Education
So busy.... and these files with sections are still saved on my harddrive :X Let's deal with one of them. Since I am not feeling particularly inspired.. I picked Education, a topic I am usually very interested in.
Let's see what my good ol' file of quotes has.
Ah yes... this is good stuff. Anyway.. for context purposes, the following was taken from the comments about an eleven year-old (or somewhere around that age) girl from some African country that had her trip to the US paid for so she could go meet Bill Gates and congratulate her for having acquired one of those Microsoft Certificates (details are fuzzy after all this time, but the main idea is that she was way ahead of what most people would had expected from kids her age).
//--------------------------------------------------
Yes and no. (Score:5, Interesting)
by rjh (40933) on Friday July 15, @07:41AM (#13071503)
First, congratulations to her: yes, it's an accomplishment. The only reason we think it's a major accomplishment, though, is we've been fooled into thinking kids can't learn complex things. We mistakenly think that kids are capable of much less than they are--not because the kids can't perform up to their capability, but because the educational system doesn't do the kids justice.
I was lucky. When I was in elementary school and showed a real gift for computers, several teachers went considerably out of their way to put me in groups of people who knew what they were doing. By the time I was nine, I was spending my summers in the local community college's computer lab. I wasn't taking college courses, no, but my teachers hooked me up with a student named David Carlson and asked if he could just spend an hour each week answering my questions.
David became my best friend in no time flat. An hour a week turned into a considerably more during the summertime, between his jobs and other commitments. I learned LISP from David (on a Symbolics LISP Machine--talk about your sexy hardware). Shortly after I turned ten, David showed me the Y-combinator. It took me a few weeks to understand it, but when I did--whoa! I was blinded, just blinded, by the beauty of it.
Then we moved away to a different city, different school system. Supposedly this one was much better, but there were no longer any teachers who'd go out of their way to recruit college students into letting me hang out with them for a while. They expected me to go through the exact same hoops as anyone else. I wasn't even allowed to take Programming in BASIC at the high school level. No more LISP Machines for me. From '86 to '92, I had no access to any machines more powerful than an Apple IIgs, and no languages more powerful than Basic. I wouldn't get access to a LISP environment again until I got to college in '94.
Now I'm a graduate student. Last semester I took a course in programming language theory, where we were exposed to the beauty of the Y-combinator. And to think... I knew the Y-combinator when I was just ten years old, just due to the kindness of a smart college student who wasn't smart enough to know "the Y-combinator is too much for kids".
David Carlson was the finest teacher I ever had, because he didn't have preconceptions about what I could or couldn't learn. And as soon as we moved away and my education got turned over to bureaucrats who were concerned about "age-appropriate academic skills", I got left out in the cold.
David died a couple of years ago of brain cancer, way before his time; he was barely forty. He left behind a wife and kids, and you know what? I think those kids are going to turn out to be geniuses. Because he and his wife were too damn dumb to know their kids couldn't possibly learn things.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
//--------------------------------------------------
Pretty enlightening... isn't it? Kids are not to be undersestimated... that could really hurt them along the way by making them waste most of their youth. What bugs me is this act I've heard of... "No child Left Behind", apparently it was made to make the poor-performing kids feel better by making everyone always pass and have everyone learn at the slowest kid's rate? I read something like that... but really, if it works that way, that's gonna be hell counter-productive for society at large o.O
The following is not related to education.. but work, altough I didn't have enough quotes related to that to justify a 'work' entry, so it came here... what is it about? It's about a statement I couldn't agree more with....
//--------------------------------------------------
Re:Wasted Time and The 40 Hour Week (Score:5, Interesting)
by flithm (756019) on Tuesday July 12, @08:16PM (#13049112)
I personally have never seen a study been done that suggested a 40 hour work week is optimal for productivity. I would like to see some sources please.
Even if a study were to exist, you have to take into context the nature of the study. For example, to which end is the productivity rated? Is this the productivity of individual workers on a scale of work done per time unit, or is it some ratio esitimator of productivity per dollar spent, because they're quite different.
Having said that, I do agree with you. Making workers work more hours can definitely lower overall productivity.
France has enacted a law [wikipedia.org] dicatating that 35 hours is the maximum time one should spend working in a week.
While they intended the law to promote hiring new employees, they found that companies resisted and instead demanded higher time unit production quotas. Indeed an interesting result.
Note that our average work week has been shortening [wikipedia.org] since the 13th century.
This is definitely a good thing, although I still don't think it's enough. USA and Canada are still pretty high on the list [wikipedia.org] of time spent at work.
Paul Lafargue's Right to be Lazy [marxists.org] (1883) suggests an optimal workday of 2 to 3 hours per day.
Nearly all pre-modernized tribes peoples live with a considerably shorter work week. The Kalahari Bushmen, for example, work on average 12-20 hours per week.
Now the Bushment also don't have TV, computers, cars, planes, etc. But then again they don't have Guns, or Heroine either. And I suspect if a study were done on their happiness or contentment in life, it would probably rate _much_ higher than the average North American.
I'm not saying we should trade it all in for the life of a Bushman, but there has to be a balance. We've got the highest rates of mental disease in the world, we lock up more of our people and spend more money on incarceration per person than a lot of the countries in the world combined.
If we were really getting paid for the service of being available at work, even while we're not being productive, then we wouldn't feel guilty when we get caught reading slashdot. We wouldn't immediately switch away from minesweeper when we see the boss walking down the hall.
The workplace makes us feel like we should be productive even though there are many times when productivity is simply not going to happen.
We're tied to this 40 hour work week (which is often much higher) that forces us into a schedule that minimizes our ability to have any serious daily enjoyment beyond the workplace.
Many of us commute. After an 8 hour day and a commute, doing the daily chores, there's little time to reflect, ponder, play a game of whatever with friends.
We've been pushed into complacency and we all sit back and take it. We're a society that by enlarge lives for the weekend. I really don't consider this an optimal solution by any stretch.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
//--------------------------------------------------
Time has evolved... men has become more productive. Yet we don't seem to work less.. we just work more. More and more and more... when are we really gonna evolutionize our society? Once we evolve further... we really wouldn't have to work, people would work out of sheer desire to improve society as a whole (of course this is based on the assumption kids will be raised with a will to improve mankind), of course... technology and the sciences must have evolved enough to support mankind without requiring everyone to work... but we all know that the more the companies earn, the more goes to the shareholders, and the less to the workers... so changing mindsets to a society where you don't need to work to live is just... out of the scope of most people. Still.. I greatly value my free time, and I'd like having more of it, thank you.
//--------------------------------------------------
Less Is More (School != Day Care) (Score:4, Interesting)
by EEBaum (520514) on Tuesday July 12, @04:04PM (#13046320)
Why is it that at a university, where you're supposedly learning things significantly more advanced and in-depth than in K-12, it's perfectly reasonable to spend less than four hours on campus a day as a "full time" student? For 30 weeks of the year?
