> *sigh* one of the classic complaints of interns is how they were told > "don't worry about the details--learn the concepts." Now, facing a > cardiac arrest, how many milliliters of what concept do they need to > inject?
Yet at the same time we have the opposite phenomena - guys who can configure routers in a Sunday minute, but can't even spell RFC. What I'm talking about is guys who might know what all the commands are, but have no grounding in routing protocol theory or any such higher concepts. All they know is - they see this problem, they type in this command. Such guys are useful if you need to troubleshoot your network at 3 in the morning, not so useful if you want to do something that isn't in a textbook. And besides, I hate to say it, but these guys are destined to be replaced by a good OSS. > > >The purpose of the > >> college > >> > degree is to provide you with a a reservoir of general knowledge upon > >> which > >> > you can draw, as well as practice in life-skills such as > >problem-solving, > > > > critical thinking, and time-management. > > To say nothing of coping with hangovers. I think you relate more of the truth than you think. The fact is, business is greased with alcohol, especially on the sales side of things. One of the biggest pre-reqs of being a good salesman is how to drink. And let's face it - good salesmen make more money in a month than we make in a year. > > > >To wit - in a hundred years, in the English major, Shakespeare will still be > >Shakespeare, in the political science major, Marx will still be Marx, > > Karl or Groucho? In any case, Marxism is probably more an economic > than a political theory -- thesis/antithesis/synthesis certainly did > not originate with Karl and Friedrich. Point stands though - in a 100 years, Marx will still be an subject worthy of study. > >> > Now, that I can't let slide. Freud was a seminal thinker, but in > detail, even his immediate disciples, Jung, Adler, Fromm-Reichmann, > etc., think more clearly. There have been entire new disciplines > since Freud, such as most of cognitive theory. Neurobiology is > transforming the discipline. The point is not to say that Freud was right all the time, just like Aristotle wasn't right all the time. But that doesn't mean that their ideas are unworthy of study. > > > Why are these mutually exclusive? Thinking of my colleagues on the > BGP convergence project, all practicing computer scientists, and what > we tend to talk about at the bar: > > Educational background > ---------------------- > MS, psychology Learning behavior in machines and people. Ethics > MS, CS South Asian cooking and theology > something British BBC comedy, political history > ?? Politics, the NFL > PhD, math Book publishing and writing style. Yet I doubt that John Chambers ever read an RFC before in his life. But let's face it. Let's be totally and completely honest. I know this might come across as a low-blow, but at the end of the day, who really has more influence on the direction of the networking industry - the best CCIE in the world, or Mr. Chambers? \> > > >Now I do agree that universities often times do have a certain doctrinal > >bent, but on the other hand, I have found most universities to be more > >filled with independent thinkers than the average place. > > > And one doesn't NEED universities to develop independent thought, if > one has the commitment to do so. They are one of many ways to a path. Indeed. But universities are the tried and true path. More importantly, they are the recognized path. The problem with any other path is that they are simply not recognized as such. Therefore when it comes to ascertaining who is intellectually capable and who is not, it is extremely difficult to gauge a person who took the road less travelled. Anybody can claim to be a wandering philosopher who has spent their spare time training their mind on the various mental disciplines of the world - but it is really true? Maybe the guy really just spent all his time hanging out at the local bar. At least with the college degree, you recognize the work effort involved. You know what it is. > > > > > > > >> I think you are committing 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'. Gates values > >smart > >> people and as most smart people go through university it is moot whether > >it > >> is the diploma that is significant in getting them the job or their > >> intelligence that is more important. > > There are dropouts at the highest levels of the IETF, etc. Hey, there are guys who smoke 3 packs a day who live to be a 100. There are guys who actually win in Vegas.. That's the thing about statistics - nothing is ever guaranteed. There will always be exceptions. I certainly am not going to tell my kids that smoking is good or that they should spend their entire life savings at the roulette table. > > > > >Even if this were the case, in the eyes of a company, to paraphrase from > >Thomas Sowell, it doesn't matter. Whether college improves one's mind or > >whether bright minds tend to go to college - at the end of the day, if > >you're looking for smart people, you improve your odds of finding them by > >recruiting college graduates. The only thing a company sees is that > >productive workers tend to be college graduates, and exactly why this is the > >case is neither here nor there. > > Perhaps true for inexperienced workers. Uh, not just perhaps. Look at the statistics - compare the starting