Well, we might eek out a bit more intellect per student if we explicitly expose them to critical thinking. The smart kids will find the class boring (and should be able to test out), and the less intelligent might learn something that'll make them more resistant to the bullshit artistry they're bombarded with. I think it would be a net positive for society.
'mission', 'empower', 'powerfully effective'.. The propaganda burns!
Just because you're told to do it doesn't mean it's beneficial to your end goal for schooling. You should ask yourself why you're in the major you're in and then look at the courses and see which ones logically apply to that goal and which ones don't. A lot of times, universities stuff their programs with irrelevant coursework way above and beyond just giving you a taste of other disciplines. Coursework in two other languages is hardly a single, light 3 credit elective.
Well, see, there you have it. Did you know that the pope thinks people should spend more time praying, coaches think players should spend more time practicing, and employers think employees should spend more time working? I think the fact you're good at it makes you underestimate the time and energy required for others (even smart CS people) to do it. Most of us have our language patterns and vocabulary set while growing up. It's possible to learn new languages, but time consuming and difficult enough that it's unfair to use it to differentiate who finishes a CS degree. Even learning new programming languages is not really the same thing. CS majors have plenty of opportunities to extract core ideas from semantics (and apply core ideas WITH semantics) within their own discipline.
I won't argue with native language and history classes, but really that should be over and done with by the end of high school (unless the plan is to major in language or history). I also wouldn't argue with relevant math or science courses.
For someone who claims language is so important, you sure miss simple concepts like hyperbole. Most people in CS are not 'participating in the world' as you put it. They're trying to gain employable skillsets in their communities within the reach of their abilities. When these tracks are stuffed with spurious work, these people are differentiated on irrelevant skillsets and denied success with the skills and talent they do have. This applies to any major.
Learning new languages doesn't automatically make you more 'worldly', either. Most of the effort is in memorizing vocabulary and grammar rules. It CAN help one to learn more about the language's cultural heritage, but since most non-language major students take the classes because they have to, I can guarantee that most of them are not interested beyond what is required, and they will forget most of it in short order. However, most of them are probably aware that different cultures are different! They don't need to slog through semesters of foreign language to learn that.
If your priority is not to get a good education at a University, then I fear you don't have time to attend one. You should go to a trade school and learn just what you think is important today.
Well I think we're debating what 'good education' means. It does not mean stuffing programs with spurious busywork that has little to do with the major. If a student is interested in language, that's great, that's what electives and minors are for. If it turns out he loves it more than his current track, then he should consider switching majors.
One does not have to be a fluent speaker to find value in understanding a bit more about the other people on the planet.
If you want to learn more about other cultures, take a relevant history course, but again, this has nothing to do with CS and should not be a requirement for the degree. 'A bit more' is usually not good enough to make the skillset employable, either.
The fact that you think the only use for a foreign language is so that someone can "yammer" pretty much disqualifies you from an intelligent conversation about whether foreign languages should be required.
If I am disqualified, why did you bother replying? Anyone intelligent enough to have this conversation could do so without ad hominem attacks. Perhaps we really should replace those extra language classes with logic and reason courses. Those are much more relevant to CS as well. Besides, it's true. People spend too much time talking and not enough time doing, and talkers reward the talkers..
I didn't say it wasn't a good thing. I said it's unnecessary unless you plan to use the skillsets in your career path.
A proper CS program is heavy on the workload to begin with. What's the point of stuffing those programs with spurious work if most of the students will not use the language after they graduate and pursue work in their given field? They're going to forget 99% of it. If the individual CS student is interested in foreign language, he can take those classes as electives or minor in it. There's no need to make it a requirement just to make more busywork for them.
If we drop two years of foreign language I expect ALL students to complete physics, biology, chemistry, and one advanced science course, plus a requirement to complete Calculus before graduating HS.
Most students would perform about the same in either of your AP gauntlets: abysmally. Foreign language is not an equivalent or relevant replacement for all those other classes either.