This "maximize time in the classroom" mantra that's going around is sickening. I remember darn well what I was doing 80% of the time in K-12. Reading a book. Playing with my calculator. Daydreaming. Doodling. With a 3.9 GPA.
If the school day were to end at noon, it would not only keep the kids sane, but also provide time for them to pursue more meaningful activities. Music. Art. Athletics. Science clubs. Playing tag. Interacting with other people in a non-structured environment (such scandalous madness!).
As an added bonus, they would be significantly less brain-fried due to less hours sitting still, and therefore more attentive. They might also be more active with this reduced mental exhaustion and increased time, helping to stem the "obesity epidemic."
My mom is from Argentina, where school was just like that. 8 to noon, five days a week, with electives available in the afternoon. When she moved here, speaking very little English, she was bumped up a grade. It can work.
[ Reply to This ]
//--------------------------------------------------
This isn't so different from the work quote from just above. Apparently.. some people have the idea that the more hours a day you work, the better and more productive you'll be. However people often fail to realize that the more you work, the less time you have for yourself, the less time to explorer hobbies, and enhance yourself as a person in extra activities. BUT no... pretty much everyone I know around has this strange thought that if I were not working or being "productive", I would be a lazy person wasting my time in the couch doing nothing! And it's probably the same for kids... they don't want them having time for themselves, do they? I do believe that a key factor life is having time for ourselfs to explore and learn about the many things one can do in life...
The following is about a theory about the current goals of the educational system (in the US at least) that some people believe... maybe they are cynical, pessimistic.. or just realistic. You be the judge.
//--------------------------------------------------
How to fix education (Score:4, Informative)
by Kismet (13199)
on Tuesday July 12, @05:25PM (#13047427)
I'm told that, hundreds of years ago, people were highly literate. Even kids could read Shakespeare, apparently; at least Sam Johnson seemed fine with it at the age of 9. I understand that twelve-year-old Abraham Cowley was reading Spenser. And I've been told repeatedly that colonial American farmers were able to digest the Federalist Papers without much trouble at all. How is it that America's founders were able to defy the world's foremost superpower, and fashion a remarkable democracy that lasted almost until mid-twentieth century? Those were young men then. Have you seen todays' college rabble? Those people ought to be out doing great things, not spending drunk time in some dormitory. What happened?
I have a novel idea: Why don't we do what they did in colonial times? You know, schools of grammar, dialectic and rhetoric. Liberal education. The Classics. Mentors. How about that? Teach people how to think as soveriegn individuals. Let's shut down the state factory schools, with the state curricula and the private interests that shape them. Why not consider the things that Brownson once said: "[A]ccording to our theory the people are wiser than the government. Here the people do not look to the government for light, for instruction, but the government looks to the people. The people give law to the government [...] to entrust government with the power of determining education which our children shall receive is entrusting our servant with the power of the master."
Why don't we do this? Because it would spell the end of our managed utopias, with their closely regulated, mass-production economies. Henry Ford, for one, needed people who were satisfied with stuff that came off of an assembly line; stuff that looked strikingly similar to what everyone else had. He needed people who would be satisfied with simple, repetitive jobs. It's more efficient to build things by robot than to rely on a specialist. We don't need more smart people, we have plenty already. We need robots, that's what Utopia is all about. And that's what public schools are good at. They are just fine for what they do; they don't need to be fixed. Kids go to school so that they can "get a good job" (even if it's a sinecure), not to enrich their mind or soul.
I tried actually learning at school a few times. I soon realized that, in school, learning has a deadline. It's managed by bells and by psychology. It only really matters that you learn to answer the right way on the final exam - then you are educated. Then you will be successful. Private and state quotas are met whether we learn to read or not.
If we want better students than anyone else in the global competition, all we have to do is tweak the machine a bit. Fiddle with it. But if our goal is truly educated people, then we need to scrap the current system and start over. My guess is that it won't happen.
[ Reply to This ]
//--------------------------------------------------
It is somewhat extreme to believe the government and coorporations are all behind one big plot to just have mindless drone workers to fill up their factories, maybe somepeople read too many post-apocalyptic novels... but the reality doesn't seems all that different from said novels. There IS a gaping hole in our raising methods when kids grow caring about getting a job that will make them money, and not learning something they can be passionate about. This lack of interest may very well foretell the doom of a nation (not that the US really needs that many more reasons seeing how it is going quickly down already :X)
Oh yeah.. the next quote is probably for most people in the net these days.. but I picked it particularly because it may be of Interest to Zarla.
//--------------------------------------------------
Re:Already Written (Score:5, Insightful)
by flyingsquid (813711) on Monday July 11, @12:08PM (#13033614)
Actually, the correct term is not "weasel words". It's "mustelid lexicography".
Strunk and White's _Elements of Style_ is another great guide to writing. It lives its message: the book says to be short and to the point, and so the book is actually short and to the point.It goes from the basics like joining sentences to the principles of composition and clear writing. Anyone who wants to be a writer, whether as a journalist, novelist, or academic, needs to pick up a copy.
I can't believe that almost got through senior year of college without ever having read this book, which is ridiculous- there's this idea in America that you don't need to learn the rules and basics of your craft anymore, whether its art or writing or whatever- well, that idea is bullshit. I'm all for breaking loose and breaking all the rules, but it helps to know the rules in the first place. And for every one Jack Kerouac who can write brilliant drug-fuelled free-form prose, there are a dozen people who really need to pick up Strunk and White, and Orwell's _Politics and the English Language_ Essay and learn to string two words together (I'm firmly in the second camp).
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
//--------------------------------------------------
He claims every writer should had read that book, did you, vixen? I should probably try to snatch a copy of it as well seeing how I like spending long times writing down insidously long paragraph and use highly complex words that I may not even know how to spell correctly XD Too bad I can almost bet she's not gonna read this entry, seeing how busy she is... ah well, she misses the chance :P (maybe I should consider writing this on my next email to her... whichever year that happens)
And now.. some food for thought, who can riddle me out of this?
//--------------------------------------------------
could it be..., the schools? (Score:4, Interesting)
by yagu (721525) on Thursday June 30, @05:55PM (#12954151)
I consider myself an excellent speller with a firm grasp of the English language, its syntax, and semantics. And I consider myself to be high on the scale of technical savvy. But I've met more brilliant people in 21 years in this industry who couldn't spell a lick. I don't know if it's lack of care, or just plain inability to spell.
A peer who collaborated with me on one of my major projects implemented a layer of code to make the program more transparent and usable... and one of the major pieces used file handles to hide named pipes... He spelled it "filehadle", which in this case is more likely a typo, but he missed a lot of other words too. To this day I still get questions about that variable name (it's a good filter..., a programmer who brings that question is not one who I want working with that code).
Another best friend is now VP of a company he founded, and I hope he is getting his correspondence edited before sending.
There are even examples of Mr. Gates' e-mail... if you didn't know it was he, you'd think the author of some of his missives was illiterate.
