It changed when people started wanted to get above average paying jobs without having to get educated first. Their aim is to learn just enough for their first job. Just read Slashdot for awhile and periodically we'll get posts complaining about never needing a subject on the job; which is exactly the same sort of nonsense you hear from kids complaining about algebra, or even arithmetic ("dad, we have calculators now, why do I have to learn to add?").
It's also a broader social trend I see in America, where everyone's getting dumber and being ignorant has become a source of pride.
The programmer who only knows how to program is not a very good programmer. Almost all programming requires real world knowledge. Sometimes it's mathematics, sometimes it's physics, sometimes it's hardware, sometimes it's natural languages, sometimes it's art, and so forth. But I see the programers who can't really do anything except program and they don't seem to go anywhere; the advancements don't come, they're always seeking help from others, they don't learn on their own, etc. They often don't even know CS.
I see people who prepare with tunnel vision for their first job out of college but they never really get out of that rut later. The industry changes completely but without a breadth of education they don't adapt well.
At my university/college we had to have two minors, and one of the minors had to be in a non-contiguous field. That is, science and engineering students had to take some humanities or arts classes at a reasonable level (not just the intro classes). Universities like to produce well rounded graduates with a breadth of education.
Well part of the reason is to do something that is hard. It's a barrier to entry. If the university wants to maintain its reputation then it can't let in just any slacker. For people who don't want to do anything hard can go to simpler colleges instead, or trade schools, or just complain on slashdot about how things are unfair to people who don't want to be educated.
But the purpose of learning a foreign language is not necessarily to be able to speak that foreign language. Learning languages provides additional benefits beyond being able to watch telenovelas.
There's this trend in America do dumb things down and take shortcuts. So this is why a lot of people want to get rid of anything that seems hard. If it's an inconvenience then they'll just bypass it or find a short cut. You hear people who honestly ask why they should have to take a class if they won't need it in their jobs, which fifty years ago would have seem amazingly naive or shortsighted but today others seem to take such questions seriously.
I thought these were entrance requirements not graduation requirements. Ie, the universities want to accept the best students and not just anyone who managed the minimum effort to get a high school diploma.
Liberal arts students do have to take mathematics classes. CS students do have to take writing classes. Physics students do have to take sociology classes. And so forth. That's how universities work, they don't like having shortcuts. If you only have to take classes directly related to your first job after graduation then it's not a university and is instead a trade school.
And by the way, some colleges did use to have physical education requirements in the past.
I would say that foreign language instruction is almost always more rigorous than CS.
Next up, if we allow a programming language to substitute for a foreign language requirement, then why don't we allow boolean logic to substitute for a mathematics requirement, and printing out your program to substitute for a writing requirement. Because practially speaking the only reason people are proposing such an idea is because it's being used as a stupid shortcut! They're trying to making university admission easier, which is counter productive except for the folks who think a university is just another job training center.
But this is all a part of the ongoing campaign to dumb down Americans so that they don't think about anything except doing their jobs.
There are reasons for university entrance requirements. Primarily they are intended to ensure that the student has a proper background necessary for a rigorous education (as opposed to slack off high school education). Foreign languages are HARD, and thus this satisfies a requirement that the applicant has done something HARD (even if only at an easy high school level). Substituting something easy like learning a programming language misses the point there, especially as it reduces two requirements (math and languages) down to one (math).
Second, university requirements want a breadth of knowledge from the student because they're going to teach a breadth of knowledge, they do not want students that can only think about one thing. Learning more is better, always. A university should be able to point to their graduates and say "these meet our standards of excellence" instead of "these guys knew how to take shortcuts". A university is not a job training center.
Finally, a foreign language requirement, on its own merits, has many benefits. It teaches you more about your own native language. It trains the brain to think better, and to think differently. It is brain training, right-brain training, right-left brain interaction, etc. You do not substitute chess club membership for a physical ed requirement, so you should not substitute a mathematical process for a natural language requirement.
Learning actual languages actually helps train the brain into thinking a different way too. You understand your own native language better if you understand how other languages work. The point of the foreign language requirement to enter a university is to require a breadth of knowledge. Ie, it's a hurdle to jump over, it is most definitely not supposed to be easy. Replacing with CS as a requirement is utterly stupid because it's being used as a SHORTCUT. Universities already have a mathematics requirement, which is more where CS lies.