So does getting regular sleep and exercise. Does that mean we should we force all CS majors go to bed at 8pm and play college football well enough to stay on the team as graduation requirements? I notice a lot of people who push for more foreign language in other programs are those who are good at learning languages and have the interest. It's really not that different than the linux evangelist who doesn't understand why joe gamer doesn't want to part with windows. Most of us don't have either the interest, time, or talent to specialize in whatever everyone else is specializing in. Forcing irrelevant interdependency prevents this specialization, which prevents maximum opportunity for talent to express itself.
I think if you have the interest, go right ahead and take them as electives (or even minor in them), but otherwise there's not enough of a correlation to justify foreign language academic dependencies on CS programs. Students majoring in liberal arts shouldn't have to learn how to handle memory addressing in motorola and arm assembler in order to get their degrees either. There are good programmers out there who have enough trouble with their native languages just like there are excellent linguists and translators who are 'hapless techno weenies.'
I agree. Each year should have age appropriate lessons that challenge students to filter everything they're told for bs, but good luck making the necessary changes to the school system. It's designed like a factory.
Empathy and conflict management are things best learned in childhood (despite today's trends towards shielding kids from them). You don't need to study foreign language for that. Do we really need to learn 16 different ways to communicate when it takes so much time out of a curriculum to learn them? If learning languages was as easy as picking up the latest book and spending a few months, then you'd have a point, but unless you're a prodigy, it takes years to master any language enough to not sound like an idiot. If you need to communicate with someone at a high level who shares no common language with you, then hire a translator. The translator would've spent the years required to learn both languages and cultural customs. Those of us with other priorities don't have the time.
Yeah, the talkers make more money than the doers. What else is new? Why should we encourage this? People already spend too much time yammering.
So our rights end where your feelings begin? Yet you still want a platform to express your opinions, right? It's ok for you but not for others who disagree? It's ok for you to use something popular like twitter to express yours, but not ok for those who disagree to do the same?
What if 8chan wasn't run by a neo nazi? Would you be ok with it then? If not, then it doesn't matter what he is.
I find it ironic that you post anonymously here while bitching about anonymous speech.
The people who end up like that are often outspoken about their opinions. When they get some criticism for them, instead of having a rational discussion they claim they were victimized so they don't have to answer it. The trolling starts after that. If they're the types who get panic attacks then what are they doing spinning up dust storms? If you don't want your opinions challenged, don't broadcast.
or better yet, just say 'oh yeah? your mom!' and let it go. I mean, really, that's all such posts deserve. The fact everyone takes them so seriously is part of the reason why the trolling happens.
I don't think this is really over a few troll posts. This is about blocking people who offer legitimate criticism. It's a cultural problem that's getting worse. People want to hide from criticism now and label it troll behavior.
No it doesn't. They've openly admitted their position from the beginning. There's a checkbox that enables the whitelist. If you don't like it, turn it off. If you want to block social media tracking just add the 'fanboy' social media blocklist subscription.
A taxpayer has more say than a customer?? are you kidding? Sure, a taxpayer can vote...once every two years or so, and whatever he wants will be compromised out of the equation long before it's time to vote, and he still has to pay for it. A customer can look at what's on offer and say 'no thanks.' There is no more powerful vote than that of the wallet.
what about WASD? or ESDF? Whoever designed this ignored a whole shitload of intuitive precedent (same trend as these UX 'designers' for modern OS's nowadays).
So you'd rather be forced to fund services you may not need or want? If individual citizens want to get together and build a network and allow public access, it should be their right to do so. In contrast, municipal broadband programs are run by the state, with mandatory funding from the taxpayer. The freedom to control the wealth you earn is much more important than the illusion of free service.
If anything, these 'public' broadband programs will end up becoming yet another way the taxpayer subsidizes the established ISP monopolies. Just give them 5 years or so..
Slashdot Mirror
Well, we might eek out a bit more intellect per student if we explicitly expose them to critical thinking. The smart kids will find the class boring (and should be able to test out), and the less intelligent might learn something that'll make them more resistant to the bullshit artistry they're bombarded with. I think it would be a net positive for society.
Not what I meant. I meant teaching them HOW to filter bullshit.. to think logically instead of emotionally.