All of this said and observed, I don't think I've ever been able to see any direct relationship or correlation with "illiteracy" and the technology gurus. I have seen more of a correlation with younger people and while I have no conclusive evidence I would submit this is more about a school system that spends time worrying about the wrong things. (I've even seen typo's/misspellings pop up on the CNN crawler! Ick!)
Another experience: a best friend of mine was in a German Blue Grass band, and they came to the U.S. and toured the midwest out of our house. So, here were four Germans with whom I spent over a week... and one of the most notable things about them was they spoke better English than most Americans! Go figure.
[ Reply to This ]
//--------------------------------------------------
What's with that? So many people who can't speak a damn worth of english? So many Americans who can't even speak their own language? Could it be DA INTRAWEBZ's fault? Nah... as it was just quotted, it seems the education system has been slipping for a while... and it doesn't helps that kids seem to be enjoying mutilating the english language as they write (or worse yet are those who don't even care). Ah... I am glad the USA is not the only country which speaks english, because otherwise I would had considered it a doomed language already ^^' It shows that I don't have high hopes for the great nation of so called freedom, huh?
Now for something fun... ever thought about this?
//--------------------------------------------------
Disdain for the illogical (Score:5, Insightful)
by DunbarTheInept (764) on Thursday June 30, @06:27PM (#12954726)
One common hacker trait is an utter disdain for things that are deliberately illogical. The problem is that the standards of language often are illogical and yet enforced anyway. It's clear that the intent of English was to have a langauge where the letters record the sound of the word. But it failed miserably at it due to merging in words from different languages and now spelling in English is an utterly illogical mess. So it's not surprising that hackers wouldn't really care to spell things by the standard. To do so you have to fight against what is logical.
Then there's the grammar standards of where punctuation marks are used. The comma was invented to just indicate an audio pause in speech. Then later on anal people changed it to only being usable under specific circumstances - Again, For, No, Reason.
Then there's the confusion over whether or not the quote marks are supposed to accurately quote what is inside them or not. I'd say that only things that are part of what is being quoted belong inside the quotes. Punctuation that is an artifact of the fact that the quote got pasted into another sentence are part of that external sentence, NOT part of the quoted material - so they logically belong outside the quote marks. For example:
Logical, but incorrect according to standard:
"Hello", John said.
Did John say, "Hello"?
Illogical, but correct according to standard:
"Hello," John said. (The comma isn't part of the quote dammit)
Did John say, "Hello?" (The question mark is there because of the sentence the "Hello" is pasted inside of, NOT because it is part of the "Hello" that John might have said. This allegedly correct way looks, to me, like the question is aksing whether John spoke "Hello" in a questioning tone, because the question mark ended up inside the quoted part.
According to standard, a question asked in the negative isn't really asked in the negative. "Aren't you coming with us", should logically be answerable by saying "Yes I am not coming with you". But the expected interpretation is the inverse of that. Again, the standard is at odds with logic.
Most people look at stuff like that and don't care. People who think logically get fed up with crap like that and rebell.
[ Reply to This ]
//--------------------------------------------------
So I've been misusing quotes all along? I couldn't care less... I prefer to follow logic than broken rules... logic is easier to follow and remember anyway... u.u Seriously, I've been bugged by the way commas are used inside quoted text instead of outside, it always struck me as backwards, yet that's how it should be!? Ok ok.. I may sound contradictory considering that just a few moments ago I was complaining about kids mutilating the language and now here I am complaining about a language that does not makes sense. The issue is.. noone designed a language with common sense in mind. So pretty much all modern languages are full of quirks and rules that make no sense whatsoever! It's all so inefficient and overly complicates learning languages.... and as such, I just apply my own judgement and follow the rules where they make sense to me :P
Now for a bit of trivia that shocked me when I first read it:
//--------------------------------------------------
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:5, Informative)
by EvanED (569694) on Thursday June 30, @06:24PM (#12954681)
(i.e. A report for work)
Here's another thing that bothers me about common usage. ;-) (Sorry to pick on you.)
The abbreviation "i.e." does not mean "for example."
Repeat after me:
The abbreviation "i.e." does not mean "for example."
The abbreviation "i.e." does not mean "for example."
The abbreviation "i.e." does not mean "for example."
The abbreviation to use if you mean "for example" is "e.g.". The abbreviation "i.e." stands for (the Latin of) "that is."
I.e., "i.e." is used when you are rephrasing, clarifying, etc. what was already said. The sentence "i.e. A report for work", if taken literally, means that the only documents that matter to you are reports for work.
For more information, see, e.g., http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/8707/52862 [suite101.com], http://www.planetoid.org/grammar_for_geeks/ie_vs_e g.html [planetoid.org], or http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/abbreviations/f /ievseg.htm [about.com]. (Note the use of "e.g." for "for example.")
(Sorry, I go on this rant periodically. Don't take it personally.)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:5, Informative)
by Angostura (703910) on Thursday June 30, @06:26PM (#12954711)
An easy way to remember this:
i.e. - in explanation
e.g. - example given
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:4, Informative)
by Stankatz (846709) on Thursday June 30, @08:47PM (#12956254)
An easier way for me is this:
i.e. - id est (that is)
e.g. - exempli gratia (for [the sake of an] example)
Once I learned what they actually stood for, I never got them confused again. You don't have to speak Latin to know which is which. It amazes me how many people use these every day and don't know what they stand for. Also, they should usually be followed by a comma when used in a sentence, just like the phrases "for example" and "that is" are.
Trivia: in German, instead of e.g., they use z.B. which stands for "zum Beispiel".
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
//--------------------------------------------------
I was like... "wow, no way!" when I first read this. Since then, I've been religiously following the definitions and using ie and eg correctly. I was truly shocked beyond belief to realize how wrong I was on my self-learned assumption of how ie was used... and sometimes that's all it takes to learn how to "not do it again" ^^'
Now for something completely unrelated (which is what I seem to be best at when writing...)
//--------------------------------------------------
Re:Sure, a few people drop out because they are sm (Score:5, Insightful)
by OSXCPA (805476) on Monday June 13, @11:35PM (#12809666)
I left college after 2 years because I was bored to tears. Joined the Marines. Went back to college 6 years later *highly* motivated and enjoyed the heck out of learning - took CS classes for fun. My fellow undergrads, mostly straight from High School, hated their classes and hated me - I was the jerk who didn't listen to them whine about how hard their schedules were, or how much different classes sucked. My experience - most of them were too immature to appreciate the opportunity they had, and they had insufficient life experience to know that they should feel passionate about anything at all, let alone learning. Long story short - if you are burning up to go to school, go. If you aren't, be honest with yourself and do 'something else' until you figure out what you want to study. Don't let $ keep you back either - I worked my way through school. It is possible, but difficult - and I wouldn't have it any other way. Whatever you do, light your own ass on fire to get something worthwhile done - no one will teach you that. Hard work is it's own best reward.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
//--------------------------------------------------
This is something I was actually preaching about to Beka some months ago (yes, this quote is THAT old, I need more time :/), going through life doing what you think you should be doing is a sure way to end up bored with things. As the statement before in this post said.. you really gotta be passionate about what you are learning and doing if you want to succeed in life and be happy at work (happy at work? people will mostly scream "foul!" at that). Personally I really like computer programming, design, graphics and all that wack, but I've been opening up to the concept that I also very much like psychology, learning about the human train of thought, motivations, that which ticks and makes us be whom we are, the individualism of everyone and the common logic that we follow... all such concepts are highly interested, and when I get a chance I will take a minor on psychology as well. Who knows, I may end up working as a psychologist instead... gotta work on what one is passionate about, you know?
