School maths standards

On 13 Aug, 05:04, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
> gyansor...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Aug 13, 1:10 pm, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
> >> gyansor...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> Well you know it's a matter of opinion. I know a guy who graduated in
> >>> the 1960s and says that you always need a min of a Masters to be a
> >>> good design engineer. Nowadays they have more on the syllabus to cover
> >>> than 30 years ago. Embedded systems didn't exist back then for
> >>> instance, no FPGAs,concurrent programming and DSP was just theory in
> >>> most places.
> >> That much is clearly untrue. A syllabus adapts the the circumstances and
> >> time available. It always covers a similar amount in a similar time. 10
> >> years before I went to college thermionic valves were covered in great
> >> detail. When I was at college we only did a little about them. Now, I
> >> guess the get scant mention, especially with CRT TVs disappearing.
>
> >> I studied almost no DSP at college, like everyone else at that time.
> >> Still, I had been grounded well enough in basics that I went into my
> >> first job developing signal processing from the chip level up without
> >> any real problems.
>
> >> I think your list is very oddly focussed. Embedded systems always
> >> existed, and using FPGAs has no fundamental difference from any other
> >> logic design.
>
> >>> The new M.Eng degrees make you learn a language as well in some places
> >>> making it mcuh more like a European degree. In fact you may think that
> >>> the 3 years you spent was all you needed but look at Europe and see
> >>> that they have had 4 years for much longer - also Scotland and
> >>> Ireland. In fact in Scotland in some places it was 5 years for a first
> >>> degree if you include time in industry to go with it. Many of the top
> >>> Unis had no industrial placement whereas the Polytechnics did - and
> >>> they are the ones you are running down! The only problem was that the
> >> I wasn't trying to run anyone down. The universities, polys and
> >> technical colleges served pretty well balanced purposes in the old days.
> >> If M. Eng degrees now make you take a language, it sounds like they have
> >> run out of solid engineering material to fill the courses with. Not long
> >> before I went to college you needed O-level Latin to get into an
> >> engineering degree course. As soon as that stupidity stopped, our Latin
> >> teacher was left with nobody to teach. She also taught German, so she
> >> didn't loose her job. :-)
>
> >>> Polys were not as hot on research as the trad Unis so they took a long
> >>> time to catch up and never have by all accounts. This is in contrast
> >> This was extremely variable. Some of the old polys did excellent
> >> research work. It depended pretty much on who was there, and their
> >> motivations. Their position made it hard for them to get funding,
> >> though. Some of the old polys deserved to be renamed as universities,
> >> and I believe some have a fine reputation now.
>
> >>> to the 1960s when many new Unis were formed but the Government poured
> >>> money into them. Instead nowadays they changed the names and said they
> >>> had to get their own money from student numbers and research - not
> >>> possible unless you recruit different staff to get the research right.
> >>> Also you will find that the old Polytechnic degress were also
> >>> acredited by say the IEE whereas now many of them may not be.
> >>> Standards have gone up, not down.
> >> The expansion in the 60s was a good thing. Before that, university
> >> places were very limited in the UK. I think after that surge of
> >> expansion, pretty much any of the people I grew up with who could cope
> >> with a university syllabus were able to find a place. Beyond that time
> >> expansion was pure dilution, and it appears to have had dire consequences.
>
> >> When I was at college, there were obviously good and bad universities.
> >> However, a moderation scheme balanced standards well enough that people
> >> asked first what class of degree you had, and only then where you got
> >> it. If the IEE won't even accredit some degrees, it sounds like the
> >> system has descended badly from there. The old centrally issued poly
> >> degrees (CNAA, was it?) were as valued as the degrees from most
> >> universities. If that is no longer true, it sounds like standards have
> >> descended into the toilet.
>
> >> Steve
>
> > The CNAA was disbanded a long time ago - maybe 95 ish? Can't remember.
> > After that they started giving out degrees based on the CNAA model
> > which probably exists to this day in some (ex-poly) places.
> > The language was introduced as an asset so you could work in say
> > France or Germany as a prof engineer. This mirrors many European
> > degrees which also have say English to study as well as the other
> > technical parts.
> > I don't agree that it is any easier nowadays or just the same. They
> > did more maths in the 1970s in most places and they had to throw much
> > of it out to make way for more digital papers. Lots of places stopped
> > teaching power as it became less popular. Whilst valves may have all
> > but died we now have FETs of all sorts and varieties. CMOS IC design
> > (analogue) was unknown in the 1970s - which was almost exclusively
> > Bipolar (CMOS being the domain of the digital then). Data compression
> > was not so advanced either - no MP2 or MP3 players.
> > Of course we all got by but I doubt you would be as good a C++
> > programmer as those who are professionally trained.Software
> > engineering is now recognised as a subject in it's own right.
> > There was little or no simulation software either (much of it was
> > experimental on mainframes).  They also teach more management
> > nowadays. Professional accreditation groups demand it for some reason.
>
> > Look at this M.Eng
>
> >http://www.elec.gla.ac.uk/content/courses/coursestructure/cs_electric...
>
> > It's chock a block.
>
> I think teaching some well focussed management material might be useful.
> I certainly think law for engineers needs much more emphasis than in did
> when I was at college. We saw the law for engineers option as a course
> for people who couldn't cut it with the hard stuff. That was naive, and
> a little guidance could have changed that perception.

