Kirby Urner wrote: > I think there's a shortage of computer pros with strong presentation skills. > Like, at Europython we got a 5 minute upbraiding by one of the few female > geeks, complaining that we collectively mumbled too much, failed to project > our enthusiasm for our topics. We must do more to delight, less to impress. >
Actually, there is a shortage of _people_ with strong presentation skills, period. Computer types are no worse than the rest of the population in my experience. <snip here, Toby's call for service courses in software engineering> > Probably the only way to push CS departments into offering such courseware > is to compete with them. Small technical academies, like those mom and pop > martial arts schools that dot Greater Portland, could specialize in various > skillsets. "Mom, I've off to a Plone class at Free Geek, then a C# class at > the mall, then a movie!" "OK dear, don't forget to take your cell." > > Academia has this clever way of setting up a lot of prerequisites, getting > you involved in this twisted maze, with degrees the cheese. With the new > certifications though, you can get a "black belt" in something, without > getting bogged down in somebody else's bright idea of what "competent" > means. That's what a of geeks want: freedom to customize and configure. > Of course the Internet itself is the best place to start. Hopefully academia is not now and never will be about "certification." They fill very different needs. Academia is about exploring the potential of mind in all directions. It's the place to go for truly broadening (in the sense of character and worldview) and deepening (in the sense of critical thought) experiences. That's why academics value scholarship so highly, even though outsiders may see it all as silly games. It's the one place in the world where students can be immersed in the exercise of reason and free inquiry with a minimum of distractions. Academic education is about fostering a mastery orientation where new challenges are met with determination and excitement. Certification, while valuable, is about demonstrating proficiency in some particular, narrow skill set. If you want to develop potential in-depth, you need experience building a body of knowledge with some depth and sophistication. The seemingly arcane pre-req structure allows that to happen. If there's anything I've learned from studies in both human and machine learning, it is that you can only learn new things that are relatively close to the scaffolding of knowledge that you already have. Part of a good education is figuring out how that scaffolding can be built step-by-step to lay a foundation for deeper knowledge. Of course, one could just let the "market" sort out who has the necessary background or aptitude to gain from a particular course. But that assumes that individuals who are not yet trained have as good an eye for how to build the scaffolding as those who have already ascended it. I don't see how that can ever be as efficient. Kirby, do you not see any irony between your two comments in this thread? One of the goals of liberal education is to produce well-rounded, deeply human individuals. One of the "bright ideas of competence" academics have is that students should be able to express themselves elequently, persuasively, and publicly. In my view, we (as a society) need more of this sort of whole education, with it's attendant mazes of pre-reqs and "extraneous" requirements. All the technical certification programs in the world will never produce a good presenter, let alone a truly educated citizen. --John -- John M. Zelle, Ph.D. Wartburg College Professor of Computer Science Waverly, IA [EMAIL PROTECTED] (319) 352-8360 -- John M. Zelle, Ph.D. Wartburg College Professor of Computer Science Waverly, IA [EMAIL PROTECTED] (319) 352-8360 _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list Edu-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