//--------------------------------------------------
Re:Avoid ask.slashdot for a few days... (Score:4, Insightful)
by gravteck (787609) on Tuesday June 14, @12:58AM (#12810063)
Whenever I see posts debating the value of a college education on Slashdot, I can't help but shake my head at posts along the lines of "taking pointless classes, wasting my money. etc." When it comes to classes that are mandatory in your major, I can understand the frustration of their seeming irrelevancy. However, it is your choice what college and program you attend, and there's nothing preventing research into the classes and programs before "wasting your money on them." I go to Vanderbilt University, and I chose it based on national ranking, reputation of the Engineering school, financial aid, and grant money for research that the departments receive. I don't go to college just to waste my money in class. I get to meet people from all over the country in the world. I get to avoid the real world for four more years, continue the the experience of being young in an environment of people with similar attitudes. Friendships and memories in college are part of the whole deal (IMO) also. Maybe I'm of a different breed cause I don't consider myself the typical Slashdot geek. I've played sports in college (walk on), partied frequently, had serious relationships in school, but somehow in the middle of that I still love to program and do research. Computers and geekdom aren't inherent in my personality, CS and Mathematics is merely what I study. So before going to college, you should probably decide how your personality is going to react to college life and its benefits. Don't complain about the system when it's you controlling your choices.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
//--------------------------------------------------
* prepare yourself for more selfish ranting * I miss college. I really do.. and highschool, for that matter. This all about avoiding "real life", not having to work, being in an young enviroment full of energetic people is really something to love. Unfortunately I did not enjoy my college time as much as I should... fortunately I still have a chance to take a higher degree and go back to college. I really like that enviroment... and learning? Well, I did took interest in all classes I went through, even if they seemed to have no relevance to my field, I was just generally interested in the way things work and the fascination behind the mechanics. I was a bit annoyed at Calculus III, though... all those integrals with no seeming application... and very abstract models, it's hard to understand and like a subject that's so abstract ^^'
//--------------------------------------------------
Re:Avoid ask.slashdot for a few days... (Score:4, Insightful)
by Bimo_Dude (178966) on Tuesday June 14, @06:55AM (#12811145)
The whole educational system needs a workover, but this won't happen until the job market changes
I think you've hit the nail on the head with this statement. The educational system definitely needs to change. To me, the issue is that colleges and universities try to tailor their courses and programs for whatever they perceive as the current needs of the job market. Usually, by the time the students who've enrolled in the latest "fad degree program" graduate, the needs of the job market have changed. Also, when you consider the original purpose of the university (learning for learning's sake - primarily theoretical), it completely defeats the purpose. Nowadays, most kids go to college to learn skills to get a job to make money. When the primary motivation for learning something is money and not an actual interest in the topic, this will likely lead to failure.
The educational system needs to be split into two separate systems: One for the theoretical type of thinker, and one for the prictical type of thinker. The theory folks can devise the bleeding edge ideas for new technology developments, and the practical folks can implement those ideas.
IMHO, having a degree is not always necessary. Look at my family:
* Sister 1: PhD in organic chemistry; university professor; moderately successful; big debts
* Sister 2: MS in Mathematics; schoolteacher; moderately successful; not as deeply in debt
* Me: HS diploma; well-paid geek; moderately successful; no debt
All three of us are happy with what we do. For me to reach the same level of success as my sisters, all I did was have an interest in what I do, read a ton of books, screwed up / fixed many systems/networks/databases (my own, of course), and always asked questions of those who are more knowledgeable than me.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
//--------------------------------------------------
More of the same? Perhaps... but this is what happens when I accumulate quotes that spans through several months... you can't expect the same topic to never be touched twice in that long of a time! And usually each new quote has a new onlook on the same issue. As before... the key to success and a happy life is to work on what you really want, on what you can be passionate about... but people are tired of hearing this by now. ^^' I do wonder... I should ask everyone I know if they really are going after something they love... or it's just 'for the money'?
And to end up.. something that's not related to education at all! The following should had been attached to the politics topic for certain... ^^'
//--------------------------------------------------
and so it begins...the end (Score:4, Insightful)
by N3wsByt3 (758224) on Friday June 17, @05:40AM (#12839836)
As I have recently said, this is the way it begins; not by huge and obvious destruction of citizens' rights, but by small, insidious steps, portrayed as the 'next logical step' for fighting whatever the state seems to think will manage to get little resistence.
I mean, what, you're not soft on childporn, are you? You don't want terrorist roaming around and using the internet without punity, do you?
If it's emotional and self-righteous enough, they know few will dare to oppose. Think of the children! think of 9/11! Ok, and now agree to our huge privacy invasion, because, you want to stop those people doing it again, don't you? Or are you pro CP and terrorism?
With such demagogic tricks they can fool the public almost every time.
Is retaining the best way to go? Does it actually help at all? Is the very unlikely possibility of stopping a relatively few worth the privacy invasion and the further degradation of civic rights of millions? Nowhere is that question ever raised by those that propose these laws. Instead, they continue to use platitudes: "We need the way to stop terrorists!" But as I said before:
Ah, yes, but who are the 'terror suspects'? Everyone reading books the state deems dangerous? Everyone using the internet? No? Then why should their privacy be invaded? Why not adher to decades of legal provisions, where it used to be that you could only be 'tapped' when you were considered a suspect, and AFTER a court agreed to it. Nowadays , everyone is a suspect, and the courts don't come into play anymore when your communications are being tapped.
Eroding ones' privacy and other rights because one is merely 'suspected' is the right way to go, if you want to end up in a policestate.
But, we ALL know the state will ONLY use its powers for the purposes it is meant, without ever abusing it. History has shown this already numerous times in the past, no?
Besides, 'if you have nothing to hide, why care that your private life is being invaded', right?
[ Reply to This ]
//--------------------------------------------------
Yep, it's related to the erosions of rights and privacy in the good old US of A. I wonder how many people really are aware of the situation over there? I wonder if people will stand up on time and fix their country, or will chaos ensue like hasn't been seen in centuries? If the US does not pulls up it's act, it is going to go through some very dark decades.... and a lot of good people who live there will be victims if they don't manage to escape on time. What? Pessimistic, moi? Time will tell... all I know is that I am going to stay the hell out of the US for the foreseeable future. Considering the global climate change... I am gonna stay away from coastlines and sea-level cities too. Need to start looking for a nice highlands area...