Agreed.

> Language teaching in an engineering degree is sheer stupidity.

Beg to disagree. As a non-native English speaker, my experience
is that learning a foreign language contributes to learning about
other people and other cultures, most beginner-level textbooks I
have seen on languages aim to teach the language and give
an intro to the culture at the same time. The way the do this
is by using the country's history as subject matter for ever
increasing narratives in the language to be learned.

For a technically-minded 15-20 years-old, that learning may
be the only island reminiscent of cultural awareness, if you like.
Lack of such awareness will inevitably lead to disasters.

In fact, if I could turn back time to age 15, I would rather learn
one or two more languages. There are only so many people
who can talk sensibly about, say, the SVD (me most certainly
*not* in that crowd); far more people can talk, say, Italian.

...
> I think in general an engineer writes better C++ than someone
> professionally trained in C++. A generalist always wins in the long
> term. :-) This is the quality a successful degree course should help
> develop in someone.

Most certainly agreed!

Rune

On Aug 14, 4:51 am, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
> On 13 Aug, 05:04, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > gyansor...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Aug 13, 1:10 pm, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
> > >> gyansor...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >>> Well you know it's a matter of opinion. I know a guy who graduated in
> > >>> the 1960s and says that you always need a min of a Masters to be a
> > >>> good design engineer. Nowadays they have more on the syllabus to cover
> > >>> than 30 years ago. Embedded systems didn't exist back then for
> > >>> instance, no FPGAs,concurrent programming and DSP was just theory in
> > >>> most places.
> > >> That much is clearly untrue. A syllabus adapts the the circumstances and
> > >> time available. It always covers a similar amount in a similar time. 10
> > >> years before I went to college thermionic valves were covered in great
> > >> detail. When I was at college we only did a little about them. Now, I
> > >> guess the get scant mention, especially with CRT TVs disappearing.
>
> > >> I studied almost no DSP at college, like everyone else at that time.
> > >> Still, I had been grounded well enough in basics that I went into my
> > >> first job developing signal processing from the chip level up without
> > >> any real problems.
>
> > >> I think your list is very oddly focussed. Embedded systems always
> > >> existed, and using FPGAs has no fundamental difference from any other
> > >> logic design.
>
> > >>> The new M.Eng degrees make you learn a language as well in some places
> > >>> making it mcuh more like a European degree. In fact you may think that
> > >>> the 3 years you spent was all you needed but look at Europe and see
> > >>> that they have had 4 years for much longer - also Scotland and
> > >>> Ireland. In fact in Scotland in some places it was 5 years for a first
> > >>> degree if you include time in industry to go with it. Many of the top
> > >>> Unis had no industrial placement whereas the Polytechnics did - and
> > >>> they are the ones you are running down! The only problem was that the
> > >> I wasn't trying to run anyone down. The universities, polys and
> > >> technical colleges served pretty well balanced purposes in the old days.
> > >> If M. Eng degrees now make you take a language, it sounds like they have
> > >> run out of solid engineering material to fill the courses with. Not long
> > >> before I went to college you needed O-level Latin to get into an
> > >> engineering degree course. As soon as that stupidity stopped, our Latin
> > >> teacher was left with nobody to teach. She also taught German, so she
> > >> didn't loose her job. :-)
>
> > >>> Polys were not as hot on research as the trad Unis so they took a long
> > >>> time to catch up and never have by all accounts. This is in contrast
> > >> This was extremely variable. Some of the old polys did excellent
> > >> research work. It depended pretty much on who was there, and their
> > >> motivations. Their position made it hard for them to get funding,
> > >> though. Some of the old polys deserved to be renamed as universities,
> > >> and I believe some have a fine reputation now.
>
> > >>> to the 1960s when many new Unis were formed but the Government poured
> > >>> money into them. Instead nowadays they changed the names and said they
