On 11/23/2014 11:03 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 14:20:46 -0700, Don Y wrote:

Ah, you need to update that app! They've redesigned the knowledgebase
that they use to arrive at conclusions. Fed the same article, the new
version comes up with "43"!

My app produces 42.9999999999.

Let it run for a few more hours and it may converge at the correct answer!

Plugging my previous posting into a readability program, I find that
my writing is suitable for the 6th grade of 11 to 12 year olds. Note
that #MainContent tacked onto the end:

Testing just your above paragraph (starting with Ah, you need...),
you're writing is suitable for grade level 7 of 12 to 13 year old.
From this, I would conclude that your logic is somewhat over my head,
and in need of dumbing down. Please adjust your IQ accordingly.

grin My formal writing is usually off the charts. I tend to cram too
much in too few words, too many clauses, etc. shrug I guess *I* prefer
that to "See Dick run! Run, Dick, run!"

I must confess that I sometimes run my scribbling through this web
page to make sure that my rants do not overload the intellectual
capacity of my audience. Most often, it's simply a matter of
replacing words with three or more syllables with the colloquial
equivalents. "Hey dude. That's like really cool." seems to work
better than eloquence.

Expletives are also effective!

Actually, the situation is much worse than that -- withthe push for
colleges to "certify" that their graudates get *jobs* that indicate
the cost of the education has "paid off". So, more of the "teach to
the test" mentality -- the "test" being "whatever employers want TODAY!"

They'll, perhaps, revise this metric to also include "marketability
after 1, 5, 10, etc. years to demonstrate to potential students
(aka "loan targets") the viability of that education.

Of course, many of these shops change names, go out of business, etc.
when the shopping mall that they operate out of finds a *real* "paying
customer" for that space! :-/

My first job out of college was fixing CB radios, a step down from the
job I had prior to entering college (mostly to hide from the draft).

There's been some unsuccessful litigation by jobless graduates for
"educational malpractice" and "breach of contract" which suggests that
possession of a diploma will somehow entitle them to instant
employment. Historically, the situation was backwards. Colleges were
originally intended to educate the sons of the wealthy on what was
expected of them and how to act like a cultured and superior member of
the upper classes. Meanwhile, the GUM (great unwashed masses) looked
at the graduates of such colleges, and noticed that they were wealthy
and well placed. Without more than a cursory look at the situation,
they somehow concluded that attending college would somehow also make
them wealthy and well placed. Attracted by the additional revenue
from the merchant classes, the colleges were quite willing to admit
the boorish multitudes to their cloistered halls. Although probably
disappointed by the lack of results, graduates tended to not publicize
the mistake, resulting in a perception of success, and a perpetuation
of the institution. As with most systems, garbage in always results
in garbage out.

I think the pendulum may have swung too far to the extreme. It's as
if the schools are now on a (commercial) par with fast food joints, etc.

Oddly, I don't recall receiving a limited educational warranty from
any of the three colleges that tolerated my presence. At the time
(late 1960's) it was assumed that there was no warranty, expressed or
implied. Since this was the Viet Nam war era, there was a substantial
demand for a college education (aka deferment), resulting in colleges
trying to eliminate those that were unsuitable, unworthy, or
politically inconvenient. The only legal way to do this was by
thoroughly terrorizing students with massive work loads, impossible
schedules, exams from hell, and placement tests. Hiring industry
dropouts at administrators and teachers insured the survival of the
fittest.

Meanwhile, industry had discovered the real value of a college
graduate. The recruiters did not care about what students had
learned. They would soon learn what they needed to know on the job.
What they looked for were survivors of the aforementioned ordeal
process, that demonstrated that they can survive the abuse, overwork,
and examinations. These graduates also demonstrated that they could
actually attend somewhat useless classes for at least 4 years without
exhibiting signs of terminal boredom, which is a very useful skill in
a corporate environment.

I had *one* professor who always taught (lecture) at 9AM. Of course,
this was unbearably early for many of us! He volunteered the reason for
this was that he didn't think we deserve a degree without attending at
least one 9A class! frown I guess that's as good a reason as any...

However, those glorious days of full employment didn't last. When the
economy took a dive, the recruiters disappeared, and the attributes
considered desirable were now useless. Prospective employers now
wanted employees that already knew how to do things, were somewhat
organized, and knew which end of the soldering iron to grab. It took
many years and economic cycles for the colleges to adjust to this new
paradigm. I'm not sure if prospective college student have ever
adjusted to this reality.

Many of the folks I went to school with could *not* use a soldering iron.

A good friend was preparing to order a $400 "A/D converter board" so he
could read the position of a pot. ("Um, why not use the pot to control
the frequency of a multivibrator and just trigger an interrupt from that?")