Let's see what my good ol' file of quotes has.
Ah yes... this is good stuff. Anyway.. for context purposes, the following was taken from the comments about an eleven year-old (or somewhere around that age) girl from some African country that had her trip to the US paid for so she could go meet Bill Gates and congratulate her for having acquired one of those Microsoft Certificates (details are fuzzy after all this time, but the main idea is that she was way ahead of what most people would had expected from kids her age).
//--------------------------------------------------
Yes and no. (Score:5, Interesting)
by rjh (40933) on Friday July 15, @07:41AM (#13071503)
First, congratulations to her: yes, it's an accomplishment. The only reason we think it's a major accomplishment, though, is we've been fooled into thinking kids can't learn complex things. We mistakenly think that kids are capable of much less than they are--not because the kids can't perform up to their capability, but because the educational system doesn't do the kids justice.
I was lucky. When I was in elementary school and showed a real gift for computers, several teachers went considerably out of their way to put me in groups of people who knew what they were doing. By the time I was nine, I was spending my summers in the local community college's computer lab. I wasn't taking college courses, no, but my teachers hooked me up with a student named David Carlson and asked if he could just spend an hour each week answering my questions.
David became my best friend in no time flat. An hour a week turned into a considerably more during the summertime, between his jobs and other commitments. I learned LISP from David (on a Symbolics LISP Machine--talk about your sexy hardware). Shortly after I turned ten, David showed me the Y-combinator. It took me a few weeks to understand it, but when I did--whoa! I was blinded, just blinded, by the beauty of it.
Then we moved away to a different city, different school system. Supposedly this one was much better, but there were no longer any teachers who'd go out of their way to recruit college students into letting me hang out with them for a while. They expected me to go through the exact same hoops as anyone else. I wasn't even allowed to take Programming in BASIC at the high school level. No more LISP Machines for me. From '86 to '92, I had no access to any machines more powerful than an Apple IIgs, and no languages more powerful than Basic. I wouldn't get access to a LISP environment again until I got to college in '94.
Now I'm a graduate student. Last semester I took a course in programming language theory, where we were exposed to the beauty of the Y-combinator. And to think... I knew the Y-combinator when I was just ten years old, just due to the kindness of a smart college student who wasn't smart enough to know "the Y-combinator is too much for kids".
David Carlson was the finest teacher I ever had, because he didn't have preconceptions about what I could or couldn't learn. And as soon as we moved away and my education got turned over to bureaucrats who were concerned about "age-appropriate academic skills", I got left out in the cold.
David died a couple of years ago of brain cancer, way before his time; he was barely forty. He left behind a wife and kids, and you know what? I think those kids are going to turn out to be geniuses. Because he and his wife were too damn dumb to know their kids couldn't possibly learn things.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
//--------------------------------------------------
Pretty enlightening... isn't it? Kids are not to be undersestimated... that could really hurt them along the way by making them waste most of their youth. What bugs me is this act I've heard of... "No child Left Behind", apparently it was made to make the poor-performing kids feel better by making everyone always pass and have everyone learn at the slowest kid's rate? I read something like that... but really, if it works that way, that's gonna be hell counter-productive for society at large o.O
The following is not related to education.. but work, altough I didn't have enough quotes related to that to justify a 'work' entry, so it came here... what is it about? It's about a statement I couldn't agree more with....
//--------------------------------------------------
Re:Wasted Time and The 40 Hour Week (Score:5, Interesting)
by flithm (756019) on Tuesday July 12, @08:16PM (#13049112)
I personally have never seen a study been done that suggested a 40 hour work week is optimal for productivity. I would like to see some sources please.
Even if a study were to exist, you have to take into context the nature of the study. For example, to which end is the productivity rated? Is this the productivity of individual workers on a scale of work done per time unit, or is it some ratio esitimator of productivity per dollar spent, because they're quite different.
Having said that, I do agree with you. Making workers work more hours can definitely lower overall productivity.
France has enacted a law [wikipedia.org] dicatating that 35 hours is the maximum time one should spend working in a week.
While they intended the law to promote hiring new employees, they found that companies resisted and instead demanded higher time unit production quotas. Indeed an interesting result.
Note that our average work week has been shortening [wikipedia.org] since the 13th century.
This is definitely a good thing, although I still don't think it's enough. USA and Canada are still pretty high on the list [wikipedia.org] of time spent at work.
Paul Lafargue's Right to be Lazy [marxists.org] (1883) suggests an optimal workday of 2 to 3 hours per day.
Nearly all pre-modernized tribes peoples live with a considerably shorter work week. The Kalahari Bushmen, for example, work on average 12-20 hours per week.
Now the Bushment also don't have TV, computers, cars, planes, etc. But then again they don't have Guns, or Heroine either. And I suspect if a study were done on their happiness or contentment in life, it would probably rate _much_ higher than the average North American.
I'm not saying we should trade it all in for the life of a Bushman, but there has to be a balance. We've got the highest rates of mental disease in the world, we lock up more of our people and spend more money on incarceration per person than a lot of the countries in the world combined.
If we were really getting paid for the service of being available at work, even while we're not being productive, then we wouldn't feel guilty when we get caught reading slashdot. We wouldn't immediately switch away from minesweeper when we see the boss walking down the hall.
The workplace makes us feel like we should be productive even though there are many times when productivity is simply not going to happen.
We're tied to this 40 hour work week (which is often much higher) that forces us into a schedule that minimizes our ability to have any serious daily enjoyment beyond the workplace.
Many of us commute. After an 8 hour day and a commute, doing the daily chores, there's little time to reflect, ponder, play a game of whatever with friends.
We've been pushed into complacency and we all sit back and take it. We're a society that by enlarge lives for the weekend. I really don't consider this an optimal solution by any stretch.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
//--------------------------------------------------
Time has evolved... men has become more productive. Yet we don't seem to work less.. we just work more. More and more and more... when are we really gonna evolutionize our society? Once we evolve further... we really wouldn't have to work, people would work out of sheer desire to improve society as a whole (of course this is based on the assumption kids will be raised with a will to improve mankind), of course... technology and the sciences must have evolved enough to support mankind without requiring everyone to work... but we all know that the more the companies earn, the more goes to the shareholders, and the less to the workers... so changing mindsets to a society where you don't need to work to live is just... out of the scope of most people. Still.. I greatly value my free time, and I'd like having more of it, thank you.
//--------------------------------------------------
Less Is More (School != Day Care) (Score:4, Interesting)
by EEBaum (520514) on Tuesday July 12, @04:04PM (#13046320)
Why is it that at a university, where you're supposedly learning things significantly more advanced and in-depth than in K-12, it's perfectly reasonable to spend less than four hours on campus a day as a "full time" student? For 30 weeks of the year?
This "maximize time in the classroom" mantra that's going around is sickening. I remember darn well what I was doing 80% of the time in K-12. Reading a book. Playing with my calculator. Daydreaming. Doodling. With a 3.9 GPA.