> > >>> had to get their own money from student numbers and research - not
> > >>> possible unless you recruit different staff to get the research right.
> > >>> Also you will find that the old Polytechnic degress were also
> > >>> acredited by say the IEE whereas now many of them may not be.
> > >>> Standards have gone up, not down.
> > >> The expansion in the 60s was a good thing. Before that, university
> > >> places were very limited in the UK. I think after that surge of
> > >> expansion, pretty much any of the people I grew up with who could cope
> > >> with a university syllabus were able to find a place. Beyond that time
> > >> expansion was pure dilution, and it appears to have had dire consequences.
>
> > >> When I was at college, there were obviously good and bad universities.
> > >> However, a moderation scheme balanced standards well enough that people
> > >> asked first what class of degree you had, and only then where you got
> > >> it. If the IEE won't even accredit some degrees, it sounds like the
> > >> system has descended badly from there. The old centrally issued poly
> > >> degrees (CNAA, was it?) were as valued as the degrees from most
> > >> universities. If that is no longer true, it sounds like standards have
> > >> descended into the toilet.
>
> > >> Steve
>
> > > The CNAA was disbanded a long time ago - maybe 95 ish? Can't remember.
> > > After that they started giving out degrees based on the CNAA model
> > > which probably exists to this day in some (ex-poly) places.
> > > The language was introduced as an asset so you could work in say
> > > France or Germany as a prof engineer. This mirrors many European
> > > degrees which also have say English to study as well as the other
> > > technical parts.
> > > I don't agree that it is any easier nowadays or just the same. They
> > > did more maths in the 1970s in most places and they had to throw much
> > > of it out to make way for more digital papers. Lots of places stopped
> > > teaching power as it became less popular. Whilst valves may have all
> > > but died we now have FETs of all sorts and varieties. CMOS IC design
> > > (analogue) was unknown in the 1970s - which was almost exclusively
> > > Bipolar (CMOS being the domain of the digital then). Data compression
> > > was not so advanced either - no MP2 or MP3 players.
> > > Of course we all got by but I doubt you would be as good a C++
> > > programmer as those who are professionally trained.Software
> > > engineering is now recognised as a subject in it's own right.
> > > There was little or no simulation software either (much of it was
> > > experimental on mainframes).  They also teach more management
> > > nowadays. Professional accreditation groups demand it for some reason.
>
> > > Look at this M.Eng
>
> > >http://www.elec.gla.ac.uk/content/courses/coursestructure/cs_electric...
>
> > > It's chock a block.
>
> > I think teaching some well focussed management material might be useful.
> > I certainly think law for engineers needs much more emphasis than in did
> > when I was at college. We saw the law for engineers option as a course
> > for people who couldn't cut it with the hard stuff. That was naive, and
> > a little guidance could have changed that perception.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > Language teaching in an engineering degree is sheer stupidity.
>
> Beg to disagree. As a non-native English speaker, my experience
> is that learning a foreign language contributes to learning about
> other people and other cultures, most beginner-level textbooks I
> have seen on languages aim to teach the language and give
> an intro to the culture at the same time. The way the do this
> is by using the country's history as subject matter for ever
> increasing narratives in the language to be learned.
>
> For a technically-minded 15-20 years-old, that learning may
> be the only island reminiscent of cultural awareness, if you like.
> Lack of such awareness will inevitably lead to disasters.
>
> In fact, if I could turn back time to age 15, I would rather learn
> one or two more languages. There are only so many people
> who can talk sensibly about, say, the SVD (me most certainly
> *not* in that crowd); far more people can talk, say, Italian.
>
> ...
>
> > I think in general an engineer writes better C++ than someone
> > professionally trained in C++. A generalist always wins in the long
> > term. :-) This is the quality a successful degree course should help
> > develop in someone.
>
> Most certainly agreed!
>
> Rune- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'll chime in on the original thread just because I'm terrifically
bored at work.