Many years ago, when I was still on good terms with the local high
skool, I was invited to talk to a class of prospective college
students on the topic of engineering as a career. My somewhat cynical
attitude made me a dubious choice, but lacking anyone else available,
I promised to do my best. There were other speakers and I was last
(in the hope that they would run out of time). I gave my glossed over
spiel on what an engineer does, and asked for questions. Dead
silence. Then, they started coming, asking about all manner of
things, none of which had anything to do with engineering. Office
politics, benefits, stock options, raises, teamwork, vacations,
retirement, overtime, etc. I did a really bad thing. I told them the
truth, which probably made some student reconsider their future
careers. I was not invited to return the next semester.

shrug I discourage most folks from engineering careers ("programming"
as well) if their interests haven't suggested to me that they would
actually *enjoy* (be stimulated by) this sort of work. I've met too many
bad engineers that I attribute to a lack of genuine interest *in*
engineering.

"Why don't you get an MBA, instead?"

Today, the questions would be different. I suspect I would get
questions about outsourcing, H1B, design automation, and obsolescence.
Over the years, I've noticed very little change in the intelligence
distribution of high skool graduates. A small number will do well no
matter what profession they select. The largest number will need to
work at whatever they chose, with success going mostly to the lucky,
financially solvent, and reasonably devious individuals. A
substantial number at the bottom of the scale are certain to fail at
whatever they attempt. Think bell curve. Although the concerns and
toys were different over the years, the intelligence distribution
seems to be about the same. Automation didn't change anything for the
students.

I think (here, not sure of other school districts) the relationship
of teacher and student. I see machines now used a lot to babysit kids
instead of interpersonal interactions -- similar to parents sitting their
kids in front of the TV to keep them "occupied".

Where I see it making a difference in the workplace is that it tends to
take the possibility of any thought away from the employee -- esp youngsters.
If they don't know/remember which button to press for whatever, they
call for assistance (instead of thinking it out).

And, they aren't *encouraged* to think it out! Instead, thinking can lead to
a MISTAKE! :-/

While I had my fair share of labs in school, I'm not sure they yield
the results you think. In fact, one of my early employers once confided
that "if I need someone TODAY, I'll hire someone from large university
nearby; if I need someone for TOMORROW, I'll hire *you*!"

In the 1960's, the few companies I worked for had 10 year and 25 year
plans. Today, they have a 2 or 3 year plan with selling the company
to a conglomerate or a corporate raider within 10 years. The larger
companies are different. In the 1960's, they a few had 50 year plans
for global domination. Today, the plans are the same, except they
plan to do it within 8 years (the 2 term election cycle).

I attended Cal Poly Pomona. At the time, the curriculum was full of
labs and hands-on classes. The skool motto was "Learn by Doing". I
was useless with theory, but vary good at doing things, so this suited
me quite well. In my opinion, it worked as the graduates were in high
demand by companies that wanted graduates to get a head start on the
learning curve. However, there was a problem. The college was not
accredited. A few years after I was graduated, the college became
accredited largely by replacing labs and hands-on classes with useless
general education and liberal arts classes. The purpose was to
produce a well rounded graduate, capable of getting along in any work
or social environment, but able to do little that was useful.

Most of my education was in theory and "upcoming technologies". E.g.,
one group was given a bunch of VAXEN as "personal workstations" just
to see what was likely to happen when individuals had that sort of
processing power at their disposal (instead of sharing it).

We were required to take 8 (?) "Humanities" courses allegedly to make
sure we were "well rounded" (ha!). But, even the labs were designed
with an eye on the theory. E.g., understanding the input impedance of
the scope and how it factors into the measurement of a "token circuit"
(by contrast, other schools may have neglected *demonstrating* this
in favor of showing how the scope was *used* to measure things).

I.e., some schools teach how to *do*; others teach how to *learn*.
The attitude that you instill in the student is largely, IMO, a
result of this.

(e.g., I recall asking professor in an abstract algebra class about the
number of DIFFERENT tic-tac-toe games possible -- considering reflections,
rotations, etc. as yielding equivalent variations on a single play. His
response: "I don't know. Why don't you look into it and let me know
what you find, next class?" Today, the common answer would be something
along the lines of "google it")

I used to have a large collection of EDN, Electronic Design, Design
News, Machine Design, etc magazines in my office at one employer. When
asked why I had such a large collection, I truthfully answered that
this was from where I steal my best designs. Today, I use Google, but
the methodology is much the same.

Any student that expects the professor to know everything will soon be
disillusioned. My usual line was that the teacher need only know more
than the best student, and then only to prevent embarrassing exchanges
like the one above.

Professor's goal is to show you how to figure out what you will (someday)
need by exposing you to tools (theory and methods) and suggesting how
they can be "applied". I.e., "using what we've been discussing in class,
YOU should be able to figure out the number of TTT games... tell me how
you did it, next week"