If the school day were to end at noon, it would not only keep the kids sane, but also provide time for them to pursue more meaningful activities. Music. Art. Athletics. Science clubs. Playing tag. Interacting with other people in a non-structured environment (such scandalous madness!).
As an added bonus, they would be significantly less brain-fried due to less hours sitting still, and therefore more attentive. They might also be more active with this reduced mental exhaustion and increased time, helping to stem the "obesity epidemic."
My mom is from Argentina, where school was just like that. 8 to noon, five days a week, with electives available in the afternoon. When she moved here, speaking very little English, she was bumped up a grade. It can work.
[ Reply to This ]
//--------------------------------------------------
This isn't so different from the work quote from just above. Apparently.. some people have the idea that the more hours a day you work, the better and more productive you'll be. However people often fail to realize that the more you work, the less time you have for yourself, the less time to explorer hobbies, and enhance yourself as a person in extra activities. BUT no... pretty much everyone I know around has this strange thought that if I were not working or being "productive", I would be a lazy person wasting my time in the couch doing nothing! And it's probably the same for kids... they don't want them having time for themselves, do they? I do believe that a key factor life is having time for ourselfs to explore and learn about the many things one can do in life...
The following is about a theory about the current goals of the educational system (in the US at least) that some people believe... maybe they are cynical, pessimistic.. or just realistic. You be the judge.
//--------------------------------------------------
How to fix education (Score:4, Informative)
by Kismet (13199)
on Tuesday July 12, @05:25PM (#13047427)
I'm told that, hundreds of years ago, people were highly literate. Even kids could read Shakespeare, apparently; at least Sam Johnson seemed fine with it at the age of 9. I understand that twelve-year-old Abraham Cowley was reading Spenser. And I've been told repeatedly that colonial American farmers were able to digest the Federalist Papers without much trouble at all. How is it that America's founders were able to defy the world's foremost superpower, and fashion a remarkable democracy that lasted almost until mid-twentieth century? Those were young men then. Have you seen todays' college rabble? Those people ought to be out doing great things, not spending drunk time in some dormitory. What happened?
I have a novel idea: Why don't we do what they did in colonial times? You know, schools of grammar, dialectic and rhetoric. Liberal education. The Classics. Mentors. How about that? Teach people how to think as soveriegn individuals. Let's shut down the state factory schools, with the state curricula and the private interests that shape them. Why not consider the things that Brownson once said: "[A]ccording to our theory the people are wiser than the government. Here the people do not look to the government for light, for instruction, but the government looks to the people. The people give law to the government [...] to entrust government with the power of determining education which our children shall receive is entrusting our servant with the power of the master."
Why don't we do this? Because it would spell the end of our managed utopias, with their closely regulated, mass-production economies. Henry Ford, for one, needed people who were satisfied with stuff that came off of an assembly line; stuff that looked strikingly similar to what everyone else had. He needed people who would be satisfied with simple, repetitive jobs. It's more efficient to build things by robot than to rely on a specialist. We don't need more smart people, we have plenty already. We need robots, that's what Utopia is all about. And that's what public schools are good at. They are just fine for what they do; they don't need to be fixed. Kids go to school so that they can "get a good job" (even if it's a sinecure), not to enrich their mind or soul.
I tried actually learning at school a few times. I soon realized that, in school, learning has a deadline. It's managed by bells and by psychology. It only really matters that you learn to answer the right way on the final exam - then you are educated. Then you will be successful. Private and state quotas are met whether we learn to read or not.
If we want better students than anyone else in the global competition, all we have to do is tweak the machine a bit. Fiddle with it. But if our goal is truly educated people, then we need to scrap the current system and start over. My guess is that it won't happen.
[ Reply to This ]
//--------------------------------------------------
It is somewhat extreme to believe the government and coorporations are all behind one big plot to just have mindless drone workers to fill up their factories, maybe somepeople read too many post-apocalyptic novels... but the reality doesn't seems all that different from said novels. There IS a gaping hole in our raising methods when kids grow caring about getting a job that will make them money, and not learning something they can be passionate about. This lack of interest may very well foretell the doom of a nation (not that the US really needs that many more reasons seeing how it is going quickly down already :X)
Oh yeah.. the next quote is probably for most people in the net these days.. but I picked it particularly because it may be of Interest to Zarla.
//--------------------------------------------------
Re:Already Written (Score:5, Insightful)
by flyingsquid (813711) on Monday July 11, @12:08PM (#13033614)
Actually, the correct term is not "weasel words". It's "mustelid lexicography".
Strunk and White's _Elements of Style_ is another great guide to writing. It lives its message: the book says to be short and to the point, and so the book is actually short and to the point.It goes from the basics like joining sentences to the principles of composition and clear writing. Anyone who wants to be a writer, whether as a journalist, novelist, or academic, needs to pick up a copy.
I can't believe that almost got through senior year of college without ever having read this book, which is ridiculous- there's this idea in America that you don't need to learn the rules and basics of your craft anymore, whether its art or writing or whatever- well, that idea is bullshit. I'm all for breaking loose and breaking all the rules, but it helps to know the rules in the first place. And for every one Jack Kerouac who can write brilliant drug-fuelled free-form prose, there are a dozen people who really need to pick up Strunk and White, and Orwell's _Politics and the English Language_ Essay and learn to string two words together (I'm firmly in the second camp).
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
//--------------------------------------------------
He claims every writer should had read that book, did you, vixen? I should probably try to snatch a copy of it as well seeing how I like spending long times writing down insidously long paragraph and use highly complex words that I may not even know how to spell correctly XD Too bad I can almost bet she's not gonna read this entry, seeing how busy she is... ah well, she misses the chance :P (maybe I should consider writing this on my next email to her... whichever year that happens)
And now.. some food for thought, who can riddle me out of this?
//--------------------------------------------------
could it be..., the schools? (Score:4, Interesting)
by yagu (721525) on Thursday June 30, @05:55PM (#12954151)
I consider myself an excellent speller with a firm grasp of the English language, its syntax, and semantics. And I consider myself to be high on the scale of technical savvy. But I've met more brilliant people in 21 years in this industry who couldn't spell a lick. I don't know if it's lack of care, or just plain inability to spell.
A peer who collaborated with me on one of my major projects implemented a layer of code to make the program more transparent and usable... and one of the major pieces used file handles to hide named pipes... He spelled it "filehadle", which in this case is more likely a typo, but he missed a lot of other words too. To this day I still get questions about that variable name (it's a good filter..., a programmer who brings that question is not one who I want working with that code).
Another best friend is now VP of a company he founded, and I hope he is getting his correspondence edited before sending.
There are even examples of Mr. Gates' e-mail... if you didn't know it was he, you'd think the author of some of his missives was illiterate.
All of this said and observed, I don't think I've ever been able to see any direct relationship or correlation with "illiteracy" and the technology gurus. I have seen more of a correlation with younger people and while I have no conclusive evidence I would submit this is more about a school system that spends time worrying about the wrong things. (I've even seen typo's/misspellings pop up on the CNN crawler! Ick!)
