Quote: Original post by jackolantern1
Within the school, anti-cheating rules are strictly enforced, and there are entire positions in each school designed just to weed out cheaters.

Wow. Just wow. I doubt that. I made a commitment not to cheat in school, ever. But it's been hard to keep during my university years because everyone cheats like crazy. I've taken grade hits from curves in classes because of this. It's really annoying. I don't go to a small university either. Hell, people go out of their way to tell me how they are cheating (presumably so that I can cheat too), plagiarizing, etc.

EDIT:

Also we have no required classes on concurrency. My CS program is really fail. But it's held in high regard because we have a famous SEC football team! :(

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0

Quote: Original post by jackolantern1
Within the school, anti-cheating rules are strictly enforced, and there are entire positions in each school designed just to weed out cheaters.

Wow. Just wow. I doubt that. I made a commitment not to cheat in school, ever. But it's been hard to keep during my university years because everyone cheats like crazy. I've taken grade hits from curves in classes because of this. It's really annoying. I don't go to a small university either. Hell, people go out of their way to tell me how they are cheating (presumably so that I can cheat too), plagiarizing, etc.

Same situation. Entire faculties cheat here, and I've only ever seen someone get probated for plagiarism in an English class. The engineering/science ones don't bother, and even if it's something extremely flagrant (in the middle of an exam, say) there is virtually no penalty other than being yelled at and receiving a 0.

I had a CS prof who was actually told by the engineering department not to fail a group of students who got all As on their operating systems assignments, only to get 5-12% on the (horrendously easy) final exam. He ended up resigning over it, but unfortunately the students passed.

I've seen situations where there's not quite "cheating" per se, but massaging of a whole array of questionable grades and marks.

If I do well in an assignment and the rest of the class don't, then chances are the marking curve will shift and I will get lower than I deserve, or they will get higher than they deserve. This is because disparity is considered unfair and lecturers don't like being called into question on anything whatsoever (I know this from bitter experience, unfortunately).

I've been in exams before where the best and brightest people in the class have come out thinking they've done badly, with the rest of us doomed to failure. A few weeks later, we get our results; those who "failed" actually got 65%+ and the whole class got graded extraordinaly highly. Does that mean we got lucky; the marks were massaged because we all did catastrophically badly; or do we actually know more than we thought we did? Doesn't inspire much confidence - I'm sick of exam grades being used as benchmarks because I've always thought the things are a waste of time and prove nothing. I've always thought that exams would be much better if they were open book but with harder questions marked infinitely more harshly and, right now, they're just pointless artificial memory games and usually don't test anything that can't be tested in coursework or continual micro-assessment. They often test memory as opposed to understanding or applying knowledge and I know of certain people who basically failed the coursework part of a module, but they're good at taking exams and were able to pull a decent grade out of it. What sort of job are they going to be good enough for when all they can do is cram and regurgitate?

I should add that I have attended two very different courses at two very different Universities, and the end result is always the same. These Universities are highly regarded so it's not as if I was at Arsehole Polytechnic or anything.

The UK education system is no longer fit for purpose as too many people in this country have degrees, it's too easy to get into University and getting the degree is too easy. As a result, everybody is asking for degree level education in order to do basically any job and degrees have seen a significant drop in value over the past few years; similarly, there aren't enough graduate jobs available because there are too many graduates.

I have been at University for five years and am very seriously disillusioned with it. It seems so pointless putting all that effort in when blatant failure is rewarded with much fanfare and consolation prizes.

Quote: Original post by ukdeveloper
I've always thought that exams would be much better if they were open book but with harder questions marked infinitely more harshly

You've never had teachers that didn't curve? My operating systems professor on his exams has questions that are -20 to 10 points. It is possible to get negative points on his exams or do well and fail a few questions and get a 0. He takes his class rather serious. It's open book exams too, but the book rarely helps especially on the code writing and concept questions which require critical thinking out of the book.

My programming languages teacher didn't curve. He had strict grading too. Either you knew something or didn't. Actually my physics 2 (EM) class was the same way kind of. He curved, but made the tests insane. Average grade was a C which is what he was going for.

