Slashdot Mirror
Ph.Ds From MIT, Berkeley, and a Few Others Dominate Top School's CS Faculties
An anonymous reader writes "A Brown University project collected the background information of over 2,000 computer science professors in 51 top universities. The data shows a skew in their doctoral degrees, "Over 20% of professors received their Ph.D. from MIT or Berkeley, while more than half of professors received their Ph.D. from the [top] 10 universities." For those professors, fewer work in theoretical computer science and there is a growing trend of recent hires in systems and applications. The original data is also publicly-editable and available to download."
...if you want a low paying job in your field after you graduate, get your doctorate from one of the best schools in the country.
Got it!
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Ivy league academia is a circle-jerk
It's pretty sad that the other 90% of universities have so little faith in their OWN graduates that they won't hire from within.
If I had just gotten a PhD, and it ended up being so worthless that even my own school wouldn't accept it, I would demand a refund.
At least you haven't let it make you bitter.
Top professors dominate top positions at top school!
Who would have ever guessed.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
So...how come that "actual proven ability" didn't translate into founding your own company?
Ezekiel 23:20
I'm one of the best programmers anyone could hope to hire.
You sound so much better than those egotistical rich kids.
What a load of shit.
You appear to be not only brilliant, but extremely eloquent as well. I can't imagine why all those employers declined to hire you.
I'm the CIO of my company and we don't hire rich kids.
So when is your mom going to kick your "company" out of the garage?
So, you aren't competent enough to be a programmer, but you can be CIO. I don't think most people would be complaining about having what is usually a much higher paying position.
The reality is that there are way more PhD produced every year than there are academic positions available. The best job candidates on the academic job market each year tend to come from the best programs. When those candidates were entering graduate school a few years before, they were likely to be the best applicants at that time too. Fortunately, for Computer Science PhDs there are a lot of excellent job opportunities outside of academia, so there's not really an overproduction issue like in many other fields. In my experience, a lot of the top 50 schools also have a lot of foreign graduate students who end up getting faculty positions back in their home countries too.
Overheard at lunch there around 2000 (paraphrase): "We hire the most competitive candidates from the most competitive top three schools and then we wonder why they have trouble cooperating and getting along..."
I hope the policy has changed since... It also seemed like they were passing over a lot of interesting people and thus limiting their cognitive diversity.
See also Scott E. Page book "The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies"
http://www.amazon.com/Differen...
Google probably suffers to a lesser extent from a similar problem as I suggest here:
http://developers.slashdot.org...
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Many schools did not even have a CS degree program until recently, so there might be a bias there. What you would really want to see is "what fraction of CS PhDs from this school wind up being professors". Maybe Cal and MIT created more than 50% of the total CS PhDs (they've been cranking em out a long time) and they're actually under-represented.
As for "even my own school wouldn't accept it": This is a perenial problem: schools generate far more PhD people than there is a need for them in academia. Nobody expects to get a tenure track job at their own institution, and, in fact it is discouraged. Historically, for instance, UC would not admit graduates of the same campus to the graduate program at that campus, feeling it was important to get some diversity of experience. When enrollments in colleges were rising (e.g. 50s, 60s, 70s) this oversupply wasn't so bad. Now we have the non-tenure track "adjunct problem". There have been grumblings in the Halls of Academe on this for decades (see old copies of the American Scholar, or Chron of Higher Ed).
As for "I wouldn't hire those entitled rich kids": There are such things as scholarships, of course. And a PhD isn't meant to be a "trade school" or "professional qualification", it is intended to be training for future professors (notwithstanding that in engineering, it has never been so.). A distinction similar to that in Germany between Doktor and Professor might be useful, but will never happen in the US: the hegemony of the classical humanities educational ladder is as fixed as if it were graven upon tablets of stone.
I will say that given a typical industrial setting (let's get that application or new hardware developed) I'd rather pick someone with a 2 year degree and 6 years industry experience of good quality vs a 8 year PhD whose sole work experience is working in their advisor's lab. OTOH, I'd also hope that the 2 year degree included freshman composition and language skills.
The number of jobs where one needs the finely developed knowledge in the narrow area that represents your PhD work is very, very small. However, as a signal or marker that you can slog through 2-4 years of seemingly capricious and arbitrary process imposed on you, it's not bad. However, so would decent work experience in a shop that wasn't at CMMI level 0 maturity. Experience at the latest cowboy hacker company who's going to make millions, if not billions, isn't all that valuable, and will create unrealistic expectations and long term unhappy workers when it gets past the thrill and fun of working 120 hour weeks to get that release out, and you're into the more common projects like "let's change the account number field from 8 characters to 10 characters across the company" or a even a Y2K remediation or regulatory compliance. There it's just the long slog to build a pyramid over 20 years.
a national Tek Systems/Aerotek exam
I have no idea what this is, but I once studied for an MSCE but decided the exams weren't worth the entrance fee. In trial exams I got 100%, which must make me some sort of computer janitor god.
who went to a better college because
You know how I got into a £30k/year private boarding school? By winning a scholarship, so my parents had to pay £0/year.
You know how I got through a top tier UK university? By winning a place on merit, then making use of govt assistance.
You know how I funded my MSc? By winning another scholarship.
You know what you are? Bitter.
There are a bunch of arrogant cunts out there with wealthy backgrounds. There are also a bunch of arrogant cunts out there from modest backgrounds. if you think you can judge someone on their parents, you're engaging in the basest, oldest prejudice.
So, you aren't competent enough to be a programmer, but you can be CIO.
Not only is he the "CIO", he's also the "CEO" and sole employee of a "company" located in the plush accommodations of his mother's basement.
Simple to understand. We as a species simply don't need that many people employed. That's the whole point of technology, to make us all so productive!
So what happens next? We go back to the historical mean of how humans behave: nepotism, cronyism, favoritism as we head back to a feudal society.
Given that the #1 source of professors is CMU and the #2 is GIT, the title of the post calling out MIT and Berkeley is surprising
You appear to be not only brilliant, but extremely eloquent as well. I can't imagine why all those employers declined to hire you.
If an employer is petty enough to not hire someone because they use 'swear words' instead of something that amounts to the same thing, they're illogical and not someone you want to work for.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Jealous much?
I had *no* fiscal support from my family for MIT: I was an emancipated minor at 16. Most of my peers worked their *asses* off to make ends meet. MIT is *filled* with people whose parents didn't or couldn't fund their full costs: they have a "needs blind" admission program that is very helpful to kids, and families, who struggle with the costs.
So you can take your jealousy and put it somewhere else.
It's just sad that we rely on pieces of paper to 'prove' our worth, even when most of the people with pieces of paper don't know what they're doing (Most of the people without don't either.). It's also sad that you need to waste your time in rote memorization facilities in order to get scholarships. It's just a huge waste of time and effort.
You know what you are? Bitter.
I would be bitter too if I got rejected just because I didn't have a certain piece of paper. That's illogical garbage.
But being "bitter" doesn't debunk his little rant. But yeah, I don't see why he would decline to hire someone just because they're rich; it seems like the same sort of petty nonsense that leads to employers not hiring people because they're lacking pieces of paper.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
If a candidate is not smart enough not to understand simple concepts about the nature of interaction of social species, he are too dull to warrant employment. If he understands the concepts but ignores them, he is immediately declaring that he rejects the importance of established standards, and would make a substandard engineer. Either way, a person who does not communicate well with a goodly proportion of people is always the worse choice when pitted against someone who communicates well with many people. And engineers are a dime a dozen, while good communicators are rare.
Or let anything go to your head.
good job CS is not IT and at some schools not even being able to do most of the real world programming work.
I think you just misread the data. The ones near the top are about the make-up of the departments, so CMU and Georgia Tech simply have a lot of professors. The tables at the bottom are about sources of professors (placements).
If an employer is petty enough to not hire someone because they use 'swear words' instead of something that amounts to the same thing, they're illogical and not someone you want to work for.
The ability to control oneself and behave in a manner that does not offend other employees is important to building and maintaining a productive workplace rather than, say, a hostile work environment. Conforming to some minimum standard of politeness shows that one can work as part of a team and is not some aggressive "loose canon" that will disrupt the workplace and become a liability.
And I'm not buying the "CIO" thing at all, unless it's a one or two person operation functioning out of a garage someplace. There is really no way that any real company would hire a guy who mouths off like this. He sounds more like a guy who is jealous of those who were able to attend schools like MIT. I'm sure he feels his personal experience added to his Associates degree is more than equil to 4 or 6 years at MIT, but I'm not buying it.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
What a bitter shit you are! Nearly all PhDs at top-notch schools are supported by fellowships, teaching or research. You don't need to be a rich kid at all, but you do need a brain to get into a competitive program like that.