Another experience: a best friend of mine was in a German Blue Grass band, and they came to the U.S. and toured the midwest out of our house. So, here were four Germans with whom I spent over a week... and one of the most notable things about them was they spoke better English than most Americans! Go figure.
[ Reply to This ]
//--------------------------------------------------
What's with that? So many people who can't speak a damn worth of english? So many Americans who can't even speak their own language? Could it be DA INTRAWEBZ's fault? Nah... as it was just quotted, it seems the education system has been slipping for a while... and it doesn't helps that kids seem to be enjoying mutilating the english language as they write (or worse yet are those who don't even care). Ah... I am glad the USA is not the only country which speaks english, because otherwise I would had considered it a doomed language already ^^' It shows that I don't have high hopes for the great nation of so called freedom, huh?
Now for something fun... ever thought about this?
//--------------------------------------------------
Disdain for the illogical (Score:5, Insightful)
by DunbarTheInept (764) on Thursday June 30, @06:27PM (#12954726)
One common hacker trait is an utter disdain for things that are deliberately illogical. The problem is that the standards of language often are illogical and yet enforced anyway. It's clear that the intent of English was to have a langauge where the letters record the sound of the word. But it failed miserably at it due to merging in words from different languages and now spelling in English is an utterly illogical mess. So it's not surprising that hackers wouldn't really care to spell things by the standard. To do so you have to fight against what is logical.
Then there's the grammar standards of where punctuation marks are used. The comma was invented to just indicate an audio pause in speech. Then later on anal people changed it to only being usable under specific circumstances - Again, For, No, Reason.
Then there's the confusion over whether or not the quote marks are supposed to accurately quote what is inside them or not. I'd say that only things that are part of what is being quoted belong inside the quotes. Punctuation that is an artifact of the fact that the quote got pasted into another sentence are part of that external sentence, NOT part of the quoted material - so they logically belong outside the quote marks. For example:
Logical, but incorrect according to standard:
"Hello", John said.
Did John say, "Hello"?
Illogical, but correct according to standard:
"Hello," John said. (The comma isn't part of the quote dammit)
Did John say, "Hello?" (The question mark is there because of the sentence the "Hello" is pasted inside of, NOT because it is part of the "Hello" that John might have said. This allegedly correct way looks, to me, like the question is aksing whether John spoke "Hello" in a questioning tone, because the question mark ended up inside the quoted part.
According to standard, a question asked in the negative isn't really asked in the negative. "Aren't you coming with us", should logically be answerable by saying "Yes I am not coming with you". But the expected interpretation is the inverse of that. Again, the standard is at odds with logic.
Most people look at stuff like that and don't care. People who think logically get fed up with crap like that and rebell.
[ Reply to This ]
//--------------------------------------------------
So I've been misusing quotes all along? I couldn't care less... I prefer to follow logic than broken rules... logic is easier to follow and remember anyway... u.u Seriously, I've been bugged by the way commas are used inside quoted text instead of outside, it always struck me as backwards, yet that's how it should be!? Ok ok.. I may sound contradictory considering that just a few moments ago I was complaining about kids mutilating the language and now here I am complaining about a language that does not makes sense. The issue is.. noone designed a language with common sense in mind. So pretty much all modern languages are full of quirks and rules that make no sense whatsoever! It's all so inefficient and overly complicates learning languages.... and as such, I just apply my own judgement and follow the rules where they make sense to me :P
Now for a bit of trivia that shocked me when I first read it:
//--------------------------------------------------
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:5, Informative)
by EvanED (569694) on Thursday June 30, @06:24PM (#12954681)
(i.e. A report for work)
Here's another thing that bothers me about common usage. ;-) (Sorry to pick on you.)
The abbreviation "i.e." does not mean "for example."
Repeat after me:
The abbreviation "i.e." does not mean "for example."
The abbreviation "i.e." does not mean "for example."
The abbreviation "i.e." does not mean "for example."
The abbreviation to use if you mean "for example" is "e.g.". The abbreviation "i.e." stands for (the Latin of) "that is."
I.e., "i.e." is used when you are rephrasing, clarifying, etc. what was already said. The sentence "i.e. A report for work", if taken literally, means that the only documents that matter to you are reports for work.
For more information, see, e.g., http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/8707/52862 [suite101.com], http://www.planetoid.org/grammar_for_geeks/ie_vs_e g.html [planetoid.org], or http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/abbreviations/f /ievseg.htm [about.com]. (Note the use of "e.g." for "for example.")
(Sorry, I go on this rant periodically. Don't take it personally.)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:5, Informative)
by Angostura (703910) on Thursday June 30, @06:26PM (#12954711)
An easy way to remember this:
i.e. - in explanation
e.g. - example given
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:Wow! What a question to ask on Slashdot... (Score:4, Informative)
by Stankatz (846709) on Thursday June 30, @08:47PM (#12956254)
An easier way for me is this:
i.e. - id est (that is)
e.g. - exempli gratia (for [the sake of an] example)
Once I learned what they actually stood for, I never got them confused again. You don't have to speak Latin to know which is which. It amazes me how many people use these every day and don't know what they stand for. Also, they should usually be followed by a comma when used in a sentence, just like the phrases "for example" and "that is" are.
Trivia: in German, instead of e.g., they use z.B. which stands for "zum Beispiel".
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
//--------------------------------------------------
I was like... "wow, no way!" when I first read this. Since then, I've been religiously following the definitions and using ie and eg correctly. I was truly shocked beyond belief to realize how wrong I was on my self-learned assumption of how ie was used... and sometimes that's all it takes to learn how to "not do it again" ^^'
Now for something completely unrelated (which is what I seem to be best at when writing...)
//--------------------------------------------------
Re:Sure, a few people drop out because they are sm (Score:5, Insightful)
by OSXCPA (805476) on Monday June 13, @11:35PM (#12809666)
I left college after 2 years because I was bored to tears. Joined the Marines. Went back to college 6 years later *highly* motivated and enjoyed the heck out of learning - took CS classes for fun. My fellow undergrads, mostly straight from High School, hated their classes and hated me - I was the jerk who didn't listen to them whine about how hard their schedules were, or how much different classes sucked. My experience - most of them were too immature to appreciate the opportunity they had, and they had insufficient life experience to know that they should feel passionate about anything at all, let alone learning. Long story short - if you are burning up to go to school, go. If you aren't, be honest with yourself and do 'something else' until you figure out what you want to study. Don't let $ keep you back either - I worked my way through school. It is possible, but difficult - and I wouldn't have it any other way. Whatever you do, light your own ass on fire to get something worthwhile done - no one will teach you that. Hard work is it's own best reward.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
//--------------------------------------------------
This is something I was actually preaching about to Beka some months ago (yes, this quote is THAT old, I need more time :/), going through life doing what you think you should be doing is a sure way to end up bored with things. As the statement before in this post said.. you really gotta be passionate about what you are learning and doing if you want to succeed in life and be happy at work (happy at work? people will mostly scream "foul!" at that). Personally I really like computer programming, design, graphics and all that wack, but I've been opening up to the concept that I also very much like psychology, learning about the human train of thought, motivations, that which ticks and makes us be whom we are, the individualism of everyone and the common logic that we follow... all such concepts are highly interested, and when I get a chance I will take a minor on psychology as well. Who knows, I may end up working as a psychologist instead... gotta work on what one is passionate about, you know?
