-ind.com>:
> I'm not so cure it is that black and white, or what "traditional
> education" encompsases.  I attended a technical college/program
> and dropped out in both disgust and boredom.

Because you _already_ had the technical knowledge.  You don't need to get a
technical degree to be a technologist.  But if you don't have any experience,
then it's a great way to get it.

> I'd actually like the graduates I've met to have a more "traditional"
> background.  If they understand the theory and concepts learning
> specific tools comes easy.

Because most "traditional" background engineers have the _experience_ to go with
it.  They ones that don't end up being either unemployed, move to another field
and/or, if they got a 4.0 GPA, go off to research.

> It is the complete lack of clue about things like version control that
> bug me.  Not that they don't know how to use CVS, but that they don't
> get it, even the "why".  And having to explain to a CIS person how to
> read a basic UML class diagram?  And object inheritence in OO?  The
> difference between a thread and a process?  Constraints in relation
> databases (or even what the "relational" part of that description means)?

I know, I know.

It has to do with "personal responsibility."  Now there _are_ unethical
gradudates.  Heck, they are the ones that probably cheated in college, and had
wealthy parents.  Otherwise, there is something about going to school when you
are _paying_ for it and dealing with all that BS and other crap that flies
around you.

Furthermore, in the "traditional" engineering discipline, ethics and
administration is at the core.  Heck, as I like to say, "engineers get more
ethics and economics than a political science major."  ;-p

UCF offers an "Industrial Engineering" degree.  Employers will tell you flat out
they prefer BSIE graduates to BSBA anyday.

> Seriously, why not just grab a high-school graduate and teach him what
> he needs to know, your going to be doing it anyway, and
> he'll do it for less money and with less attitude.

Agreed.  I think the BSCIS is a bastardization that is overvalued.  You'd be far
better off hiring a BSCET, a guy with an AA and a lot of experience, or even as
you said, a good, solid high school graduate with excellent work experience (via
former supervisor references).

> What exactly do they spend all those months/years studying?

It's a BA core with basic technology.  It's like the BA is totally inapplicable
to the IS part.  If it's any argument, I don't like the idea of a BSCSE either.
 It's like the engineering part goes wasted, and you'd be better off with just a
BSCS degree with more courses in digital/programming. 

> I'm curious to have someone actually involved in those coarses
> to answer that question.

It's called business people hire business people in utter, technical ignorance.

The IT industry needs a "shake up" like the engineering industry did in the
'70s.  By the '70s, American companies realized their folly.  They had business
admins managing engineers, and made _ignorant_ decisions, resulting in _poor_
product quality.

As a result, American productivity _and_ quality boomed once senior engineers or
MBA'd engineers started managing engineers.

Same ordeal.  You need _technologists_ managing _technicians_, not business
majors.  I actually think this is happening now.  There are far too many IT
morons out there.

> I have my own theory as to the root of the problem,  but I'd like to
> hear from the horses mouth.

I've seen it in action myself.  The BSCIS comes up to me and says, "I know C++."

Of course, I always fire back, "I know C++ too, but I know I'm not a good
object-oriented programmer because I lack the repeatative experience in using it."

I then get a dumb look.

> I'm just a high school "graduate" (don't even count that honestly,  I
> ended with a 3.85 GPA the same time the social worker was beating on
> my door about not attending school, go figure).

I finished HS with a 3.3 unweighted GPA, 3.7 weighted (4. scale).

I finished college with only a 2.8 GPA (no weight/no honors), although a 3.3 in
my "option."

I've been working since 14, and pretty much 30+ hours/week since 16.  All but 6
months was white collar, 100% technical.

It also helped that my father was a land surveyor.  I learned trignometry before
I hit high school.

> I have a "UNIX Administration Certificate" from a local community
> college, but thats a joke as well;  finished the last exam and
> extra credit in seven minutes.
> In my college experience that problem was not even so much that the
> instructors were obselete themselves but the attitude of the school
> towards the students.  They treated us like customers.

In large universities, the first year or two is filled with "weed" courses. 
It's almost unethical at times.

In Florida, I recommend the "transient" approach.  You are enrolled at a SUS
(state university system) institution, but you take most of your academic
courses at a community college.  The grade counts the same as long as the course
prefix/number is the same.

At a Florida CC, the class size is small (instead of 200-300!), and the "weed
factor" is far less (less people want to get in).  Furthermore, if you care, the
CC instructors usually take you under your wing, because CCs are filled with
high school students who either couldn't, or didn't want to go to college at
first and/or haven't learned the reality that school is for _learning_, not just
"passing".  In Florida, a HS graduate cannot be denied admittance into a Florida CC.

> Endless help was available - tutoring, extensions on assignments,
> leneancy on grading, etc...  It was entirely possible
> to pass a class with no competence in the topic whatsoever.

Yeah, that's the problem nowdays.  You've got:
  Comm. Col.:  Quickly becoming the new "high school" in Florida
  University:  Year 1-2 designed to frustrate/fail students
               to deal with Florida's population and application

> Flunking someone just didn't seem to be an option, except in the most
> extreme cases.  Just about everyone in those classes should have
> flunked the "101:Intro to UNIX" coarse.  
> So there are ~20 people out there, walking about with the same scrap of
> paper I have, who are mystified by the entire concept of "cd ..".  I know
> becuase one asked on the second to last day why the instructor typed that,
> I could barely contain myself.  Then someone asked her to explain it again!

Ouch!  Lowering standards is _not_ what we need to be doing.  Because ...

If there is one thing _good_ about America, it's this simple principle:
   YOU CAN FAIL AS MANY TIMES AS YOU WANT

It separates the "I'm not applying myself" people from the "I have no ability
whatsoever" people.  Both fail, but at least one can eventually "come around."

But standards should _never_ be lowered.

-- 
Bryan J. Smith, E.I. (BSECE)       Contact Info:  http://thebs.org
[ http://thebs.org/files/resume/BryanJonSmith_certifications.pdf ]
------------------------------------------------------------------
* A lecture on software piracy from Bill Gates is like a lecture *
* on adultry from the owner of a brothel of other people's wives *