. It's also sad that you need to waste your time in rote memorization facilities in order to get scholarships.
For the scholarship I took, the mathematics papers were most heavily weighted, followed by general reasoning tests, followed by English language, followed by foreign languages, followed by humanities. The mathematics papers were much more about pattern-spotting than rote technique, and widely recognised as being particularly tough. If they'd been evenly weighted, I'd have got top place that year, but I did relatively poorly on one of the mathematics papers (but still well enough!).
I don't know what US scholarships look like, but in the UK, scholarships to private schools comprise a set of exams written by that individual school, so the best schools will test potential - and, in any case, rightly ignore any uniform learning outcomes that the government imposes for state-funded schools.
It's just a huge waste of time and effort.
Every profession is one part memorisation, one part technical skill, and one part social skill. If you don't know a lot of stuff, it doesn't matter how great your potential - you're too slow when shit and fan are in alignment. Perhaps this is more obvious in medicine or law, when life and/or liberty are at stake. I agree that way too much emphasis today is put on memorisation, but it is still essential to make you useful in academia or commerce.
So basically, if you wanna be a prof, don't bother getting a PhD outside the top 10. If you don't wanna be a prof, don't bother getting a PhD at all.
I'm not a PhD or even Masters. But the arrogance of candidates coming out of "top" schools with PhD really does imply PiledHigherAndDumber.
Example: my group interviewed a PhD grad, but in his mind, we were uninteresting, and merely a "checklist" item. Solely because of attidude, we declined to make him an offer. And at the time, we were bleeding edge. Personally, I'll choose a hard-worker from a "B" or "C" school if they are focused and passionate about the pertinent sub-field. Additional points to candidates with actual relevant experience.
Enormous minuses for collosal egos.
And I can (and do) make/break interviewees.
People hire people who are like themselves.
Those who went to second class universities will be hired by those who went to second class universities.
The ability to control oneself and behave in a manner that does not offend other employees is important to building and maintaining a productive workplace rather than, say, a hostile work environment.
If you feel like you're on a razor thin wire because the people around you are oversensitive, controlling assholes and feel the need to control how other people use language, then that *is* a hostile work environment.
Just because someone has an irrational hatred of certain words and has bought into the religious and illogical notion that some words are inherently 'bad' doesn't mean they should be able to stop everyone else from saying those words.
Conforming to some minimum standard of politeness shows that one can work as part of a team and is not some aggressive "loose canon" that will disrupt the workplace and become a liability.
If "politeness" is controlling how other people use language in order to create a facade where everyone acts and speaks exactly as you want them to, then I don't want to be polite. I don't care about being polite, and apparently neither does my employer.
Those types of artificial environments are hostile to any intelligent person's well-being.
There is really no way that any real company would hire a guy who mouths off like this.
Maybe not all employers are authoritarian imbeciles? Mine isn't, at least. I have no clue if he's actually a CIO.
So yeah, as I said, those are not the types of employers you want to work for. Find someone who isn't a complete moron.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Professors get hired for their research work. And while many schools give a good education in CS, research is mostly done at the top 10% schools.
I find "what a load of shit" to be a very apt and useful expression in many circumstances. Rudeness and eloquence are not incompatible.
I also think the CIO's point is valid, and fear that whatever percentage of CS professors received their training from MIT may still lack a college education, as I do. (Certainly MIT does not offer a college education, instead diverting people into excellent technical training.)
I've often wondered what the results would be of a poll that compared long term outcomes for students who matriculate at a given university with students who were accepted but went elsewhere. To my knowledge, no such poll has ever been conducted.
Speaking of logic, no one said "good engineers are a dime dozen". Let me quote for you
"And engineers are a dime a dozen"
And this is true. No one said anything about good engineers.
And you're an engineer? In the West? Good luck with that long term.
Now fuck YOU.
The mathematics papers were much more about pattern-spotting than rote technique
That's the same thing. You learn to spot certain patterns.
What I speak of is actually understanding the reason *why* the math even works. To have an intuitive understanding of it such that you know why it can't be any other way.
That's not to say that you don't have that understanding. And I haven't seen the specific exams in question, but I have seen exams described exactly as you described yours, and they involved rote memorization.
Every profession is one part memorisation
No one said that memorization is never necessary. Without the ability to retain some amount of information, we'd be useless.
With that said, 99% of the time, things don't need to be memorized, but it does depend on the field.
and one part social skill.
Depends on the profession. In some professions, you can get away with having terrible communication skills quite easily.
I agree that way too much emphasis today is put on memorisation, but it is still essential to make you useful in academia or commerce.
What's also useful is intelligence and understanding. And sadly, those are in short supply.
But yeah, way too much emphasis on memorization. Far, far, far too much.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
I'm afraid you have it backwards. If an employer, or employer, is too petty or stupid to use language politely, they're probably untrainable in either social or technical standards and all their work will require constant review and repair before publication.
Speaking of logic, no one said "good engineers are a dime dozen".
I actually was aware of that, and corrected it myself. I do not think it is fair to compare just "engineers" to "good communicators." People who are good at whatever it is they do are usually more rare than people who just do whatever it is in general.
And you're an engineer? In the West? Good luck with that long term.
You know, even if I had gotten that wrong, these sentences would still be idiotic. Being an engineer isn't about perfectly interpreting every possible sentence and never making a single mistake in language; it's about intelligence and logic. Do note that you don't have to be perfect, and that no one is perfect.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
We will not be hiring you where I work. Your loss, the money is good and the work cutting edge and exciting. Your loss, stupid motherfucker.
You don't need to be rich to study at Princeton. They have generous financial aid packages, and most students leave debt-free. If you're smart enough, and work hard enough to get in, they will make sure that you can afford it.
http://www.princeton.edu/admission/financialaid/
http://www.princeton.edu/pr/aid/pdf/1213/PU-Making-It-Possible.pdf
You'll meet plenty of smart poor kids at Princeton, who have public education. You'll also meet plenty of smart rich kids, who had the luxury of the best private education.
Any rich dumb kids don't make it through the first year. They have a "Dean of Temporary Bye-Bye", who makes them take a year off, and a "Dean of Permanent So-Long", who kicks them out for good.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
This phenomena is also why large-scale paradigm shifts in a field only tend radiate outward from top universities. As a professor, you disseminate wholly new ideas via your graduate students, who then take positions at other universities and influence others.
It's pretty much impossible to fundamentally change minds once they're established in the field - after all, who wants to embrace something that makes much of their past work irrelevant?) So paradigm shifts tend to occur by seeding your graduate students into lots of different departments and waiting for the older generation to retire.
As for why hire from top universities? Well, that's easy. Given any field where there's lots of uncertainty, human beings naturally gravitate to any metric we can. And a PhD from a top university is about as solid a metric as one can get. Of course, it helps that the secondary metrics that are used (papers published, cited, etc.) are also established by editors and readers who also use the same metric to judge whether something is worth publishing or reading. Like so many things, we *make* in-built biases become truth by our actions.
Elitism and trust in the elites is a completely human reaction to uncertainty. Doesn't mean it's optimal, but it is human.
You seem to be defining "polite" to mean whatever it is that you like. The word is, in reality, completely subjective.
I can't fathom why anyone would think it's objectively "polite" to not hire someone merely because of your irrational hatred towards certain words. This is like religious fundamentalism; utterly irrational. Such bigotry, this desire to control others' language at such a basic level.
they're probably untrainable in either social or technical standards
What an impolite word to use. I'd never hire you.
Besides being a non sequitur, do you really not see the problem with such arbitrary, irrational nonsense? Many of our problems are caused because lots of employers are idiotic bigots, like the ones you're defending now.
I honestly don't see why anyone on Slashdot, a site that's supposedly for nerds, would cheer on such authoritarian, irrational garbage.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
PhDs in computer science are probably rare, since advanced degrees are not typically worth the expense for normal careers in technology. So how many PhD candidates are there who graduate with degrees who want to go into academia? Big-name schools like MIT would attract the people who are hardcore about becoming professors, right? Is this study just a Captain Obvious thing of big-name academic schools self-selecting the people who want to go hardcore into academics? A fifth of the sample being from a big-name academic school seems low. If you're going to look for a computer science professor for your school, the pool of potential professors is probably small and you'll be looking at people from a few major academic schools. It's not like when you give a successful businessperson an honorary degree and have him teach management classes. You have to know your stuff to teach computer science.
