Convincing Colleges to Upgrade Their Classes? 115
Pray_4_Mojo asks: "I'm an engineering student at the University of Pittsburgh, and I'm currently taking a required class known as 'Computer Interfacing'. While I enjoy the instructor, I find most of the material to be severely dated. We will spend the majority of the class covering RS232/XMODEM/Token Ring means of computer-to-computer communication. Almost no mention of USB, Firewire, or IRDa is made within the class. I am trying to convince my professor that this material is relevant, as these types of interfaces will be dominate in the world we future grads will be working in. As an example, I demonstrated that the keycard access system to gain access to the Interfacing Lab has a USB port for data download/firmware programming. The professor seems interested, but it seems that I need to convince the department to revise the course requirements. Has anyone attempted to modernize their CS/Engineering program and met with success?"
Re:The concepts you will learn are the same... (Score:5, Informative)
USB and Firewire are vastly different from EIA-232 and siblings.
USB is much closer to Ethernet than it is to EIA-232. I've done some serial development and some USB development, and the USB development is abstracted from hardware by several layers; while serial is barely abstracted by one layer (in microcontrollers, if you're lucky to get a UART).
It really is different. I would agree that students would benefit from learning more modern interfaces later on, though EIA-232 is perfect for teaching basic communications concepts. I certainly had difficulty the first time I developed a USB peripheral; it had never been taught, if barely mentioned at all.
It makes sense now. The abstraction almost makes it easier to develop for on the PC side, and there are amazing features built right into the protocol. A simple microcontroller can change from a keyboard, to a mouse, to a joystick, or dozens of other devices with a simple change in firmware.
Re:Fake Assembly (Score:5, Informative)
My suggestion: Go to Chubb.
If you start thinking in the "That's not practical, who cares" mode, you belong in a trade school.
Sorry, I know that's not very politically correct, but it's the TRUTH.
Now, if you want to learn real computer SCIENCE, stick it out.
Learning assembly language for a theoretical computer is a great exercise -- you have to actually exercise that mush between your ears!
My favorite class in CS was Theory of Digital Machines.... designing AND, OR, NOT gates, building some theoretical microprocessors
Again, if you want practical, go to Chubb. If you want to learn something, stick it out
--NBVB
Re:Teaching would be a great job (Score:1, Informative)
universities are not vocational training institutes
This echos what was said before this comment, really. I recall my first night class (I wasn't getting up at 8AM for any class!) as a lowly EE student. The professor plodded into the hall (it was a 200 seat lecture hall), laid down his books and course material on the lectern, then proceeded to write the requirements down on the blackboard. After 5 minutes of silence except for the scraping chalk, he outlined a rigorous set of goals and requirements to pass the course. Several minor collaborative projects, lab work, take home work, quizzes on any of the previously covered material at least once per week, four tests, a final test, and a final project. One of the older students up front commented that it was a large amount of work to do for one class, while supporting a family and having a full time day job. The professor fixed him with a steady stare for a few moments, hooked his thumbs in his suspenders (he was a portly man), puffed out his cheeks and proceeded to tell him (and everyone else in the room) that, "higher education is for the leisure class." There were a few more gems like this, but that about sums up his monologue on the subject. More than half the room was empty the second night, most of the students were part timers with real jobs.
I can't speak for employers, because I am not one. But, the employers who come to graduate recruitment emphasise that they want thinking individuals who can learn new things, not people who already have all the knowledge. It seems that most employers who pick up graduates straight from university will train them in the areas they need to know.
No, you cant speak for them. I've been on the "prospective employee" side of the matter more than a few times, and I can tell you that, overwhelmingly, in the tech sector, all they care about is whether you have the exact set of skills that the last guy in the position had. People who can "learn"? Surely, you jest! Internship positions are requiring 2 years solid Java/C++/SQL/VB.net/etc with "proven" software development skills. An internship position!
What is best for students is to give them the learning skills they need to pick up cutting-edge technology, for them to have an instructor and institution with good reputations, and for them to be taught a course that is stable and problem-free. Frequent upgrading of courses will jepordise all of these things.
Yes, we had several of your type at my old university. They build a course, spend a few years "perfecting" it, then proceed to teach it unchanged for the next 15 years (including test material). Their classes are easy and meaningless. I found that by skipping the class of one particularly bad professor, and just reading the book, I got more out of the course than most of the people that listened to the braindead lecture. The professor was nonplussed, as he claimed that you needed to attend lectures to get a good grade -- not true, as my 'A' (and sanity) will attest.
Some of the best professors in the department regularly re-evaluated their course material every year, and would update it at least every 2-3 years. Students' learning skills did not suffer and most were heartened to learn that they were studying material that was current.