'mission', 'empower', 'powerfully effective'.. The propaganda burns!
Just because you're told to do it doesn't mean it's beneficial to your end goal for schooling. You should ask yourself why you're in the major you're in and then look at the courses and see which ones logically apply to that goal and which ones don't. A lot of times, universities stuff their programs with irrelevant coursework way above and beyond just giving you a taste of other disciplines. Coursework in two other languages is hardly a single, light 3 credit elective.
Well, see, there you have it. Did you know that the pope thinks people should spend more time praying, coaches think players should spend more time practicing, and employers think employees should spend more time working? I think the fact you're good at it makes you underestimate the time and energy required for others (even smart CS people) to do it. Most of us have our language patterns and vocabulary set while growing up. It's possible to learn new languages, but time consuming and difficult enough that it's unfair to use it to differentiate who finishes a CS degree. Even learning new programming languages is not really the same thing. CS majors have plenty of opportunities to extract core ideas from semantics (and apply core ideas WITH semantics) within their own discipline.
I won't argue with native language and history classes, but really that should be over and done with by the end of high school (unless the plan is to major in language or history). I also wouldn't argue with relevant math or science courses.
For someone who claims language is so important, you sure miss simple concepts like hyperbole. Most people in CS are not 'participating in the world' as you put it. They're trying to gain employable skillsets in their communities within the reach of their abilities. When these tracks are stuffed with spurious work, these people are differentiated on irrelevant skillsets and denied success with the skills and talent they do have. This applies to any major.
Learning new languages doesn't automatically make you more 'worldly', either. Most of the effort is in memorizing vocabulary and grammar rules. It CAN help one to learn more about the language's cultural heritage, but since most non-language major students take the classes because they have to, I can guarantee that most of them are not interested beyond what is required, and they will forget most of it in short order. However, most of them are probably aware that different cultures are different! They don't need to slog through semesters of foreign language to learn that.
If your priority is not to get a good education at a University, then I fear you don't have time to attend one. You should go to a trade school and learn just what you think is important today.
Well I think we're debating what 'good education' means. It does not mean stuffing programs with spurious busywork that has little to do with the major. If a student is interested in language, that's great, that's what electives and minors are for. If it turns out he loves it more than his current track, then he should consider switching majors.
One does not have to be a fluent speaker to find value in understanding a bit more about the other people on the planet.
If you want to learn more about other cultures, take a relevant history course, but again, this has nothing to do with CS and should not be a requirement for the degree. 'A bit more' is usually not good enough to make the skillset employable, either.
The fact that you think the only use for a foreign language is so that someone can "yammer" pretty much disqualifies you from an intelligent conversation about whether foreign languages should be required.
If I am disqualified, why did you bother replying? Anyone intelligent enough to have this conversation could do so without ad hominem attacks. Perhaps we really should replace those extra language classes with logic and reason courses. Those are much more relevant to CS as well. Besides, it's true. People spend too much time talking and not enough time doing, and talkers reward the talkers..
I didn't say it wasn't a good thing. I said it's unnecessary unless you plan to use the skillsets in your career path.
A proper CS program is heavy on the workload to begin with. What's the point of stuffing those programs with spurious work if most of the students will not use the language after they graduate and pursue work in their given field? They're going to forget 99% of it. If the individual CS student is interested in foreign language, he can take those classes as electives or minor in it. There's no need to make it a requirement just to make more busywork for them.
If we drop two years of foreign language I expect ALL students to complete physics, biology, chemistry, and one advanced science course, plus a requirement to complete Calculus before graduating HS.
Most students would perform about the same in either of your AP gauntlets: abysmally. Foreign language is not an equivalent or relevant replacement for all those other classes either.
Neither are 'your mom' jokes, but we also choose not to take them seriously.
So does getting regular sleep and exercise. Does that mean we should we force all CS majors go to bed at 8pm and play college football well enough to stay on the team as graduation requirements? I notice a lot of people who push for more foreign language in other programs are those who are good at learning languages and have the interest. It's really not that different than the linux evangelist who doesn't understand why joe gamer doesn't want to part with windows. Most of us don't have either the interest, time, or talent to specialize in whatever everyone else is specializing in. Forcing irrelevant interdependency prevents this specialization, which prevents maximum opportunity for talent to express itself.