People are treating universities like trade schools which is not what they are. If someone just wants their kid to be a low level technician then they can use ITT or something like that. A university is supposed to create broadly educated graduated; they know mathematics and literature and sociology, not just one narrow focus.
I can learn a new programming language in a week. A natural language is vastly harder and can take years.
Finally, high school level CS, in my opinion, is pointless. You really learn nothing useful there. Just some basics of whatever the most currently popular languages are, they're not teaching boolean logic or machine architecture or algorithm analysis, etc. It's like calling the auto shop class an engineering class.
But think of the profits! The snag is all that money makes people try to get some of it. So they see Google or Microsoft of Apple using these standards and they want LOTS of royalties (hurray, free money!), but then that prices out the little guys.
To me, a reasonable access to "standards" should be in the $200-$1000 range, period, no per-unit royalties. Otherwise someone gets locked out of the system, and you may as well have some pseudo-standard from a consortium of rich companies instad. A good standard should allow students, hobbyists, small startups that are badly funded, companies that need to sell low cost devices, etc.
Ie, there are emerging standards for some wireless stuff, and if they decide that these standards can be used at $1 per device then that may seem reasonable at first. They may assume people are using these standards for $100+ devices. But there are companies who are trying to make $2 to $10 devices who will avoid the standard, other companies with $50 devices where management routinely refuses even a $0.25 part that would improve reliability, and so forth.
Real standards should be for everyone and usable by everyone.
Not a drug, not a food, therefore regulation is very lax. Lack of regulation causes people to take advantage of the system. Thing is, if they sold supplements listed as ginseng but which was really powered potatoes, it would probably be legal most places.
Next up, traffic on freeways is halted while investing a suspicious package. Turns out to be McDonald's bag thrown out the window as litter. But can't be too careful.
Seriously, what sort of self respecting terrorist would use a suspicious looking device?
Slashdot Mirror
Man, remember back in the past when people actually got educated, what a bunch of dumb asses. Now shut up, I'm bating here.
It changed when people started wanted to get above average paying jobs without having to get educated first. Their aim is to learn just enough for their first job. Just read Slashdot for awhile and periodically we'll get posts complaining about never needing a subject on the job; which is exactly the same sort of nonsense you hear from kids complaining about algebra, or even arithmetic ("dad, we have calculators now, why do I have to learn to add?").
It's also a broader social trend I see in America, where everyone's getting dumber and being ignorant has become a source of pride.
The programmer who only knows how to program is not a very good programmer. Almost all programming requires real world knowledge. Sometimes it's mathematics, sometimes it's physics, sometimes it's hardware, sometimes it's natural languages, sometimes it's art, and so forth. But I see the programers who can't really do anything except program and they don't seem to go anywhere; the advancements don't come, they're always seeking help from others, they don't learn on their own, etc. They often don't even know CS.
I see people who prepare with tunnel vision for their first job out of college but they never really get out of that rut later. The industry changes completely but without a breadth of education they don't adapt well.
At my university/college we had to have two minors, and one of the minors had to be in a non-contiguous field. That is, science and engineering students had to take some humanities or arts classes at a reasonable level (not just the intro classes). Universities like to produce well rounded graduates with a breadth of education.
Well part of the reason is to do something that is hard. It's a barrier to entry. If the university wants to maintain its reputation then it can't let in just any slacker. For people who don't want to do anything hard can go to simpler colleges instead, or trade schools, or just complain on slashdot about how things are unfair to people who don't want to be educated.
But the purpose of learning a foreign language is not necessarily to be able to speak that foreign language. Learning languages provides additional benefits beyond being able to watch telenovelas.
But do they communicate serially LSB first or MSB? Synchronized clock or oversampling? Differential signalling or singled ended signalling?
There's this trend in America do dumb things down and take shortcuts. So this is why a lot of people want to get rid of anything that seems hard. If it's an inconvenience then they'll just bypass it or find a short cut. You hear people who honestly ask why they should have to take a class if they won't need it in their jobs, which fifty years ago would have seem amazingly naive or shortsighted but today others seem to take such questions seriously.
I thought these were entrance requirements not graduation requirements. Ie, the universities want to accept the best students and not just anyone who managed the minimum effort to get a high school diploma.
Liberal arts students do have to take mathematics classes. CS students do have to take writing classes. Physics students do have to take sociology classes. And so forth. That's how universities work, they don't like having shortcuts. If you only have to take classes directly related to your first job after graduation then it's not a university and is instead a trade school.