//--------------------------------------------------
Re:Avoid ask.slashdot for a few days... (Score:4, Insightful)
by gravteck (787609) on Tuesday June 14, @12:58AM (#12810063)
Whenever I see posts debating the value of a college education on Slashdot, I can't help but shake my head at posts along the lines of "taking pointless classes, wasting my money. etc." When it comes to classes that are mandatory in your major, I can understand the frustration of their seeming irrelevancy. However, it is your choice what college and program you attend, and there's nothing preventing research into the classes and programs before "wasting your money on them." I go to Vanderbilt University, and I chose it based on national ranking, reputation of the Engineering school, financial aid, and grant money for research that the departments receive. I don't go to college just to waste my money in class. I get to meet people from all over the country in the world. I get to avoid the real world for four more years, continue the the experience of being young in an environment of people with similar attitudes. Friendships and memories in college are part of the whole deal (IMO) also. Maybe I'm of a different breed cause I don't consider myself the typical Slashdot geek. I've played sports in college (walk on), partied frequently, had serious relationships in school, but somehow in the middle of that I still love to program and do research. Computers and geekdom aren't inherent in my personality, CS and Mathematics is merely what I study. So before going to college, you should probably decide how your personality is going to react to college life and its benefits. Don't complain about the system when it's you controlling your choices.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
//--------------------------------------------------
* prepare yourself for more selfish ranting * I miss college. I really do.. and highschool, for that matter. This all about avoiding "real life", not having to work, being in an young enviroment full of energetic people is really something to love. Unfortunately I did not enjoy my college time as much as I should... fortunately I still have a chance to take a higher degree and go back to college. I really like that enviroment... and learning? Well, I did took interest in all classes I went through, even if they seemed to have no relevance to my field, I was just generally interested in the way things work and the fascination behind the mechanics. I was a bit annoyed at Calculus III, though... all those integrals with no seeming application... and very abstract models, it's hard to understand and like a subject that's so abstract ^^'
//--------------------------------------------------
Re:Avoid ask.slashdot for a few days... (Score:4, Insightful)
by Bimo_Dude (178966) on Tuesday June 14, @06:55AM (#12811145)
The whole educational system needs a workover, but this won't happen until the job market changes
I think you've hit the nail on the head with this statement. The educational system definitely needs to change. To me, the issue is that colleges and universities try to tailor their courses and programs for whatever they perceive as the current needs of the job market. Usually, by the time the students who've enrolled in the latest "fad degree program" graduate, the needs of the job market have changed. Also, when you consider the original purpose of the university (learning for learning's sake - primarily theoretical), it completely defeats the purpose. Nowadays, most kids go to college to learn skills to get a job to make money. When the primary motivation for learning something is money and not an actual interest in the topic, this will likely lead to failure.
The educational system needs to be split into two separate systems: One for the theoretical type of thinker, and one for the prictical type of thinker. The theory folks can devise the bleeding edge ideas for new technology developments, and the practical folks can implement those ideas.
IMHO, having a degree is not always necessary. Look at my family:
* Sister 1: PhD in organic chemistry; university professor; moderately successful; big debts
* Sister 2: MS in Mathematics; schoolteacher; moderately successful; not as deeply in debt
* Me: HS diploma; well-paid geek; moderately successful; no debt
All three of us are happy with what we do. For me to reach the same level of success as my sisters, all I did was have an interest in what I do, read a ton of books, screwed up / fixed many systems/networks/databases (my own, of course), and always asked questions of those who are more knowledgeable than me.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
//--------------------------------------------------
More of the same? Perhaps... but this is what happens when I accumulate quotes that spans through several months... you can't expect the same topic to never be touched twice in that long of a time! And usually each new quote has a new onlook on the same issue. As before... the key to success and a happy life is to work on what you really want, on what you can be passionate about... but people are tired of hearing this by now. ^^' I do wonder... I should ask everyone I know if they really are going after something they love... or it's just 'for the money'?
And to end up.. something that's not related to education at all! The following should had been attached to the politics topic for certain... ^^'
//--------------------------------------------------
and so it begins...the end (Score:4, Insightful)
by N3wsByt3 (758224) on Friday June 17, @05:40AM (#12839836)
As I have recently said, this is the way it begins; not by huge and obvious destruction of citizens' rights, but by small, insidious steps, portrayed as the 'next logical step' for fighting whatever the state seems to think will manage to get little resistence.
I mean, what, you're not soft on childporn, are you? You don't want terrorist roaming around and using the internet without punity, do you?
If it's emotional and self-righteous enough, they know few will dare to oppose. Think of the children! think of 9/11! Ok, and now agree to our huge privacy invasion, because, you want to stop those people doing it again, don't you? Or are you pro CP and terrorism?
With such demagogic tricks they can fool the public almost every time.
Is retaining the best way to go? Does it actually help at all? Is the very unlikely possibility of stopping a relatively few worth the privacy invasion and the further degradation of civic rights of millions? Nowhere is that question ever raised by those that propose these laws. Instead, they continue to use platitudes: "We need the way to stop terrorists!" But as I said before:
Ah, yes, but who are the 'terror suspects'? Everyone reading books the state deems dangerous? Everyone using the internet? No? Then why should their privacy be invaded? Why not adher to decades of legal provisions, where it used to be that you could only be 'tapped' when you were considered a suspect, and AFTER a court agreed to it. Nowadays , everyone is a suspect, and the courts don't come into play anymore when your communications are being tapped.
Eroding ones' privacy and other rights because one is merely 'suspected' is the right way to go, if you want to end up in a policestate.
But, we ALL know the state will ONLY use its powers for the purposes it is meant, without ever abusing it. History has shown this already numerous times in the past, no?
Besides, 'if you have nothing to hide, why care that your private life is being invaded', right?
[ Reply to This ]
//--------------------------------------------------
Yep, it's related to the erosions of rights and privacy in the good old US of A. I wonder how many people really are aware of the situation over there? I wonder if people will stand up on time and fix their country, or will chaos ensue like hasn't been seen in centuries? If the US does not pulls up it's act, it is going to go through some very dark decades.... and a lot of good people who live there will be victims if they don't manage to escape on time. What? Pessimistic, moi? Time will tell... all I know is that I am going to stay the hell out of the US for the foreseeable future. Considering the global climate change... I am gonna stay away from coastlines and sea-level cities too. Need to start looking for a nice highlands area...