Obeying illogical social conventions is not important to being an engineer at all.
If you cannot see the premises and logic underlying every single social convention, you are the one coming up short. It is common for dullards to reject as stupid or illogical observations that they do not understand. Grasping the behaviour of social species interaction is complex - way more complex than learning how to write code or build a bridge. Psychology is a less mature science than engineering+mathematics, and sociology is very much in its infancy. But there's nothing supernatural about any of it. A human is as "logical" a system as a slinky, and 7 billion people no less so.
You have that backwards. Good engineers are extremely scarce, while people capable of communicating well enough with others aren't hard to find at all.
No. The logic behind engineering is objectively simpler than the logic behind human interaction. That said, I deliberately compared a good communicator (in demand in all non-peon positions) with an average engineer (good enough for most work - the average engineering task simply isn't that hard).
Your words reveal you to be a poor communicator or a poor logician, so I question whether you have really thought about your conclusion.
And no, someone isn't a 'bad' communicator just because they use words that you have some irrational hatred of. In fact, you used the word "communicating," which I hate. Therefore, you're bad at communicating with others.
I don't "hate" swearing - I just take a more rational approach to communication than you, and part of that is to avoid non-productive language. If you find the very word "communicating" to bring forth feelings of hatred, there's definitely something you need to investigate about yourself. You're a bit more complex to understand than a few nuts, bolts and wires, so you may have to spend some time on this. Good luck!
Wow, you are really an arrogant fool. First, MIT has never been a "legacy" school. The vast majority of students there get significant financial aid because their middle- and working-class families cannot afford the full price. (The Ivies have also been moving away from admitting the sons of sons of sons, and focusing more exclusively on merit.) Second, you obviously have no idea how much work it takes, how competitive and hard-working students have to be, just to get into these top tier schools, much less stay in them and graduate. So your bullshit about spoiled kids is just laughable--I've hired from these schools, and what I got was highly-motivated, smart, hard-working employees.
...I beat 88% of their programmers worldwide...
Which probably translates to an ability to beat 0% of CS students at MIT. Seriously. The majority graduate in the top 1% of their high-school class. And 25% of this year's incoming freshman had perfect math SAT scores. (Of course that doesn't prove what they'll do in the real world...)
So I'm one of the best programmers anyone could hope to hire.
I've known plenty of people like you in my career, and I sure as hell hope to not hire anyone like you.
Most of my peers worked their *asses* off to make ends meet.
Not to mention the few who were so determined to do it no matter what, that they lived in the student center. God, I had money difficulties, but at least not that bad.
Your overwhelming focus on on promoting your inability to chose your words is a good signal of your inability to do other things. The rest of us are trying to do our jobs and you are IN THE WAY.
I also think the CIO's point is valid, and fear that whatever percentage of CS professors received their training from MIT may still lack a college education, as I do. (Certainly MIT does not offer a college education, instead diverting people into excellent technical training.)
You have absolutely no fucking clue what you're talking about, none.
If you cannot see the premises and logic underlying every single social convention, you are the one coming up short.
Then explain them, will you? It simply amounts to people having an irrational hatred of certain words, for various reasons. That's not the worse part, though; the worst part is that they try to censor others.
Grasping the behaviour of social species interaction is complex - way more complex than learning how to write code or build a bridge.
No, it's not. No. The logic behind engineering is objectively simpler than the logic behind human interaction.
Why, it's so simple that most people can't even do engineering, let alone understand it. Most people don't even seem to understand why something as simple as the Pythagorean theorem works, although I suppose they can use it.
Your words reveal you to be a poor communicator or a poor logician, so I question whether you have really thought about your conclusion.
Your words reveal you to be a poor communicator or a poor logician, so I question whether you have really thought about your conclusion.
If you find the very word "communicating" to bring forth feelings of hatred, there's definitely something you need to investigate about yourself.
If you find the very word "fuck" to bring forth feelings of hatred, there's definitely something you need to investigate about yourself.
If you find the very word "shit" to bring forth feelings of hatred, there's definitely something you need to investigate about yourself.
You could apply it anything. But maybe you knew that and it's irrelevant.
At any rate, you seem to be going the extra mile to defend the status quo, despite it being irrational. I wonder why that is, and why you're doing nothing more than saying that it's logical and attacking me. Hm...
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Your overwhelming focus on on promoting your inability to chose your words is a good signal of your inability to do other things.
I don't have an "inability"; just a lack of desire.
Also, your overwhelming focus on promoting the inability to survive in the real world if other people are allowed to use words you don't like is a good signal of your inability to use basic logic. You seem quite controlling. Either that, or you're defending an irrational authoritarian status quo.
And while we're stating arbitrary nonsense without proof, the fact that you said "on on" proves that you're unable to do anything complex.
So yeah, do you have any proof that the inability to "chose" one's words does indeed mean that you're unable to do other, seemingly irrelevant, things? Or did you just arbitrarily decide that it is so, and state your opinion as a fact without a shred of evidence?
At any rate, no one has offered a valid justification for controlling other people's language. They've either attacked me, made baseless statements, or muttered something about how human communication is complex. No actual justification for why the hatred of certain words isn't irrational.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Or it means you don't understand the words and the full meanings behind them.
'Shit' is a simple vulgarity. By using that word, you are implying that the the listener/reader is worthy of no better (or that you are yourself worthy of no better). Was that your intent? If not, consider what precision means to an engineer.
Then explain them, will you? It simply amounts to people having an irrational hatred of certain words, for various reasons. That's not the worse part, though; the worst part is that they try to censor others.
You're tilting your sword at a straw man. I've never declared that I hate swearwords, and people who avoid swearwords in professional discourse very rarely do so because they feel "hatred" for them. When you engage in debate, try not to cram your opponent's answers into a mental box you've built from your own prejudices - it's a common enough fallacy, but it'll invariably result in your dismissing everything you hear as "illogical".
Why, it's so simple that most people can't even do engineering, let alone understand it. Most people don't even seem to understand why something as simple as the Pythagorean theorem works, although I suppose they can use it.
Modern school mathematics education is poor - it's not just that the curriculum is designed to create robots, but that the communication (that word again) skills necessary to be a good educator are lacking. Modern education in grammar, rhetoric, logic (the original trivium) and psychology (adding a modern scientific basis) is nearly non-existent. Yet a good autodidact or someone benefiting from a good communicator of mathematics will quickly grasp a number of proofs for Pythagoras. They will not, however, grasp more than the basics of human psychology, a science thousands of years less advanced than mathematics.
At any rate, you seem to be going the extra mile to defend the status quo, despite it being irrational. I wonder why that is, and why you're doing nothing more than saying that it's logical and attacking me. Hm...
I'm too old to go for this, "Fight the Man because... it's the Man, man!" bullshit. There are fundamental problems with education in the modern world, as I've hinted on above, but that doesn't mean I think everything about the way the world works is wrong. In particular, I fully understand why good communicators are in greater demand - and will always be in greater demand - than good engineers.
The ability to control oneself and behave in a manner that does not offend other employees is important to building and maintaining a productive workplace rather than, say, a hostile work environment.
If you feel like you're on a razor thin wire because the people around you are oversensitive, controlling assholes and feel the need to control how other people use language, then that *is* a hostile work environment.
Just because someone has an irrational hatred of certain words and has bought into the religious and illogical notion that some words are inherently 'bad' doesn't mean they should be able to stop everyone else from saying those words.
Conforming to some minimum standard of politeness shows that one can work as part of a team and is not some aggressive "loose canon" that will disrupt the workplace and become a liability.
If "politeness" is controlling how other people use language in order to create a facade where everyone acts and speaks exactly as you want them to, then I don't want to be polite. I don't care about being polite, and apparently neither does my employer.
Those types of artificial environments are hostile to any intelligent person's well-being.
There is really no way that any real company would hire a guy who mouths off like this.
Maybe not all employers are authoritarian imbeciles? Mine isn't, at least. I have no clue if he's actually a CIO.
So yeah, as I said, those are not the types of employers you want to work for. Find someone who isn't a complete moron.
People are very diverse, come from a variety of backgrounds, cultures, and socioeconomic situations. Part of maintaining a professional work environment is understanding that groups of people have diverse viewpoints on what is acceptable and comfortable (I will note that this is also part of being an adult). Labeling someone as "uptight" or "razor thin" just because they value the accepted professional behavior norms in the work environment shows an extreme lack of social intelligence and inability to see the world from other perspectives. You would be a liability at any respectable tech company. You come across as the guy who doesn't understand why putting up a bikini calendar on your cubicle wall might create an uncomfortable environment for female coworkers.