I'm a student at an public university in the US and my observation has
been one of dwindling standards and a widening gap of 'general
education.'   In primary school, the differences in public education
due to location can be flat out staggering.  The only formal computer
training I had under the age of 18 was typing, and only three people
in my graduating class of 200+ passed the college benchmark calculus
exam.  Hell, more than half the people in my town don't believe in
teaching evolutionary biology.  In order to account for deplorable
performance many of our universities are forced to offer remedial math
(and science) classes because our primary school students are being
taught soft math (feel good math or whatever you want to call it), an
amalgamation of social science parading in guise of numbers.  It's a
pretty viscious cycle, because those who excell at math in college
probably don't teach primary school later on...  Soft math is
prevalent at the university level too. I have been appaled by the
appearance of things like "business calculus",  as if calculus in
business is different than calculus. Equally desipicable is the
attitude of some of my engineering cohorts who balk the very idea of
picking up a novel.  As engineers go though I think that the standards
retained by the IEEE keeps most everyone in line.  My caveat here is
that specialization within EE fields is eliminating some of the
versatility of our engineering majors.  I don't know if this is a
reflection of the general trends in education or simply due to an
increase in the volume of our knowledge.  My main reflection on being
at university has been a feeling of diffusion.  No student is told
what to learn, there are no required classes for every student.  Any
path of choosing will lead to a degree. In 4 years of school i have
NEVER been asked to see an academic counsilor, and I was a really bad
student for at least 1 of those years. (i have friends who graduated
with Political Science degrees that, no joke, didn't attend class more
than 15 days a year)  IMO it has been a cultural shift away from
standards to protect people from the embarassment of being bad at
math, at grammar, at whatever.  There is no room for inequality in the
Open society and the very idea has transformed into kitsch.
Administrators are continually strapped for cash and have turned into
mere fundraisers.  So long as students are paying the tuition then the
more the merrier, standards be damned. The culmination has been the
erosion of the Liberal education.

Rune Allnor wrote:
> On 13 Aug, 05:04, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
>> Language teaching in an engineering degree is sheer stupidity.
> 
> Beg to disagree. As a non-native English speaker, my experience
> is that learning a foreign language contributes to learning about
> other people and other cultures, most beginner-level textbooks I
> have seen on languages aim to teach the language and give
> an intro to the culture at the same time. The way the do this
> is by using the country's history as subject matter for ever
> increasing narratives in the language to be learned.
> 
> For a technically-minded 15-20 years-old, that learning may
> be the only island reminiscent of cultural awareness, if you like.
> Lack of such awareness will inevitably lead to disasters.
> 
> In fact, if I could turn back time to age 15, I would rather learn
> one or two more languages. There are only so many people
> who can talk sensibly about, say, the SVD (me most certainly
> *not* in that crowd); far more people can talk, say, Italian.

You hacked up what I wrote. I didn't say it was not a good idea to learn 
anything. I said languages do not belong in an engineering degree 
course, at least in an English speaking country. There might well be 
other arguments in non-English speaking countries, as so much of the 
world's technical material is in English.

Educators treat themselves like Gods, and everything you learn will come 
from their course. This is, of course, complete garbage. I stoutly 
refused to absorb anything in the French and Latin lessons inflicted on 
me as a child, as I knew they were wasting my time. I would have had 
some enthusiasm for Learning Japanese at that time, but the available 
languages were either inflicted without choice, or useless to me.

Its a good idea to learn a lot of things as a youngster, and become a 
well rounded adult. Its not appropriate to inflict things in a choice 
free bundle.

Regards,
Steve

On Aug 14, 6:58 pm, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
> Rune Allnor wrote:
> > On 13 Aug, 05:04, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
> >> Language teaching in an engineering degree is sheer stupidity.
>
> > Beg to disagree. As a non-native English speaker, my experience
> > is that learning a foreign language contributes to learning about
> > other people and other cultures, most beginner-level textbooks I
> > have seen on languages aim to teach the language and give
> > an intro to the culture at the same time. The way the do this
> > is by using the country's history as subject matter for ever
> > increasing narratives in the language to be learned.
>
> > For a technically-minded 15-20 years-old, that learning may
> > be the only island reminiscent of cultural awareness, if you like.
> > Lack of such awareness will inevitably lead to disasters.
>
> > In fact, if I could turn back time to age 15, I would rather learn
> > one or two more languages. There are only so many people
> > who can talk sensibly about, say, the SVD (me most certainly
> > *not* in that crowd); far more people can talk, say, Italian.
>
> You hacked up what I wrote. I didn't say it was not a good idea to learn
> anything. I said languages do not belong in an engineering degree
> course, at least in an English speaking country. There might well be
> other arguments in non-English speaking countries, as so much of the
> world's technical material is in English.
>
> Educators treat themselves like Gods, and everything you learn will come
> from their course. This is, of course, complete garbage. I stoutly
> refused to absorb anything in the French and Latin lessons inflicted on
> me as a child, as I knew they were wasting my time. I would have had
> some enthusiasm for Learning Japanese at that time, but the available
> languages were either inflicted without choice, or useless to me.
>
> Its a good idea to learn a lot of things as a youngster, and become a
> well rounded adult. Its not appropriate to inflict things in a choice
> free bundle.
>
> Regards,
> Steve- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