salaries of college grads vs. non-grads. But why? Is it reasonable to think that companies just enjoy paying more money to grads? That they like it? Oh please please, take our money so we can have lower profits? > > > >Big question though - how do you get the opportunity to present? You can't > >just walk into Goldman Sachs and demand an interview. > > > >I haven't even gotten to the other huge advantage of graduating from > >college -the contacts. Let's face it, in the working world, it's not what > >you know, it's who you know. Isn't it interesting that the top management > >positions in New York, especially on Wall Street, are disproportionately > >filled by guys from Harvard, > > Again, depending on context. Richard Nixon gave his recruiters > orders to avoid Harvard graduates. He disliked their culture, but > did find very competent people elsewhere. Uh, first of all, I said New York, especially the banking community there. Second of all, apparently Nixon didn't hate Harvard very much. Consider his cabinet - James Schlesinger (BA, MA, PhD Harvard), Elliot Richardson (BA, JD Harvard), Henry Kissinger (BA,MA, PhD Harvard), Caspar Weinberger (BA, JD Harvard), Richard Kleindinst (BA Harvard), David Kennedy (MPA Harvard), and the list goes on and on (I'm too tired to research more). > > >and the top management positions in Silicon > >Valley are disproportionately filled by guys from Stanford and Berkeley? > >People tend to hire people they know, and one of the most effective ways to > >get to know people is to go to school with them. > > This is hardly the only way to do personal networking. Professional > societies are an excellent venue. For the technical community, perhaps. But what about the business community? The real question is whether you're more interested in the technical aspects of networking, or the business aspects. If you wanna stay technical, I agree that the degree does little. But if you want to get into the business side of things, that's where the degree gets interesting. > > >Harvard, in particular, is > >infamous for this kind of incestuous behavior. How did Steve Ballmer get > >hired into Microsoft in the first place? Might it have something to do with > >the fact that he was Gates' old college roommate? Nah, I'm sure that had > >nothing to do with it. > > Or might Ballmer have been hired if he was Gates' roommate at the > Party Hearty College of the Beach? Sure, but on the other hand, how many super-monopoly companies are founded by people who went to the Party Hearty College? It's all a matter of proportion - you go to a top college and you increase your chances of meeting people who are more likely to accomplish great things. That's not to say that those people are the only people who accomplish great things, but it's a matter of percentages. > > >\\ > >> > >> What is important to decide how to achieve one's goals is an honest > >> assessment of one's aptitudes and interests. For instance, I prefer to > >> study independently. As such, the certification process was allot more > >> fulfilling for me than university. If I want to read Hawthorne or > Thoreau > >I > >> grab a book from the shelf and read it. I don't need any external > >> validation for that. I think it is a terrible shame that we rely so much > >on > >> an arid pedagogy to teach us the truly important lessons of life. > Perhaps > >> this more than anything is to blame for the current atmosphere of > >corporate > >> malfeasance. Our learning is done apart from moral context and apart > >> largely from the world in which we live and breathe. Do whatever it > takes > >> to maintain personal authenticity. Trying to figure out your path > >> statistically by determining whether you have a better chance of getting > a > >> job by doing a degree or getting a certification is leaving too much to > >> chance. Figure out which suits you better and have confidence in it. > > > >It is indeed a shame that people choose to rely on an arid pedagogy. Yet > >that is indeed the way the world is. Go to any high school and check out > >all the lazy, unmotivated students who'd rather spend all day drinking and > >hanging out than learning anything. > > If they've gotten into these habits in high school or even earlier, > their chances at either college or a serious job is unlikely, barring > a major life event. Yet in the eyes of a company, how are you supposed to know that a candidate is a slacker? Every candidate is going to claim to be the greatest worker in the world, but how do you know that they're telling the truth - particularly when they have no work record to judge them by? Maybe the guy is just a total slacker - how would you know? Companies need some benchmark of quality to, if nothing else, at least figure out that the guy doesn't get high all the time. > > >If the plum of improved job chances is > >the way to convince them to continue their education, then so be it. It's > >a nice theory to think that young people will find their own educational > >path, but we both know the reality is that if we let them do that, then most > >young people will just go home and play video games. Again, like I said, > >go to the part of town where people are uneducated (which is almost > >certainly the poor part of town) and see how many critical independent > >thinkers you'll find. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60178&t=59481 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