You certainly wouldn't ever be hired at my company. Yes, sometimes there are sensitive people or people who get upset over things we may feel are silly. However, these people can still be very productive employees. When you don't respect that you are preventing these employees from being productive. You create drama that prevents people from focusing on work and getting the job done. If you worked for me or my company (and you wouldn't, btw), you don't get paid to be buddies with me or your coworkers. You get paid to work as part of a team. You also won't get coddled to feel like you can roll into the office and feel like you're back at the frat house.
In Silicon Valley, what you've accomplished matters more than where you went to school. Open source recognition will get you far if you want to be a programmer. At my company, we hired a guy from Tunisia who's an expert in computer vision.. They did not even give him a programming test, as it was clear from his open-source project what kind of code he was capable of writing.
One thing that managers often really dislike are people that are overly arrogant. I've seen good people turned away because of this.
Silicon valley is a metetocracy. Pretty much my entire team are from Ivy league schools, where I am not. Not everyone that goes to an Ivy leaguge school is rich..All the people I worked with who graduated from Ivy leauge schools are from middle-class families, the sons of teachers and farmers, etc. With few exceptions, they just seemed like normal people. The one's I work with seem driven and foucsed, and wise beyond their years.. I think it's easy to have a good team dynamic despite their degrees.
The word "shit" can be used for many things. It is you who doesn't understand human language. Not every use is an insult.
Furthermore, it's utterly subjective. No word is inherently 'bad,' and any claims to the contrary are religious nonsense.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Did I say 'bad'? I believe I said vulgar.
Continue in ignorance if you will, perhaps the parenthetical part of what I said does apply after all.
You're tilting your sword at a straw man. I've never declared that I hate swearwords
Fortunately, I did not mention you. At least, not in the sentences you quoted. Looks like the straw man is yours.
and people who avoid swearwords in professional discourse very rarely do so because they feel "hatred" for them.
But because others are offended by them.
Modern school mathematics education is poor
Indeed, but that still doesn't mean they have the aptitude to understand such concepts.
They will not, however, grasp more than the basics of human psychology, a science thousands of years less advanced than mathematics.
Even professional pseudoscientists haven't grasped that.
I'm too old to go for this, "Fight the Man because... it's the Man, man!" bullshit.
I'm too old to go for this, "Go with the status quo because... it's the status quo, man!" bullshit.
but that doesn't mean I think everything about the way the world works is wrong.
Then, rather than focusing on me or vague things like "communication," please make an actual attempt to justify why it is rational to have a hatred of certain words.
In particular, I fully understand why good communicators are in greater demand - and will always be in greater demand - than good engineers.
The ability to communicate is a basic skill you'll need just about everywhere.
But communicating 'well' has little to do with allowing others to control the way you use language.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
As a comp. sci. grad student, I often read papers originating from many sources. Generally, the best research comes from top professors at top universities - plain and simple. They are the best of the best and therefore got hired at the top schools and get the most funding. With this funding, they attract the best students in larger numbers which often translates into better research and the cycle continues.
How can these obvious and natural facts be controversial to anyone?
You think because you attended 'a' college somewhere that this entitles you to any position anywhere? Just because you play community baseball does not entitle you to the majors.
Time to wake up to reality. There is a vast difference between an education at a top school and the other colleges. Did you know that the average bachelor's graduate (4 yrs) in the US is about at the same level of proficiency as the average Japanese high school student? If you'd like to know more about how low the average college education in the US is, read:
http://skills.oecd.org/skillsoutlook.html
You will be shocked. But you probably will only read a bit as it will make you feel poopy inside your feely feelies. Then you can continue with your delusions of all the injustices of a system which keeps you from your well-deserved tenure at Stanford.
People are very diverse, come from a variety of backgrounds, cultures, and socioeconomic situations.
Indeed. I think you'd find my workplace is far different. We don't hire irrational people who think some words are inherently 'bad', or whatever.
Part of maintaining a professional work environment is understanding that groups of people have diverse viewpoints on what is acceptable and comfortable (I will note that this is also part of being an adult).
"professional" is subjective.
What's unacceptable and uncomfortable to me is when others try to control other people's language, and deny them the opportunity to speak casually. What a stressful, hostile work environment.
If you're so understanding of 'diversity', then realize it works both ways.
You come across as the guy who doesn't understand why putting up a bikini calendar on your cubicle wall might create an uncomfortable environment for female coworkers.
No, I live in reality, and I realize that zero tolerance policies are almost always dumb, with the exception of having zero tolerance for zero tolerance policies. All this effort to avoid offending people is in itself offensive to me, but that doesn't stop people from being morons, now does it?
You also won't get coddled to feel like you can roll into the office and feel like you're back at the frat house.
What about the oversensitive, controlling people who feel that they can control other people's language? They're being coddled more than anyone. People who just want to be themselves and speak comfortably are denied something so basic, because of irrational prejudices against certain words.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
I work 25 hours as CIO of a 150 person landscaping company with 50 PCs and 3 servers and work 27 hours at a computer repair company that I started myself and currently solely own. I put most of my competition out of business by being faster and better and simply keeping up on the latest virus and hardware trends. Why didn't I start my own software design company in the middle of Wisconsin? Maybe because I'm not an idiot. I did complete a paid project on my own for a software suite to dump XML data into 3 proprietary Access databases for dog agility trial scoring and ranking management right after college and loved the project. It still didn't lead to a job though despite the software being flawless and needing zero patches for years. So considering I'm 26, I'd say things works out appropriately but I'm still pissed that nobody let me work in software programming because of their inaccurate misconceptions about colleges.
Within the US maybe.
All IT workers swear. If they don't, they're probably a sociopath and serial killer.
On the other hand, if he doesn't give a fuck because this is the internet and actually has exceptional interpersonal skills, especially for an IT workers, in normal day to day operations then you'd be wrong, wouldn't you?
Yeah, I looked into financial aid. I got partial coverage because I was poor but unfortunately I was born a white male so there goes everything else. It's a shame I'm not a single parent black female or I'd have a free ride. Good grades and being incredibly intelligent don't get you a damn thing when it comes to scholarships.
You don't need to explicitly say "bad." The implication is that in many situations these words are considered "vulgar," or "inappropriate." Yes, I know. That's the sort of irrational nonsense I'm criticizing, so I'm well aware it exists.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Vulgar = common with (for the last few centuries) the implication of poor quality when used in English.
It's also the world you live in. Whether you like it or not, people make impressions based on their interactions with you. These impressions override most everything you claim about yourself. Just ask yourself how many times a well dressed and respected person gets off with less penalties than the guy who shows up to court for the same charges acting like a street thug while trying to convince the judge he is an upstanding pillar of the community. There is nothing religious about it, it is just the other person's expectations.
As for the rest of your post, communication is often essential in work whether it be engineering or prostitution. It's a basic reason behind TPS reports and various other forms one has to muscle through while actually getting work done. It standardizes the communication process somewhat to make up for poor communication. Those who communicate better and are around better communicators, are likely to excel more so than those who do not communicate well. With the exception for foreigners for whom English is not a first language (for some reason, they are excused), not to many fortune 500 companies employ people with poor communication skills unless it is for some quota or to fill low level jobs that aren't really relevant to the operation. Those jobs are the lower paying jobs in the establishment too. It is just a fact of life- if you want to get ahead, you have to act like it.
You're still tilting at the same windmill. The main reason for avoiding swearwords in professional discourse is not because some people "hate" swearwords - although sometimes that's relevant, and when it is, there is nothing irrational about avoiding those words. The main reason for avoiding swearwords is the lack of useful meaning in those words.
The second reason is that the meanings which are conveyed by crass language tend to descend a conversation to ad hominem. For example, I could say that you're just another socially retarded dork who blames others for his own failings, but psychology tells me that you'll almost certainly have your ego pricked by that sort of remark, so rather than trying to form a rational response, you'll end up attacking me in kind.
Even professional pseudoscientists haven't grasped that.
If your argument is that psychology is a pseudo-science, you might as well just pack your bags and go home to your church. Psychology is an immature science when compared to, say, physics, but as long as it studies an aspect of the natural world using the scientific method - and it usually does - it is a science. And I say this as a mathematician who understands perfectly well the gamut of rigour in academia.
But communicating 'well' has little to do with allowing others to control the way you use language.
