Slashdot Mirror
Are Colleges Helping to Maintain the Microsoft Monopoly?
lexus99 asks: "Recently, while attending college and wanting to take tests in order to avoid taking basic computer courses, I have signed up for a few SAM (Skills Assessment Manager) tests. What really surprised me is that these tests are entirely based upon Microsoft products (Windows XP and Office XP). Note that this course is -required- before taking any any of the more advanced courses. Is this not a clear cut case of U.S. Colleges forcing its students to exclusively use Microsoft's software? Does Microsoft pay for this 'privledge', or do the schools get some type of M$ discounts? I don't believe that I will have any problem passing these tests, as I frequently use M$ software in my workplace, but I cannot help but feel insulted that I have to take them in order to take more advanced UNIX courses." This issue is a lot more complex than it sounds. Many colleges fall into Microsoft's software because they do get decent volume discounts and Microsoft provides them with decent service, so why change what works? However, with the new licensing schemes that Microsoft is beginning to push, maybe we'll see some change in this area in the near future. Have any of you seen evidence of Microsoft worming it's way into your college courses?
This is not a troll ... I use Linux/FreeBSD exclusively; don't even own a Windoze box ... BUT ;), but this is the real world. (Unfortunately, IMHO), windows is what is "out there", predominantly. While I am excited by the growth in Linux's market share, and anticipate the day MS is no longer an effective monopoly, I am realistic; One needs a minimal level of proficiency in MS Products to succeed. At work, we are a GNU Linux/FreeBSD shop; all servers, all development,EXCEPT for the workstations in Sales, which are Win2000 ... So, even though I am a "Unix Guy", I still have to deal with Windows, which is the case in, I suspect, virtually any job (hell, even if you are a web developer in a strictly Unix Server environment, you STILL should test on Windows browsers!!)
... What exactly is your problem here? do you think you should be graduated ignorant of the OS with the *vastly* greater market share? What would *that* say about your school?
1) requiring students to have a proficiency in MS Products in no way "forcing its students to exclusively use Microsoft's software?" The problem here is your [mis]use of the word "exclusively".
2) I am as pro OSS as anyone (except perhaps RMS
So
My CS 171 course is taught using solely VC++. In fact alot of students noticed when I brought in a non-Windows lappy into our lab (our classroom is several long tables with Thinkpads with NT4 on them) -- they look at me differently because I get all my work done with vim in a console. I am by no means even a power *NIX user, and it concerns me that I get the feeling that they think I'm doing something they couldn't do.
I just recently graduated from the Comp Sci department at SFU. My impression: The business faculty is very pro-Microsoft. Everything is done using Word, PPT, IE, etc. The problem is that the people making the decisions have gained their skills on MS platforms.
A good chunk (probably about 2/3) of the professors in the Comp Sci department despise MS products and are *nix guys. In other terms, prefer to use *nix on their primary machine. But, and a big but, a lot of stuff that is taught that is platform specific, is taught with respect to MS products. For example, GUI development is taught using MFC.
And that is the problem. When general computing methodolgies/techniques are taught, they apply to *nix platforms without much tinkering. But when you try to apply techniques to MS platforms, there is a poop-load of exceptions that you have to be aware of.
For example:
This how you code in C++, but this is how VC++ implements for-scoping.
These are the techniques to design "good" user interfaces, but this is how you would implement them in Windows.
There is a lot of pressure from industry for students to learn to be efficient on the Windows platform and other "high demand" tools/methodoligies (such as Java/extreme programming/XML/etc). What usually happens is that companies screen based on "buzz words". And there is a lot of pressure from industry to produce graduates that have training in licking the flavour of the month, rather than having solid understanding of Comp Sci principles. They seem to want MCSEs, that can get the particular task done now and do not care about the future; rather than people who understand general principles that will apply for decades to come.
For example, a local Vancouver company [cough]Crystal Decisions[/cough] did not want to hire me for a position because I had not programmed in Java. Despite the fact that I have been writing Object-Oriented C++ code for 5+ years and that I'm currently teaching my sister Java who is taking CS101.
The problem is that CS departments are very heavily influenced by industry. And who is the biggest heavy-weight in industry? (That question was rhetorical).
There are really two important questions here:
The first question seems to about whether colleges are getting people comfortable with Microsoft products, or accomodating them if they are already comfortable. OTOH, the second question is a matter of whether courses specifically teach skills in a Microsoft-centric fashion.
Realistically, I can't speak to a trend, but I can tell you how things are at my school. I attend an engineering college. Obviously, this makes us not big on CS; therefore, we tend to deploy Windows on most of our open labs. It's what most students and professors are comfortable with when they arrive. Therefore, a lot of non-CS students see a lot of Windows. At least at first.
But simultaneously there is an open Linux lab in which anyone can get accounts with non-too-shabby computers. Almost no one but Geophysics uses it, but they require its use for some courses. And all of the nice physics labs for 3rd year and higher physics majors run Redhat. They're set up with Linux because all junior level and above reports must be done in LaTeX.
Everyone is required to take at least one programming course, which normally winds up being Fortran or C/C++ for everyone. Chemical engineers can take VB. C/C++ is taught almost exclusively on IRIX boxes. Only recently have we had a teacher that even required any exposure to visual studio for that class -- or any low-to-mid level CS class.
As far as CS students go, all high-level CS classes tend to either be a Unix-environment or a 'use any environment available on campus'. Most teaching is mathematically and theoretically centered. I can't count how many times teachers have said in lecture that we're being taught important theory and not too much application because we might as well go to a trade school if we just want to learn current applications.
What about non-CS required courses? We're all required to take a lot of general courses, one of which (EPICS) includes required use of Microsoft Project. We're all required to take a year of calculus-based physics whose labs were taught in additional Redhat labs. They're not Windows labs.
Myself, I find this pretty mixed. There are a lot of *nix machines on campus but they're frequently not obvious until you get in a class that requires them or you simply seek them out. We more-or-less force some cross-platform experience on all majors. But if someone wants to be all Microsoft, he can probably get by like that if he doesn't mind taking alternate courses and debating with his counselor. And the same can be done for someone who wants to go all Linux.
My experience is, despite heavy Microsoft pressure, we're a rather OS-balanced school. I can only hope all schools are along the same lines.
Oh, and how do I know we have heavy Microsoft pressure?
Just a hunch.
You like splinters in your crotch? -Jon Caldara