One thing I enjoyed is that the CS program at my university has a mastery test after the first year. It gets rid of cheaters and people that try to slip through the grading system. It's normally one question that makes you use everything you learned to get an outcome from an input list. I had a friend fail the mastery test and switch majors. (teachers had been telling him that he should switch majors anyway since he absolutely couldn't get CS).

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
Also we have no required classes on concurrency. My CS program is really fail.

Switch universities. Not all of them are good for CS. They just offer it. Concurency is basically junior level assignments. I just had an assignment in my OS class to write a multithreaded thread pool socket server and client for handling database like tasks of querying and such. (Simple assignment and was assigned as a 2 week project). Then again it's not too important. I went to a presentation by the Concur Technologies CEO and he mentioned that most of his employees don't even know how to create threads. o_O He was talking about looking for new graduates with more experience.

[Edited by - Sirisian on November 30, 2009 1:22:34 PM]

Quote: Original post by Sirisian
Switch universities. Not all of them are good for CS. They just offer it. Concurency is basically junior level assignments. I just had an assignment in my OS class to write a multithreaded thread pool socket server and client for handling database like tasks of querying and such.

To paraphrase: threads have as much to do with concurrency as telescopes have with astronomy.

This is the problem with so called CS courses. They teach coding - not CS. Extending Thread class to handle a Socket class instance is trivial and falls under one of those things which should be sidelined in CS specific course.

This is indeed the junior level stuff, but be careful when calling concurrency easy.

*This* is why that Therac incident happened. People could juggle threads, but didn't know how to design for concurrency. As it happens, best software developers today fear concurrency since they've long ago given up hope of being able to work with it in real world reliably until tools and techniques either improve, or become cost effective in practice.

But I digress... In real world, nobody gives a s^%$ whether application works or not. Once the client pays the contract, it might as well explode - people got paid, and that's it.

One would need to go looking really hard to find a case where software was primary reason for business failure. I cannot name any example off-hand.

So in many ways, cheap minimally trained workforce that will work for minimum wage is very much in line with current industry demands. And few of the best ones get hired by Google anyway after they win the CodeJam.

Having been on the EMPLOYER side of the table before...

I frequently say that I am looking for answers to two questions:

1) Can the candidate do the job well?
2) Will the candidate fit in?

As an employer, a college degree is one piece of evidence to both of these questions. Job candidates can provide other evidence to both of these questions and most do. Until you have professional experience, a college degree is the best evidence you can provide on paper to answer those questions.


As a "seasoned" adult, I have clearly seen how college graduates are generally better off in terms of emotional maturity and stability. There are life lessons that you pick up in college that most people generally will not pick up otherwise.




I do like Wavinator's morality question.

There are social costs in telling youth they need post-secondary education, meaning ONLY college and EXCLUDING trade schools. I like to encourage both college and technical training. Trade schools are invaluable resources for essential jobs.

I think (in my area, at least) we have hurt our manufacturing and production industries by de-prioritizing trade schools. Trade schools are less expensive and enable people who would be unable or unwilling to succeed in a college environment.

Quote: Original post by Wan

Quote: Original post by zedz
I just had a quick google, the two most famous 3d game programmers, tim sweeny, john carmack both failed to finish their schooling.
An employer's gotta be crazy hiring those lazy useless uncommitted fucks :)

Perhaps that's why they started their own companies. :)

yes I was gonna mention that, but then the line wouldnt of worked as well

Quote: Original post by Antheus
So in many ways, cheap minimally trained workforce that will work for minimum wage is very much in line with current industry demands. And few of the best ones get hired by Google anyway after they win the CodeJam.

QFT.

You see. You can hire a Mozart or you can hire 100000 Indians and bet 1 of them will be a genius.

I need some math freak to calculate the probabilities here pls.

Note: I'm on Champagne because I got a new (BETTA) job today! I luv u guyz,

Quote: Trade schools are less expensive and enable peple who would be unable or unwilling to succeed in a college environment.

I've been to trade school. It's basically there to enforce the Corporate World's convenient illusion that software development is something you keep throwing money, buzzwords, and cheap labor at until it stops moving.

Requiring a university degree is a socially acceptable way to discriminate against poor people and nonconformists. Degrees don't prevent incompetent people from wasting the employer's time and they certainly don't prevent socially retarded people from disrupting the work place. All that is left is that it makes for an easier time processing applicants.