new years resolutions

[Laura Creighton]

> On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 11:05, Laura Creighton wrote:
> 
> > I don't think that dividing 'csc == software' and 'engineering ==
> > hardware' is the best possible way to distinguish between them.  A
> > more useful question, I believe, is 'do you hunger to build things, or
> > just to think about them'?  (Some people do both about equally, of
> > course.)  The distinction is important for people who are considering
> > getting a degree in computer science.  Some of them do quite badly at
> > it because what they want is a degree that will help them build the
> > programs they dream of creating, and instead they are persuing a
> > degree that will help them think about thoughts they have no interest
> > in thinking. This is a very bad fit.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >  my life would have run an awful lot easier if I had understood
> >  when accepted to both Science and Engineering schools, that the fact
> >  that I like building things was significant.  I suppose I was expected
> >  to figure this one out for myself, but I didn't ...
> 
> Laura, are you saying that engineering types like building things more
> than CS types ? This sounds like a surprise to me. I mean, I don't know
> about CS types since I never had a CS education, nevertheless I know
> very well the academic type in Mathematics or Physics (I am part of this
> "mala genia" :) and I think there is not such a big difference.

No, what I am saying is that if you _really_ like to build things you
may find pure csc fairly frustrating, because there isn't enough
emphasis on building things.  Physics is something else altogether...

> I did Physics because I like to build things. I did not choose engineering
> because I had the impression (maybe wrong) that once you work in the 
> industry,
> as opposite to academy, you have to build ininteresting things or, in
> other words, you have to solve boring problems. For me, a problem is boring 
> when I know how to solve it. Since I don't like to build twice the same 
> thing  I
> tried to avoid the industry until now and I have no problems with the 
> academia
> (except, of course in finding a permanent position :-/).

Good luck to you.

> In my view the difference between CS types and engineering types is not 
> if they like to build things or think about things (you would admit that
> even an engineer can think about things ;-). The difference is if you like 
> abstractions and out-of-the-world concepts or if you prefer *concrete* things
> .
> If you are more concrete, you are more likely an engineering type, if you
> are more theoretical, you are more likely a CS type.

This may be the difference, but I don't think so.  I think that people
who think that abstract thinking is superior to concrete thinking
perpetuate the belief that science is some how 'pure' and that the
rest is 'mere engineering'.  (Unless you are a mathematician, in which
case you sometimes think 'there is math' ... and there is 'mere science'.)
I know a lot of people who can handle a huge amount of abstract thinking
once you tell them _why it is useful_ and _what you can build with it_.
If you skip that step, they file your lecture away under 'more
useless garbage that I have to memorize to get my degree'.  The fact
that it is beautiful in itself does not register at all.  That is just
the way it is.

> Of course the notion of "concreteness" depends on your background and
> experience. For instance, to me metaclasses are rather concrete and very 
> little abstract, if I compare them with the conceptual tools I routinely
> use. But I am sure for the average programmer they are a rather abstract 
> concept.
> 
> Now, if I may ask a personal question, what you didn't like in science/academ
> ia ?

This is just off the top of my head....

1. preoccupation with cleverness as opposed to wisdom
2. giving the job of 'preparing people for industry' to people who have
   mostly never been there.
3. believing that teaching is something that comes naturally.  No effort
   is made to train professors on how to teach well.  This is a trainable
   skill.
4. in some places -- forcing people to teach so that you cannot simply do
   research all the time if you hate teaching.  in other places, getting
   rid of or valuing less the great teachers, because their research isn't
   so hot.  Many places do both, of course.
5. Greedily embracing the notion that 'a university education is for
   everyone' because it means more funding, reguardless of what it means
   for would-be academics who now usually have to wait until they get
   to grad school -- or now in some fields a postdoc before they can do 
   anything truly original.  That is too long a wait.
6. Classroom teaching as opposed to Master/Apprentice type relationships.
7. Preoccupation with novelty, and originality, as opposed to soundness.
8. The complete disreguard of 'good workmanship' as the counterpart to
   'sound design'.  These days people are likely to learn that the work
   is good because it was 'designed well', as opposed to the fact that
   one of many good designs was selected -- the result was good because
   _the workmanship was good_.  (Good workmanship cannot save a really
   rotten design, unfortunately.)
9. A life focused on Grading people.  Making grades, not knowledge or
   wisdom the important centre of the universe.
10. (in some places) The notion that only the top 10% matter -- the
    rest can all go hang.
11. The belief that business is somehow demeaning.
12. The belief that business is somehow superior. 
13. Too many fools.
14. Too swollen egos.
15. The furthering of the belief that Art is merely entertainment.
16. The furthering of the belief that it is a good idea to appear
    better than you really are.
17. Too many people who feel they have the right to be contemptuous of others.
18. Too much paperwork.
19. Too much specialisation within a given field.
20. Not enough play.
21. Really boring textbooks written by people who cannot write.
22. An over-reliance on analytical as opposed to geometric methods.
23. Avoidance of risk.
24. Avoidance of beauty.
25. Focusing on that which can be measured (in itself a good thing, and
    the secret of Western success) but not to the extent where that
    which cannot be measured is deemed unimportant, or even non-existant.
26. Students who sit like turnips in your lectures.

I'll stop now.  I am sure you will get plenty more answers from other
people.

Laura