All schools have to operate within heavy budgetary, and geographical,
constraints that often choose the possible inflicted languages.  Your
argument seems to say that it isn't appropriate to have a mandatory
curriculum for students at all.  Is it appropriate to inflict math on
someone who is interested in a career of translating French or Latin?

Azazello wrote:
> On Aug 14, 6:58 pm, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
>> Rune Allnor wrote:
>>> On 13 Aug, 05:04, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
>>>> Language teaching in an engineering degree is sheer stupidity.
>>> Beg to disagree. As a non-native English speaker, my experience
>>> is that learning a foreign language contributes to learning about
>>> other people and other cultures, most beginner-level textbooks I
>>> have seen on languages aim to teach the language and give
>>> an intro to the culture at the same time. The way the do this
>>> is by using the country's history as subject matter for ever
>>> increasing narratives in the language to be learned.
>>> For a technically-minded 15-20 years-old, that learning may
>>> be the only island reminiscent of cultural awareness, if you like.
>>> Lack of such awareness will inevitably lead to disasters.
>>> In fact, if I could turn back time to age 15, I would rather learn
>>> one or two more languages. There are only so many people
>>> who can talk sensibly about, say, the SVD (me most certainly
>>> *not* in that crowd); far more people can talk, say, Italian.
>> You hacked up what I wrote. I didn't say it was not a good idea to learn
>> anything. I said languages do not belong in an engineering degree
>> course, at least in an English speaking country. There might well be
>> other arguments in non-English speaking countries, as so much of the
>> world's technical material is in English.
>>
>> Educators treat themselves like Gods, and everything you learn will come
>> from their course. This is, of course, complete garbage. I stoutly
>> refused to absorb anything in the French and Latin lessons inflicted on
>> me as a child, as I knew they were wasting my time. I would have had
>> some enthusiasm for Learning Japanese at that time, but the available
>> languages were either inflicted without choice, or useless to me.
>>
>> Its a good idea to learn a lot of things as a youngster, and become a
>> well rounded adult. Its not appropriate to inflict things in a choice
>> free bundle.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Steve- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> All schools have to operate within heavy budgetary, and geographical,
> constraints that often choose the possible inflicted languages.  Your

Of course it is constrained. Are you arguing that if you can't offer 
someone something useful, you should force something useless on them 
instead? I know this has worked brilliantly for Microsoft over the 
years, but that doesn't make it a sound policy.

> argument seems to say that it isn't appropriate to have a mandatory
> curriculum for students at all.  Is it appropriate to inflict math on
> someone who is interested in a career of translating French or Latin?

Where did I say there should be no mandatory curriculum? What is 
appropriate for schools is very different from what is appropriate in 
colleges. A good deal needs to be mandatory in schools. By the time 
people go to college, I think only the core aspects of their subject 
should be mandatory. Doesn't "he can't design communications systems, 
because he as problems with Latin" sound a little bit daft?

There are only so many hours available to learn. You have to be scraping 
the barrel, if the most valuable way you can find to fill those hours is 
with something that offers the student only misery. I don't know about 
you, but I've always found doing something useless to be a miserable task.

Although educators are eager to inflict useless language learning on 
technical students, I don't see the same eagerness to fail someone in 
French literature because their calculus wasn't up to scratch. Double 
standards seem to apply here, wherever I look around the world.