Nobody's stopping you from saying "fuck" a thousand times, numb-nuts. It's just that if you consider yourself such a special snowflake that you just need to so express yourself, reason be damned, expect to be ignored or rejected for getting in the way of people who can communicate - therefore work - more productively than you, and who ultimately are more pleasant company.
Words have meanings, and the choice to speak has consequences. Welcome to reality. Handle it!
Indeed. That's the sort of thing I'm criticizing. The idea that certain words are inherently 'bad'. I'm aware that lots of people believe that.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
The main reason for avoiding swearwords is the lack of useful meaning in those words.
Lots of things people say have no useful meaning. Most of it is just filler.
Swear words do have useful meaning, depending on what you mean by "useful"; you're being extremely vague, here! Is showing emotion not useful? Is adding emphasis not useful? What is "useful"?
And you're kidding yourself. In a grand majority of cases, people just have a childish hatred of certain words. I don't know why you're trying to claim the opposite. The fact that television shows have to censor these words or face penalties, and the fact that people are sometimes hit by fines for using them, etc. all demonstrates this. It very much is about control and being offended.
The second reason is that the meanings which are conveyed by crass language tend to descend a conversation to ad hominem.
Define "crass language" in a non-subjective way.
For example, I could say that you're just another socially retarded dork who blames others for his own failings, but psychology tells me that you'll almost certainly have your ego pricked by that sort of remark, so rather than trying to form a rational response, you'll end up attacking me in kind.
You could say that, and I might even insult you back, but it wouldn't do anything to me.
Psychology is an immature science when compared to, say, physics, but as long as it studies an aspect of the natural world using the scientific method - and it usually does - it is a science.
If you want to get technical, it is a "science." But that's a really low bar. I guess I should say it's almost always bad science.
Nobody's stopping you from saying "fuck" a thousand times, numb-nuts. It's just that if you consider yourself such a special snowflake that you just need to so express yourself, reason be damned, expect to be ignored or rejected for getting in the way of people who can communicate - therefore work - more productively than you, and who ultimately are more pleasant company.
Really? So firing people for speaking those words, or not hiring them at all, is not an attempt to control others? How foolish.
Also, you are once again equating using certain words with not being "productive" at communicating, but you've never justified this. Also, "pleasant" is subjective.
Words have meanings, and the choice to speak has consequences.
Wow, you're a genius. You're not doing much in the way of justifying all this widespread irrationality, though.
I sure am glad my workplace doesn't have people like you, just as you may be glad yours probably doesn't have people like me.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
There is nothing religious about it, it is just the other person's expectations.
Then their expectations reveal them as irrational and shallow. In particular, this sort of attitude has zero place in court rooms, and that it exists in courts is a travesty indeed. In my opinion, anyway.
When I went to job interviews (though it has been years), I made it a point to dress up in the 'worst' clothes I had. I'd go into job interviews with casual clothes that would have stains and rips in them. The idea is that I don't want to work with shallow people. I'm simply choosing my own company, and I don't want to hang around people that are irrational and shallow if I can help it, you see.
As for the rest of your post, communication is often essential in work whether it be engineering or prostitution.
I guarantee, I can communicate with my fellow workers, and yet they feel no need to try to control my language, or claim that some words are objectively 'bad'.
It seems I'm lucky to be in a non-hostile work environment, huh?
It is just a fact of life- if you want to get ahead, you have to act like it.
That's not how change happens.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
You'll never get there. Connotation is not only nearly ubiquitous, it is the part of our language that allows it to be used to communicate with precision. It has existed since the beginning of language.
Uh oh, ladies and gentlemen, I present you the next autistic mass shooter: Bill!
Well, okay. But I know plenty of people who don't give a fuck if someone uses swear words, and I know plenty more exist, so it's far from just me.
The world is moving forward in some ways. Atheists are less afraid to 'come out.' It's becoming less popular to have an irrational hatred of homosexuals. It might one day become less popular to believe that certain words are inherently bad. Or maybe the 'bad' words will just change.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
This is a free world, you can think anything you want about the courts or even people hiring others to work for them. It just doesn't change reality much.
Again, this is a free world (for a little while longer anyways). That is your choice. I know people who did that same thing except they did it in order to flunk the interview so they could meet their job search requirements and keep drawing their unemployment checks while working under the table on the side.
but change is how bigotry happens. So either you hate them or they hate you. Or both happens. Either way, I'm willing to bet that there will not be much codependency on each other for quite some time.
middle of Wisconsin?
That might be half your problem. Still, I see where you're coming from. On the other side of that, many technical schools are just degree mills. Lots of candidates come out of technical schools that look good on paper and then when you hire them, it's like they never attended a day of class or learned anything. I think companies have gotten burned there, which really sucks for the students that come out that are good, and it sucks for the technical schools that are good because now 'technical school' has a stigma.
And you don't need to explicitly say "shit". You can assume the listener is at least as smart as you and is able to infer implications just as well as you. To do otherwise is irrational.
Your school is unwilling to employ you, but that guy's school is unwilling to hire him. It sort of evens out.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You do realize that your reply had nothing to do with mine, and didn't debunk a thing, right? That's because you didn't actually respond to my real argument. I'm not sure what your point was supposed to be, but I'm getting tired of fake 'nerds' roaming about on Slashdot. Damn, and there are almost no True Scotsman left.
To do otherwise is irrational.
Using a particular word is no more or less irrational than using other words.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
The words are NOT inherently bad. If what they imply is what you want to say, they're just perfect. If I think someone is unworthy, I will use vulgarities. If something truly does deserve to be cut off from all that is good and burned for all eternity, I will damn it.
Don't use them in an interview for the same reason you don't call the interviewer 'butthead' or 'garbage breath'.
You may be confusing the value judgement based on children being forbidden to use them. That is not because the word is bad, but because the parents don't believe the child is yet mature enough to properly understand what they are saying (at least that is the original reason). If a child doesn't grasp that death is final, how are they to understand eternal damnation (even as a metaphore)?
All IT workers swear. If they don't, they're probably a sociopath and serial killer.
But just because they do swear does not mean they aren't a sociopath and serial killer. In fact, I'm pretty sure that where I work all three are required to move into management.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
You seem to be defining "polite" to mean whatever it is that you like. The word is, in reality, completely subjective.
Uh, no, it's not.
Being able to present oneself with simple courtesy and politeness with their native tongue sans the use of colorful expletives being sprinkled about the conversation isn't something that needs to be subjective. Simple manners were (supposed) to be engrained in you by the time you reach adulthood.
Yes, I have a keen ability to talk shit about the average fucktard in charge suffering from cranial-rectal inversion, but it can literally be like needles poking me when I hear it within certain context in a workplace because it absolutely does convey a lack of simple control by the person.
"Polite" doesn't need to be defined any farther than common sense. Know your environment and how to act in it. It's that simple, and a hostile work environment is defined as someone who lacks control, which is a liability that will be removed.
Obvious troll is obvious.
The words are NOT inherently bad. If what they imply is what you want to say, they're just perfect.
"fuck" has many meanings. "shit" has many meanings. Using them around others does not mean that you find them unworthy, or any other such thing. Friends use them while around one another all the time. To say otherwise is to ignore how people use these words. And yes, sometimes they are used in such ways, too.
The point is, they don't all just have one single meaning, or one single use case. I for one am not offended by them at all, and don't think of them as something for "unworthy" people. That's actually a totally new idea to me.
That is not because the word is bad, but because the parents don't believe the child is yet mature enough to properly understand what they are saying (at least that is the original reason).
You give people too much credit. Far more often than not, it *is* because the parents themselves are offended by the word.
As for "mature," outside of the scientific definition of maturity, that's yet another term that people tend to view as objective. Not you in this case, but many of the parents you spoke of.
If a child doesn't grasp that death is final, how are they to understand eternal damnation (even as a metaphore)?
A child is more than capable of understanding that it can be used to express anger, or something of the sort.
"Polite" doesn't need to be defined any farther than common sense.
"common sense" is in itself nonsense. Most of what is deemed "common sense" is neither common, and nor does it make sense.
Know your environment and how to act in it.
Once again, I'm criticizing people's incessant need to control the language that others use merely because they don't like certain words. Yes, I realize some people are petty like that, but that doesn't mean I'm going to put up with it.
which is a liability that will be removed.
Removed where? It depends on the work environment. My employer doesn't care if people 'swear.'
Also, whoever modded me down should at least apply the "offtopic" mod consistently.
Rape yourself with a gatling gun, retard.