I think if you have the interest, go right ahead and take them as electives (or even minor in them), but otherwise there's not enough of a correlation to justify foreign language academic dependencies on CS programs. Students majoring in liberal arts shouldn't have to learn how to handle memory addressing in motorola and arm assembler in order to get their degrees either. There are good programmers out there who have enough trouble with their native languages just like there are excellent linguists and translators who are 'hapless techno weenies.'
I agree. Each year should have age appropriate lessons that challenge students to filter everything they're told for bs, but good luck making the necessary changes to the school system. It's designed like a factory.
Empathy and conflict management are things best learned in childhood (despite today's trends towards shielding kids from them). You don't need to study foreign language for that. Do we really need to learn 16 different ways to communicate when it takes so much time out of a curriculum to learn them? If learning languages was as easy as picking up the latest book and spending a few months, then you'd have a point, but unless you're a prodigy, it takes years to master any language enough to not sound like an idiot. If you need to communicate with someone at a high level who shares no common language with you, then hire a translator. The translator would've spent the years required to learn both languages and cultural customs. Those of us with other priorities don't have the time.
Yeah, the talkers make more money than the doers. What else is new? Why should we encourage this? People already spend too much time yammering.
CS is outside most people's cocoons.
So.. criticism of opinions you agree with is victimization, but criticism/censorship/harassment of opinions you don't is justice?
So our rights end where your feelings begin? Yet you still want a platform to express your opinions, right? It's ok for you but not for others who disagree? It's ok for you to use something popular like twitter to express yours, but not ok for those who disagree to do the same?
What if 8chan wasn't run by a neo nazi? Would you be ok with it then? If not, then it doesn't matter what he is.
I find it ironic that you post anonymously here while bitching about anonymous speech.
The people who end up like that are often outspoken about their opinions. When they get some criticism for them, instead of having a rational discussion they claim they were victimized so they don't have to answer it. The trolling starts after that. If they're the types who get panic attacks then what are they doing spinning up dust storms? If you don't want your opinions challenged, don't broadcast.
or better yet, just say 'oh yeah? your mom!' and let it go. I mean, really, that's all such posts deserve. The fact everyone takes them so seriously is part of the reason why the trolling happens.
Just scroll past them.
I don't think this is really over a few troll posts. This is about blocking people who offer legitimate criticism. It's a cultural problem that's getting worse. People want to hide from criticism now and label it troll behavior.
Even community moderation has flaws.. It allows for groupthink to silence legitimate criticism.
So who decides what's a good post? What defines good? Posts that don't criticize your religion? your politics?
No it's not, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage them to keep it open. Walled gardens of self feeding belief is not a good thing.
Of course. Now if there are hidden whitelists, that's another story.
General Hammond needs to save us from the Robert Kinseys running our country.
No it doesn't. They've openly admitted their position from the beginning. There's a checkbox that enables the whitelist. If you don't like it, turn it off. If you want to block social media tracking just add the 'fanboy' social media blocklist subscription.
Exactly..and what entity enables their duopoly?
A taxpayer has more say than a customer?? are you kidding? Sure, a taxpayer can vote...once every two years or so, and whatever he wants will be compromised out of the equation long before it's time to vote, and he still has to pay for it. A customer can look at what's on offer and say 'no thanks.' There is no more powerful vote than that of the wallet.
what about WASD? or ESDF? Whoever designed this ignored a whole shitload of intuitive precedent (same trend as these UX 'designers' for modern OS's nowadays).
So you'd rather be forced to fund services you may not need or want? If individual citizens want to get together and build a network and allow public access, it should be their right to do so. In contrast, municipal broadband programs are run by the state, with mandatory funding from the taxpayer. The freedom to control the wealth you earn is much more important than the illusion of free service.
If anything, these 'public' broadband programs will end up becoming yet another way the taxpayer subsidizes the established ISP monopolies. Just give them 5 years or so..