Steve

On Aug 15, 1:58 pm, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
> Rune Allnor wrote:
> > On 13 Aug, 05:04, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
> >> Language teaching in an engineering degree is sheer stupidity.
>
> > Beg to disagree. As a non-native English speaker, my experience
> > is that learning a foreign language contributes to learning about
> > other people and other cultures, most beginner-level textbooks I
> > have seen on languages aim to teach the language and give
> > an intro to the culture at the same time. The way the do this
> > is by using the country's history as subject matter for ever
> > increasing narratives in the language to be learned.
>
> > For a technically-minded 15-20 years-old, that learning may
> > be the only island reminiscent of cultural awareness, if you like.
> > Lack of such awareness will inevitably lead to disasters.
>
> > In fact, if I could turn back time to age 15, I would rather learn
> > one or two more languages. There are only so many people
> > who can talk sensibly about, say, the SVD (me most certainly
> > *not* in that crowd); far more people can talk, say, Italian.
>
> You hacked up what I wrote. I didn't say it was not a good idea to learn
> anything. I said languages do not belong in an engineering degree
> course, at least in an English speaking country. There might well be
> other arguments in non-English speaking countries, as so much of the
> world's technical material is in English.
>
> Educators treat themselves like Gods, and everything you learn will come
> from their course. This is, of course, complete garbage. I stoutly
> refused to absorb anything in the French and Latin lessons inflicted on
> me as a child, as I knew they were wasting my time. I would have had
> some enthusiasm for Learning Japanese at that time, but the available
> languages were either inflicted without choice, or useless to me.
>
> Its a good idea to learn a lot of things as a youngster, and become a
> well rounded adult. Its not appropriate to inflict things in a choice
> free bundle.
>
> Regards,
> Steve

I am assuming you must be English - that's the most ignorant thing I
have ever heard for a long time. Are you one of those people who when
a foreigner cannot understand English you speak it louder!!

On Aug 16, 2:27 pm, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
> Azazello wrote:
> > On Aug 14, 6:58 pm, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
> >> Rune Allnor wrote:
> >>> On 13 Aug, 05:04, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
> >>>> Language teaching in an engineering degree is sheer stupidity.
> >>> Beg to disagree. As a non-native English speaker, my experience
> >>> is that learning a foreign language contributes to learning about
> >>> other people and other cultures, most beginner-level textbooks I
> >>> have seen on languages aim to teach the language and give
> >>> an intro to the culture at the same time. The way the do this
> >>> is by using the country's history as subject matter for ever
> >>> increasing narratives in the language to be learned.
> >>> For a technically-minded 15-20 years-old, that learning may
> >>> be the only island reminiscent of cultural awareness, if you like.
> >>> Lack of such awareness will inevitably lead to disasters.
> >>> In fact, if I could turn back time to age 15, I would rather learn
> >>> one or two more languages. There are only so many people
> >>> who can talk sensibly about, say, the SVD (me most certainly
> >>> *not* in that crowd); far more people can talk, say, Italian.
> >> You hacked up what I wrote. I didn't say it was not a good idea to learn
> >> anything. I said languages do not belong in an engineering degree
> >> course, at least in an English speaking country. There might well be
> >> other arguments in non-English speaking countries, as so much of the
> >> world's technical material is in English.
>
> >> Educators treat themselves like Gods, and everything you learn will come
> >> from their course. This is, of course, complete garbage. I stoutly
> >> refused to absorb anything in the French and Latin lessons inflicted on
> >> me as a child, as I knew they were wasting my time. I would have had
> >> some enthusiasm for Learning Japanese at that time, but the available
> >> languages were either inflicted without choice, or useless to me.
>
> >> Its a good idea to learn a lot of things as a youngster, and become a
> >> well rounded adult. Its not appropriate to inflict things in a choice
> >> free bundle.
>
> >> Regards,
> >> Steve- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > All schools have to operate within heavy budgetary, and geographical,
> > constraints that often choose the possible inflicted languages.  Your
>
> Of course it is constrained. Are you arguing that if you can't offer
> someone something useful, you should force something useless on them
> instead? I know this has worked brilliantly for Microsoft over the
> years, but that doesn't make it a sound policy.
>
> > argument seems to say that it isn't appropriate to have a mandatory
> > curriculum for students at all.  Is it appropriate to inflict math on
> > someone who is interested in a career of translating French or Latin?
>
> Where did I say there should be no mandatory curriculum? What is
> appropriate for schools is very different from what is appropriate in
> colleges. A good deal needs to be mandatory in schools. By the time
> people go to college, I think only the core aspects of their subject
> should be mandatory. Doesn't "he can't design communications systems,
> because he as problems with Latin" sound a little bit daft?
>
> There are only so many hours available to learn. You have to be scraping
> the barrel, if the most valuable way you can find to fill those hours is
> with something that offers the student only misery. I don't know about
> you, but I've always found doing something useless to be a miserable task.
>
> Although educators are eager to inflict useless language learning on
> technical students, I don't see the same eagerness to fail someone in
> French literature because their calculus wasn't up to scratch. Double
> standards seem to apply here, wherever I look around the world.
>
> Steve

That's because Engineering students have to be smarter than their
liberal arts counterparts.
If you have one as a manager then you're in teh wrong country!