Eloquent enough? You're worthless shit and nobody likes you. Die.
I'm the CIO of my company and we don't hire rich kids.
How do you know they are rich? Sounds like you have a discrimination lawsuit coming your way.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Much of the strength is going out of the words due to extreme overuse, much as a tinker's damn isn't worth very much. BUT when you're not addressing your friends, you should be aware that there are others who will take them at their traditional meaning and strength. As I said, I wouldn't swear in an interview, for example.
Alas, yes, many parents don't properly understand swearing, cursing and vulgarity either. That's why I qualified with originally.
A child may understand that a word can be used in anger, but is unlikely to have the necessary sense of proportion to grasp how much anger they are expressing (It is doubtful that a young child is even capable of the level of anger or disgust required for some of the words).
An interesting thing about swearing, it raises the threshold of pain. If you dilute them until they're just words, what will you say when you hammer your thumb?
No, severe Asperger's is obvious.
Again, this is a free world (for a little while longer anyways). That is your choice. I know people who did that same thing except they did it in order to flunk the interview so they could meet their job search requirements and keep drawing their unemployment checks while working under the table on the side.
This right there is why you didn't get a job with a software firm and ended up in IT instead. It might be a symptom of you not getting into one of these top CS schools in that when you are at such an university, you are surrounded by people who are as smart or smarter than you (perhaps for the first time in your life) and you realize really quickly that first impressions and looks are very likely to fool you when dealing with such people. You learn to look a bit deeper and you learn that a term like "smart" can take on many forms. Some people are better communicators, some are better engineers, some are better at abstract logic and some are more pragmatic folks that always make sound decisions. And how they dress rarely will tell you which someone is. So you learn to filter those factors and look deeper. Something you clearly never learned to do. And putting someone like you in a quality engineering team can be like throwing a wrench into a clock's gears. That's why you ended up where you did and no other reason. I've worked with people in the software field without CS degrees and with degrees from "lesser" schools. Your authoritarian attitude toward others is why you are barred from software firms, thank his noodley goodness.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
That this study is going to eventually morph into demands for more CS professors from women's colleges.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You're a fucking moron who doesn't have a chance in hell of working at many of the places I have worked.
I'm not somebody on this thread before, so I don't share their opinions exactly -- I agree with you that ultimately avoiding swear words stems from irrational markings (I think hatred might not be the right emotion). I also agree that it's unfair to compare a good communicator with an average engineer, because it lacks a control variable.
That said, fundamentally engineering is about making tradeoffs. The tradeoff of avoiding swear words for a smoother social interaction is very, very often a simple one.
Define "crass language" in a non-subjective way.
Why is the subjectivity relevant?
The dictionary.com definition 1 of crass does nicely: "having or showing no understanding of what is proper or acceptable". Proper or acceptable are of course subjective.
I would say that any language which unnecessarily causes focus to shift from the content being communicated to the form of the communication is a bad choice for communicating content, whether it's because of swearing, racial epithets, or because they are a Shakespeare nerd who insists on using 16th century grammar and vocabulary in all of their communications. This is true whether or not the receiver is being rational. I include "unnecessarily" in their as a hedge against the case where, for example, you have to discuss a bacteria evolving some novel capability with a staunch creationist that finds all talk of evolution offensive.
Really? So firing people for speaking those words, or not hiring them at all, is not an attempt to control others? How foolish.
If you go down that path, then literally every human interaction is an attempt to control others.
"Really? So only giving food to people who give you money in return is not an attempt to control others? How foolish."
"Really? So complimenting somebody on their developing musical talent is not an attempt to control others? How foolish."
etc.
Also, "pleasant" is subjective.
Again...so what?
The root of the problem seems to be that you place no value in others' subjective value judgements.
Of course I would make a poor engineer, I'm not even qualified to do the job. All that other rubbish you speak about is meaningless on me and knowing the imbeciles I come into contact with regularly, I would say it is meaningless in practice throughout most businesses.
No, my lack of qualifications is why I am barred from working in software firms on software projects. And I will almost bet that any company you are working for would reject you for showing up in less than appropriate clothing speaking less than appropriately. Yes, cussing in most all states, certainly those with lots of software engineering opportunities, is considered creating a hostile work place which lets someone quit and draw unemployment for that reason. Almost all HR departments will weed you out as soon as they are aware of it. Well, unless you are in your own firm or one of those start ups who will be purchased for peanuts, have their IP raided, and shipped off to India as a side project for one of their understaffed teams.
I've a degree from my local Uni. Not a bad place to get a degree, but far from the southern Ivy league in the same city. In fact, for Comp. Sci, my school is probably a bit above mid-range.
I'm employed as a programmer, but I'm not a primadonna. I work hard, keep my nose clean, and don't go stepping on toes. Unlike some flash-in-the-pan test takers, I back my words up with two decades of verifiable experience. In fact, you're probably (if in North America) using one of my programs now, even if you don't know it.
Now, between you and me, admit it, you'd want to hire me. And I didn't even need to use four letter words...
It's just sad that we rely on pieces of paper to 'prove' our worth, even when most of the people with pieces of paper don't know what they're doing (Most of the people without don't either.). It's also sad that you need to waste your time in rote memorization facilities in order to get scholarships. It's just a huge waste of time and effort.
You know what you are? Bitter.
I would be bitter too if I got rejected just because I didn't have a certain piece of paper. That's illogical garbage.
But being "bitter" doesn't debunk his little rant. But yeah, I don't see why he would decline to hire someone just because they're rich; it seems like the same sort of petty nonsense that leads to employers not hiring people because they're lacking pieces of paper.
Clearly written by someone who never was at one of these top CS schools. I assure you that rote memorization won't get you a degree at any of them. Most of my tests at CMU were open book and open note and I can count on 1 hand how many times I used my textbook or notes during a test. Why? Because the tests weren't rote memorization tests but instead tested for your ability to synthesize what you learned and apply it to a domain you might not have ever considered. One question on my OS final was to write a device driver for an optical disk, with a pencil and paper (no compiler or debugger) in valid C. Rote memorization won't help you there. Quit being bitter and ignorant about educational experiences you haven't had. Perhaps there is a reason all the CS profs come from MIT, Berkeley and CMU...
PS Berkeley graduates about 4X the CS major as MIT and CMU combined. Not sure the author considered this in their analysis...good engineers are supposed to see this type of omission. Guess CIOs aren't...
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
You didn't do much to debunk my comment. Are you sure I'm the moron? Or is it that most people are as I described?
Jealous much?
I had *no* fiscal support from my family for MIT: I was an emancipated minor at 16. Most of my peers worked their *asses* off to make ends meet. MIT is *filled* with people whose parents didn't or couldn't fund their full costs: they have a "needs blind" admission program that is very helpful to kids, and families, who struggle with the costs.
So you can take your jealousy and put it somewhere else.
CMU is much the same way. No legacy admissions and grants and scholarships are entirely need based and not an honor (like say the Rhodes Scholarship is). Keep in mind that this for the CS departments, other schools in the universities are a bit different.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
PRISM, you mean?
I would say that any language which unnecessarily causes focus to shift from the content being communicated to the form of the communication is a bad choice for communicating content, whether it's because of swearing, racial epithets, or because they are a Shakespeare nerd who insists on using 16th century grammar and vocabulary in all of their communications.
I disagree. I disagree because it all depends on how *you* want to get your message across. If you want that to happen, then you have succeeded, yes?
But not everyone even bats an eye at 'swear words'; I don't.
If you go down that path, then literally every human interaction is an attempt to control others.
That may be so, but this is about *speech*, and controlling how other people choose to communicate.
The problem with the first example is that it involves private property. Controlling when other people are allowed to have your property is simply controlling your property. Complimenting someone doesn't control them at all; what they do is their choice.
So yeah, I'm not exactly sure how controlling your own property or complimenting someone is at all the same as firing someone or not hiring them because you don't like their choice of language. People typically need money, so they need jobs. The effect just isn't the same.
Again...so what?
I feel it is important to avoid stating such things as facts, in order to determine what 'camp' someone belongs in. There are people who believe such things are objective.
The root of the problem seems to be that you place no value in others' subjective value judgements.
Apparently, people here don't place much value in mine, either. But that's wrong, because I do take it into consideration at times.
>> they're probably untrainable in either social or technical standards
>> they're probably untrainable in either social or technical standards
> What an impolite word to use. I'd never hire you.