And by the way, some colleges did use to have physical education requirements in the past.
I would say that foreign language instruction is almost always more rigorous than CS.
Next up, if we allow a programming language to substitute for a foreign language requirement, then why don't we allow boolean logic to substitute for a mathematics requirement, and printing out your program to substitute for a writing requirement. Because practially speaking the only reason people are proposing such an idea is because it's being used as a stupid shortcut! They're trying to making university admission easier, which is counter productive except for the folks who think a university is just another job training center.
But this is all a part of the ongoing campaign to dumb down Americans so that they don't think about anything except doing their jobs.
Voittaja!
There are reasons for university entrance requirements. Primarily they are intended to ensure that the student has a proper background necessary for a rigorous education (as opposed to slack off high school education). Foreign languages are HARD, and thus this satisfies a requirement that the applicant has done something HARD (even if only at an easy high school level). Substituting something easy like learning a programming language misses the point there, especially as it reduces two requirements (math and languages) down to one (math).
Second, university requirements want a breadth of knowledge from the student because they're going to teach a breadth of knowledge, they do not want students that can only think about one thing. Learning more is better, always. A university should be able to point to their graduates and say "these meet our standards of excellence" instead of "these guys knew how to take shortcuts". A university is not a job training center.
Finally, a foreign language requirement, on its own merits, has many benefits. It teaches you more about your own native language. It trains the brain to think better, and to think differently. It is brain training, right-brain training, right-left brain interaction, etc. You do not substitute chess club membership for a physical ed requirement, so you should not substitute a mathematical process for a natural language requirement.
Learning actual languages actually helps train the brain into thinking a different way too. You understand your own native language better if you understand how other languages work. The point of the foreign language requirement to enter a university is to require a breadth of knowledge. Ie, it's a hurdle to jump over, it is most definitely not supposed to be easy. Replacing with CS as a requirement is utterly stupid because it's being used as a SHORTCUT. Universities already have a mathematics requirement, which is more where CS lies.
People are treating universities like trade schools which is not what they are. If someone just wants their kid to be a low level technician then they can use ITT or something like that. A university is supposed to create broadly educated graduated; they know mathematics and literature and sociology, not just one narrow focus.
I can learn a new programming language in a week. A natural language is vastly harder and can take years.
Finally, high school level CS, in my opinion, is pointless. You really learn nothing useful there. Just some basics of whatever the most currently popular languages are, they're not teaching boolean logic or machine architecture or algorithm analysis, etc. It's like calling the auto shop class an engineering class.
Right. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Most used piece of furniture in large households is the toilet.
So are you allowed to rename yourself Anonymous Coward?
I've been thinking about a project to emulate USB over X.25 which could then run RS232.
But think of the profits! The snag is all that money makes people try to get some of it. So they see Google or Microsoft of Apple using these standards and they want LOTS of royalties (hurray, free money!), but then that prices out the little guys.
To me, a reasonable access to "standards" should be in the $200-$1000 range, period, no per-unit royalties. Otherwise someone gets locked out of the system, and you may as well have some pseudo-standard from a consortium of rich companies instad. A good standard should allow students, hobbyists, small startups that are badly funded, companies that need to sell low cost devices, etc.
Ie, there are emerging standards for some wireless stuff, and if they decide that these standards can be used at $1 per device then that may seem reasonable at first. They may assume people are using these standards for $100+ devices. But there are companies who are trying to make $2 to $10 devices who will avoid the standard, other companies with $50 devices where management routinely refuses even a $0.25 part that would improve reliability, and so forth.
Real standards should be for everyone and usable by everyone.
Still leaves open the question why in 2015 that web developers still haven't learned that automatically starting videos is a really bad idea.
It has to be sensational otherwise the sorts of idiots who say "SJW" won't read it.
The stats are revenue per employee. Where does Microsoft sit on that list. Being most profitable does not necessarily mean efficient.
Ad block or no script maybe? I got no video, and not even a place to click for a video.
Not a drug, not a food, therefore regulation is very lax. Lack of regulation causes people to take advantage of the system. Thing is, if they sold supplements listed as ginseng but which was really powered potatoes, it would probably be legal most places.
Suspicious lump under the bridge turns out to be homeless person bundled up against the cold.
Next up, traffic on freeways is halted while investing a suspicious package. Turns out to be McDonald's bag thrown out the window as litter. But can't be too careful.
Seriously, what sort of self respecting terrorist would use a suspicious looking device?