Steve Underwood wrote:

(snip)

> Although educators are eager to inflict useless language learning on 
> technical students, I don't see the same eagerness to fail someone in 
> French literature because their calculus wasn't up to scratch. Double 
> standards seem to apply here, wherever I look around the world.

Caltech requires Math 1abc and Math 2ab, which are calculus
of one and multiple variables, linear algebra, differential
equations, and probability and statistics.  That is, 1 and 2/3 years
(five terms).  It used to be two years (six terms).

http://pr.caltech.edu/catalog/courses/listing/ma.html

Even for literature majors.  I did know of one.

-- glen

HardySpicer wrote:
> On Aug 15, 1:58 pm, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
>> Rune Allnor wrote:
>>> On 13 Aug, 05:04, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
>>>> Language teaching in an engineering degree is sheer stupidity.
>>> Beg to disagree. As a non-native English speaker, my experience
>>> is that learning a foreign language contributes to learning about
>>> other people and other cultures, most beginner-level textbooks I
>>> have seen on languages aim to teach the language and give
>>> an intro to the culture at the same time. The way the do this
>>> is by using the country's history as subject matter for ever
>>> increasing narratives in the language to be learned.
>>> For a technically-minded 15-20 years-old, that learning may
>>> be the only island reminiscent of cultural awareness, if you like.
>>> Lack of such awareness will inevitably lead to disasters.
>>> In fact, if I could turn back time to age 15, I would rather learn
>>> one or two more languages. There are only so many people
>>> who can talk sensibly about, say, the SVD (me most certainly
>>> *not* in that crowd); far more people can talk, say, Italian.
>> You hacked up what I wrote. I didn't say it was not a good idea to learn
>> anything. I said languages do not belong in an engineering degree
>> course, at least in an English speaking country. There might well be
>> other arguments in non-English speaking countries, as so much of the
>> world's technical material is in English.
>>
>> Educators treat themselves like Gods, and everything you learn will come
>> from their course. This is, of course, complete garbage. I stoutly
>> refused to absorb anything in the French and Latin lessons inflicted on
>> me as a child, as I knew they were wasting my time. I would have had
>> some enthusiasm for Learning Japanese at that time, but the available
>> languages were either inflicted without choice, or useless to me.
>>
>> Its a good idea to learn a lot of things as a youngster, and become a
>> well rounded adult. Its not appropriate to inflict things in a choice
>> free bundle.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Steve
> 
> I am assuming you must be English - that's the most ignorant thing I
> have ever heard for a long time. Are you one of those people who when
> a foreigner cannot understand English you speak it louder!!
> 
I can't make much sense of that response. Would you care to enlighten me 
as to what it is supposed to mean?

Steve

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> Steve Underwood wrote:
> 
> (snip)
> 
>> Although educators are eager to inflict useless language learning on 
>> technical students, I don't see the same eagerness to fail someone in 
>> French literature because their calculus wasn't up to scratch. Double 
>> standards seem to apply here, wherever I look around the world.
> 
> Caltech requires Math 1abc and Math 2ab, which are calculus
> of one and multiple variables, linear algebra, differential
> equations, and probability and statistics.  That is, 1 and 2/3 years
> (five terms).  It used to be two years (six terms).
> 
> http://pr.caltech.edu/catalog/courses/listing/ma.html
> 
> Even for literature majors.  I did know of one.

Interesting. Does that have anything to do with it being Caltech, rather 
than Calnotsotech? It sounds like even there the requirement is falling, 
if they chopped a semester.

I really don't see why a literature major needs such maths, though, 
however basic those courses might seem to an engineer. Few literature 
graduates are going to engage in computational linguistics. :-) It seems 
just as artificial to block someone bad at (or just plain uninterested 
in) maths from a language degree, as it is to block someone bad at 
languages from a technical one.

Steve