Thank you for demonstrating that you don't actually know the meaning of the word "polite". The problem is not the employers providing, and expecting, minimum standards of courtesy somehow interfering with the self-expression of the crude. Ignoring those standards of basic courtesy has gone with racism, sexual abuse, and poisonous commentary about colleagues that ruin a workplace far more than the crudities themselves. If they can't even control their language, how can one expect them to follow basic software or hardware safety practices? If they reject the rules as "irrational", how can one know that they actually check their code for error messages or always connect the big green wire to ground?
Much of the strength is going out of the words due to extreme overuse
I don't think they need much "strength." Since the old definitions won't just vanish, they'll still be able to be used normally.
Alas, yes, many parents don't properly understand swearing, cursing and vulgarity either.
Yes. People need to get it through their heads that words like "fuck," "shit," or "damn" can be used to convey a message or add emphasis to something, just like any other words. There's nothing that indicates someone thinks you're "unworthy" just because you use them, or any other such thing.
A child may understand that a word can be used in anger, but is unlikely to have the necessary sense of proportion to grasp how much anger they are expressing (It is doubtful that a young child is even capable of the level of anger or disgust required for some of the words).
I don't know. I don't think it matters.
And that also applies to many other words and concepts.
If you dilute them until they're just words, what will you say when you hammer your thumb?
Fortunately, history isn't lost so easily; the meanings will never truly vanish, and words can indeed have multiple meanings.
Clearly written by someone who never was at one of these top CS schools.
This is true, but not always true. It depends on the classes, the courses, and the school. Sadly, even some of the "top" schools aren't that good. They just look good in comparison to the rest of the crap.
But yeah, the top of the top aren't like that, I agree. I didn't mean to say otherwise.
Quit being bitter and ignorant about educational experiences you haven't had.
I don't know where being "bitter" comes into it. It seems people like to state what I think, even though I'm the only one that can decide such a thing.
Thank you for demonstrating that you don't actually know the meaning of the word "polite".
You'll find that what qualifies as "polite" is rather subjective.
You know, I'm honestly surprised so many so-called nerds disagree with my logical position, and are on the side of authoritarian language control scumbags. Well, I'm actually not surprised at all.
Do you honestly think "polite" is objective? What is inherently bad about swear words? Even if you yourself don't think that, what is inherently bad about opposing the status quo and not wanting to work somewhere where others control your language? I decided not to work in such a place, and the people here are much more logical than in the previous places I worked, but not for this reason.
Ignoring those standards of basic courtesy has gone with racism
In fact, I would say that racism is irrational as well.
Sexual abuse (whatever is meant by that specifically) is just irrelevant.
If they can't even control their language, how can one expect them to follow basic software or hardware safety practices? If they reject the rules as "irrational", how can one know that they actually check their code for error messages or always connect the big green wire to ground?
If you think that rejecting the notion that certain words are inherently offensive and that you should let other people control your speech is at all the same as programming in any way, shape, or form... I don't even know what to say. It's just a complete non sequitur; well done.
All things considered, using crude language (and especially swearwords) is typically a sign of weakness in people. As in: being unable to get their point across without being vulgar and being frustrated at their own inability to do so. Or simply being too lazy to care.
Suppose you're in charge of hiring engineers and you can get someone who (being equally competent on the engineering side) has the added benefit of polishing their shoes, not looking like some bum from the slums, and being able to convince people to adopt their views (as in collaborating with e.g. customers, prospects, colleagues) and to get their thinking across clearly, effectively, and without needlessly antagonising their audience (as in making presentations to e.g. management, prospects, competitors).
Would you choose someone who comes across as a potty-mouth, a bum, a Neanderthaler or someone more sophisticated?
I suppose it depends. If you want a small corporate cog that you'll never have to worry about reaching management levels himself (and perhaps turning into competition), by all means: go for the one lacking polish (or even the potty-mouth). Your only worry will be to pay said cog market value (for their technical competence only: they have no other qualities) and keep them fully booked.
If, on the other hand, you're looking for someone who might be suitable to represent your company externally (after you verified that their head is screwed on right of course) and who's promotable in due time, go for the one with a few extra qualities. Such as politeness and articulateness. You'll find yourself paying extra for such people. They're scarcer and more in demand because they're more useful.
No. They LITERALLY won't be worth a Tinker's damn anymore. Their strength is exactly in a normal hesitation to use them. If nobody would normally use them at all, they convey a much stronger meaning on the occasions they must be resorted to. A word can't carry shock value and be uttered in every other sentence at the same time.
Note that darn is often used as the G rated version of damn, but seems entirely inadequate if you should hammer your thumb. It means the same thing roughly, so why doesn't it distract from the pain? Because it's not actually a curse, that's why.
And for that matter, "your mother sews socks that smell" is just too funny to ever have shock value.
I couldn't help but think of Episode #12 - Using Proper English - The Many Uses of the F word.
Write failed: Broken pipe
My university, NUI Maynoth just isn't well endowed, big and powerful enough to trust it's own grads. It has some visiting professors from America and the US, and locally from UCD and Trinity, which are the premier universities in Ireland. Not many actually graduated from Maynooth, and if they did, they did postgrads in the States, or the 2 big aforementioned. I imagine this happens everywhere. We all respect prestigious universities.
What about the oversensitive, controlling people who feel that they can control other people's language? They're being coddled more than anyone. People who just want to be themselves and speak comfortably are denied something so basic, because of irrational prejudices against certain words.
No offense but this is a dead give-away to me: you have poor social skills. The ability to navigate around these people* and get what you want is a sign of strong social skills. Certainly there are some people are very touchy but usually people who grind up against this issue tend not to be very sensitive to their social environments.
* if you work in academic or non-profit they can be a significant power-block and can be quite intolerant as a group but I've never seen this in the private sector... usually 'your type' are the jerks there.
No offense but this is a dead give-away to me: you have poor social skills.
That's completely subjective. In fact, I'm surprised at the number of people who have no idea what it means for something to be subjective.
Where do I have "poor social skills"? I actually get along with everyone in my workplace because it's more to my liking. No one there cares who uses 'bad words' and who doesn't. No one is shallow enough to care.
So it depends 100% on your environment. Move to another country and you may find that *you* have "poor social skills" in that environment.
And if having 'good' social means mindlessly letting others control something as basic as my use of language, then I don't want 'good' social skills; keep them away from me.
Certainly there are some people are very touchy but usually people who grind up against this issue tend not to be very sensitive to their social environments.
Do you have proof of that? Looks like another arbitrary standard that Slashdot intellectuals invented in order to make their posts look more valid.
* if you work in academic or non-profit they can be a significant power-block and can be quite intolerant as a group but I've never seen this in the private sector... usually 'your type' are the jerks there.
While in my workplace, someone who gets all whiny about 'swear words' would be considered the jerk. Do you see how the environment matters?
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
And who's the idiot who's going around mod bombing me? "Offtopic"? If you're going to pull that one, why not also mod down everyone who replied to me, as they'd have to be just as offtopic?
There is no -1 Disagree.
No. They LITERALLY won't be worth a Tinker's damn anymore.
Literally? But that's utterly subjective.
If nobody would normally use them at all, they convey a much stronger meaning on the occasions they must be resorted to.
I don't think anything of them, and I never really have. I don't think anything of other words I rarely hear, either. It's just a person's style, so I don't really care.
A word can't carry shock value and be uttered in every other sentence at the same time.
The sooner all these fools are desensitized to the words and stop whining about it, the better. At least, I would think it's better.
but seems entirely inadequate if you should hammer your thumb.
Yes, it seems inadequate... to you. If using that word on those occasions is someone's style, then so be it.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Yes LITERALLY. Look up the origin of the phrase and you'll see what I mean.
For example, I could say that you're just another socially retarded dork who blames others for his own failings, but psychology tells me that you'll almost certainly have your ego pricked by that sort of remark, so rather than trying to form a rational response, you'll end up attacking me in kind.
You could say that, and I might even insult you back, but it wouldn't do anything to me.
That is exactly what the AC said -- so rather than trying to form a rational response, you'll end up attacking me in kind.. Others see what this mean but it seems that you are the only one who doesn't...
Nobody's stopping you from saying "fuck" a thousand times, numb-nuts. It's just that if you consider yourself such a special snowflake that you just need to so express yourself, reason be damned, expect to be ignored or rejected for getting in the way of people who can communicate - therefore work - more productively than you, and who ultimately are more pleasant company.
Really? So firing people for speaking those words, or not hiring them at all, is not an attempt to control others? How foolish.
You can think that way about "controlling" others if you are looking from the opposite point of view. Others do not see it as controlling others but controlling oneself. When someone said a swear word, it is generally associated with negative thought. If one does not have self control and say it whenever one wants, then the message could be wrongly delivered to others. Oh, and you may be fired if you say something like that to important clients of the company. If they feel the same way you do, then there is nothing to lose or gain. However, should it be enough reason to fire you when the company lost confident from clients (and could lose the clients) because they have opposite feeling from yours? And not hiring these people would prevent the situation I mentioned. Furthermore, working is a team work. Any destructive argument that can be prevented should be prevented.
Swearing words come with connotation and they are usually added to negative conversation since I have ever known about these words. You could say whatever you want as long as it does not involve others (some what 1st amendment?). If I am the person who is managing you, I have to consider others into the equation. I have to prevent any bad consequence even though you may not see it (and obviously you don't). If I am the person being talked to, I have to consider my own right (as you consider yours). I would see that you can't reason with me so you try to over talk me with the kind of language instead.
That is exactly what the AC said
Then I confirmed what he said. What's your point?
Others do not see it as controlling others but controlling oneself.
Then they're out of their minds. If you threaten to fire/not hire people because they use swear words, I do not believe any intelligent person would conclude that this is not an attempt to control them.
When someone said a swear word, it is generally associated with negative thought.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with negative thoughts. There are other ways to say the same thing, and yet people irrationally have no problems with these 'replacements'.
Swearing words come with connotation and they are usually added to negative conversation since I have ever known about these words.
How long these silly beliefs have been around is completely irrelevant to how rational they are. The idea that certain words are inherently bad (As many people think.) is religious nonsense perpetuated by people who are really no better than religious fundamentalists.
If I am the person who is managing you, I have to consider others into the equation.
It is not that I do not understand what you mean, but I am talking about the 'disease' that our authoritarian society as a whole is afflicted with. What creates this need to worry about whether or not people use 'swear words' in workplaces? The irrational ideas and the cultural brainwashing that I've been criticizing all along. And yet so many people seem incapable of questioning the ideas their society has placed onto them.
But other than that, it depends on the workplace. You won't get fired where I work even if you swear in front of the boss.
I would see that you can't reason with me so you try to over talk me with the kind of language instead.
That's a silly way of looking at it. Those words can be used to convey a meaning, just like any other words.
As I said, cultural indoctrination.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Then I confirmed what he said. What's your point?
My straight point is that you will never understand because you always come back with pointless question as always.
Then they're out of their minds. If you threaten to fire/not hire people because they use swear words, I do not believe any intelligent person would conclude that this is not an attempt to control them.
Every single interaction of humans can be seen as control in every way (and if you let it be). So you are trying to control me to NOT fire them? Of course. So please don't try to impose that there is only one side of control here.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with negative thoughts. There are other ways to say the same thing, and yet people irrationally have no problems with these 'replacements'.
You confirm me that you are a short-sighted person. You cannot see anything far ahead and can't plan on anything because you are so afraid of anyone controlling you. It is not my problem anyway.
How long these silly beliefs have been around is completely irrelevant to how rational they are. The idea that certain words are inherently bad (As many people think.) is religious nonsense perpetuated by people who are really no better than religious fundamentalists.
It is call history. Oh yes, I forgot that you can't understand anything from others. I am sorry that I am trying to control you to understand.
But other than that, it depends on the workplace. You won't get fired where I work even if you swear in front of the boss.
Boss != Clients period. Besides, did I ever said a word about boss in my previous post anyway? Don't know where you dig it from. I hope this is not another tactic to open up more distractions.
That's a silly way of looking at it. Those words can be used to convey a meaning, just like any other words.
Conveying a meaning != reasoning. Therefore, you are still missing the point and don't understand. I hope English is not your native language because you demonstrate that you can't understand the point in many places of your replies (including to others) but rather sway it and throw in new distractions.
As I said, cultural indoctrination.
Who said you can't criticize? It is an argument and you lose all the way through, but you try to be a straw man and argue your way out with non-sense reasoning. So I can't reason with someone who does not know how to argue but rather distort the topic and play a victim. I guess this is enough said.
My straight point is that you will never understand because you always come back with pointless question as always.
What? You said something. I responded, and then asked your point. So... what was your point?
Every single interaction of humans can be seen as control in every way (and if you let it be). So you are trying to control me to NOT fire them?
Yeah, almost.
As for firing them, that's just petty. However, I only try to convince others through argumentation; nothing more. That is not control, and it seems you have trouble understanding what it means to control others.
You confirm me that you are a short-sighted person. You cannot see anything far ahead and can't plan on anything because you are so afraid of anyone controlling you. It is not my problem anyway.
You didn't actually debunk anything I said.
It is call history. Oh yes, I forgot that you can't understand anything from others.
Once again, you didn't provide an actual counterargument. Insulting me and saying "history" is not a counterargument for what I said.
Boss != Clients period.
In a workplace, employers are sort of important. If they let you stick around, then your workplace is rather different. As for where you mentioned bosses, well, since this is a discussion about workplaces and firing people, it's not surprising that I would bring it up.
Conveying a meaning != reasoning.
Your sentence != reasoning, either. These words can be used to convey a meaning, *just like any other words that you would use in their place to convey the same meaning*. There is absolutely no reason that you can't reason while using these words; that's just a non sequitur.
I hope English is not your native language because you demonstrate that you can't understand the point in many places of your replies (including to others) but rather sway it and throw in new distractions.
Your English is rather awkward. Are you a native English speaker?
Who said you can't criticize? It is an argument and you lose all the way through, but you try to be a straw man and argue your way out with non-sense reasoning.
You don't even know what a straw man is, it seems.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
What? You said something. I responded, and then asked your point. So... what was your point?
Straw man ;)
Yeah, almost.
As for firing them, that's just petty. However, I only try to convince others through argumentation; nothing more. That is not control, and it seems you have trouble understanding what it means to control others.
No, all of any human interaction can be seen as control, not most. Using your "convince" word, I can still say I am trying to "convince" others, not control. It is just your perspective seeing that it is "control" if anything comes from others and it is "convince" if it is come from you. Period.
You didn't actually debunk anything I said.
Why should I debunk when those who have a brain will see it clearly, so there is no debunk. Besides, if I say something, you will come back with pointless questions again. No need to go further than that.
Once again, you didn't provide an actual counterargument. Insulting me and saying "history" is not a counterargument for what I said.
See what I said in the previous quote. No need further reply.
In a workplace, employers are sort of important. If they let you stick around, then your workplace is rather different. As for where you mentioned bosses, well, since this is a discussion about workplaces and firing people, it's not surprising that I would bring it up.
I have no ability to make you understand still. Workplace != Clients && Boss is NOT ALWAYS EQUAL to employer && Boss != Clients. Are you living in the U.S.A. where we are talking about? Don't try to narrow the topic to only WORK PLACE where you could get fired. The topic is about using "curse word" which is NOT LIMITED to only work place. You kept saying or defining words/situation to favor your own convenience. The short-sighted is not an insult but it is a message to open your eye, but it doesn't work. Also, cursing to your boss may not get you fired (most likely is depended on a situation and if the boss is the owner of the company) but cursing your clients and then the company loses the client could easily get you fired. I am not going to explain why but anyone who has a brain will know why.
Your sentence != reasoning, either. These words can be used to convey a meaning, *just like any other words that you would use in their place to convey the same meaning*. There is absolutely no reason that you can't reason while using these words; that's just a non sequitur.
Haha, you are defining the meaning of "conveying a meaning" to your own convenience. To CONVEY a meaning MAY IMPLY reason, but it is NOT ALWAYS EQUAL to reasoning. One can convey one's meaning to others to demonstrate the one's understanding. This is NOT REASONING. To REASON, the meaning MUST BE CONVEYED; otherwise, others may not know the meaning of the reasoning. If it is not clear to you, you may graphically think using Venn Diagram to help you understand (and of course, I hope you know how to apply this to Venn Diagram).
Your English is rather awkward. Are you a native English speaker?
I am going to use your own word, "what was your point?" I do not need to speak/write perfect English because others already understood what I said (but maybe only you who can't). But even native English speakers may not speak/write perfect English. Anyway the answer is no. English is my second language. While my English is awkward, your English demonstrates your inability to value and/or understand others' opinion but yourself.
You don't even know what a straw man is, it seems.
Hmm.. I don't know the meaning but others kept saying the same thing. I think you are the one who does not know the meaning and that's the reason why you keep argue with nonsensical reasoning.
I now can see why others