Re: [Israel.pm] Is University Really Necessary?

--- In [email protected], "Arik Baratz" <yahoo@...> wrote:
>
> On 3/25/07, ik_5 <idokan@...> wrote:
> > Hello Araik,
> 
> It's Arik, Ido.

Sorry Arik, my bad.

> 
> > As far as I know from your "CV" (I didn't really saw it), you where
> > head of computer science at the Technion, or something close.
> > Now I really respect what you are saying, but because Nir used some
> > quoting, I have the need to use it as well:
> 
> I wasn't even close. I was an undergraduate student, I did work in the
> Technion Computer Center as a student, which is not the same as the
> Computer Science faculty. I did not have any role in this faculty
> other than that of a student.
> 
> > Personally (I always write about myself or on people I know from first
> > hand), I'm not very objective in my perspective, and I think that non
> > of the answers on this subject can arrive from objective point of
view.
> 
> That's fine, objectivism is highly overrated. We cannot be objective
> merely because we live in a subjective world, the one we created for
> ourselves. I can go on and on about that, though.
> 
> > Personally, I believe that the open source world gave us something
> > great: The ability to show the rest of the world our code, and the
> > ability to learn from others without the need to be part of an "elite"
> > group.
> 
> Ou Contraire, mon ami. Open source coders ARE an elite group. People
> who can code. The credentials you need to join the group: Be able to
> code and have free time. You know how many people have that
> combination? A minute percentage of the population. People who are
> well fed, well clothed, well educated (not necessarily formal
> education here) and don't have to worry about what they will do
> tomorrow for the essentials of life.

Actually that's wrong :) We have (in Israel) group of people that does
not know how to code, but still contribute. They translate, they write
documents and guides, they report bugs, and they help people to use
open source software. 

The thing is, that university is for rich people, that can invest all
of their time into having some sort of diploma. And the higher you go,
the harder for you is to find a job, and places such as the Technion
will also prohibit people from working while making a degree higher
then the BA (or BS etc..)

> 
> > Personally I do not believe that things such as exams can point on
> > someone knowledge in a subject other then taking exams.
> 
> That's not entirely accurate, it depends on the exam, and the
> examiner. And yes there are techniques for taking exams. I believe
> that you're also missing an important subtext, an important
> meta-program that stems from going to school (again, not just higher
> education): The ability to get an assigned task, do it, get feedback,
> learn from the feedback and do better next time.
> 
> This meta-program is, IMHO, an extremely important part in the ability
> to cope with life as it is today and be successful. It's a basis to
> basically everything you do. If you have a job - you're handed a task,
> you perform it, and get feedback. If you're self-employed - you decide
> on a task, perform it, and the success of your business is your
> feedback. If you're an inventor, you create something, you realize it,
> and acceptance in the market is your feedback. If you're an artist...
> I can go on and on about this, you get the point.

So why does “spill all your knowledge without interruption, at a
giving time” is the right way ? How about “Arik, please write me a
program that calculates the sum of all the digits of PI, oh and please
submit it by tomorrow”  is not such a good checking to see your
knowledge, and if you can handle giving tasks on time etc.. ?

> 
> > I do not believe that learning at a university can point something on
> > a person.
> 
> Are we talking about what other people think? Because I'm talking
> about what's important to you as a person, for your personal
> development. When I went to the Technion I went there because I wanted
> to learn, definitely not because I wanted a diploma. In fact, I was an
> Atudai (עתו×"אי) and when asked for the faculty, my first choice was
> computer science. I was asked to specify a second choice which I have
> left blank to the dismay of the officer who filled this form. I knew
> what I wanted to learn, I couldn't care less about the diploma. (BTW
> in retrospect Atuda for me was a bad thing and I don't recommend it
> without careful consideration).

So why is it so hard for you and many other people that did go the the
university that some people like to learn, but they can learn only by
doing it on their own, with trail and error ?

For example, at high-school, I found out that numbers are not
integers, but actually only wish to become integers, but they are not.
You know what caused me to understand that ?
I did not understand a subject in Algebra, and the teacher was unable
to explain to me the subject. So I started looking at the result of
things that was made using that subject, but when I tried to solve it,
I always got close answer, but not the same answer. That is if the
book written “1”, I always got something like 0.9333431 or 1.01 etc..
while the way I solved things, where the same as they thought us, but
the result was “almost” but not closed, so I concluded (after that few
other people checked my formulas, that found thing wrong), that you
can not have an integer value with out rounding things up.

It took me 7 years to discover that there is such actual mathematical
theories ... 
So who learned better from that experience, a person that learn the
subject at university, or a person that found out about it while
trying to understand different things ? !

> 
> Regardless of that, when I interview someone I do take into account
> their university degree, because I think it DOES say something about
> the person. It says "the person in front of you can take up a
> long-term task that lasts 3-4 years, a task which is made up from many
> different challenges, some are boring and some are interesting. All in
> all, that person took the challenge and completed it to a certain
> degree of success". Although not having a degree does not imply that
> the person is incapable of such feats, having a degree indicates that
> the person has done it at least once.

So the fact that I'm at the same open source project for more then 4
years (give or take, by the time I have to give something), and the
fact that I had 3 full years of service, and if tomorrow I'll raise
kids, or marry a woman, and live with them for years, it will say the
same thing ... 
So I do not understand this filter, because you have so many ways to
prove the same thing.
If you need to find a filter, please look at how the person using his
or her occupation. For example, does that person go to a computer at
home after 12-14 hours of work and continue doing something on the
computer ?
Does that person try to learn and be better, even when that is done on
that person “free” time ?
Does that person have more interests then just working in specific
subject.
And I can continue giving you filters for people ... the thing is,
that the above filters are much better then  having a diploma. I know
a person that have a BS degree, but he only knows things that giving
to him by educational places, such as schools and universities, but
nothing further then that. So why would you prefer someone like this,
over someone that does not have any degree but does have good
answerers to my filters ?

> 
> > I know (from first hand) a person that have taken curses in order to
> > have an academic degree in one subject, after two years, he moved to
> > computer science, with points on many subjects that gave him "ptor"
> > for a lot of harder classes, and now he learns CS in order to be a
> > software engineer.
> 
> Yep, I think most of the first semesters - math, physics, etc. - it's
> quite a lot. It doesn't let you waive the requirement for any core CS
> courses though.

I don't trust people that can't handle their choices ... 
What will promise you that tomorrow, that person will have a twinkle
in his eyes, and will use your place, and resources to have something
completely different then what he was needed for, and instead of doing
his job, he will do something else.

> 
> > I also know from first hand, few people that dropped out of
> > university, and returned to finish their degree.
> > And last but not least I know people that have so many diplomas, but
> > they don't understand anything.
> 
> Of course they do. They understand how to get diplomas. I'm not being
> cynical, but if that is all you gained from your academic studies, I
> don't think going there was such a good idea.

Then it means that having a diploma does not mean you know something
on the subjects you have learned, it means only that you know how to
get a diploma (what about buying them, or something similar ?)

> 
> > So I can't trust that someone can be good or excellent just because he
> > or she learned at the university.
> 
> Obvious.
> 
> > I also believe that no one is perfect (I know that I'm far from being
> > perfect).
> 
> Obvious.
> 
> > But why do you believe that only someone that learned from university
> > can have good tools and paradigms, while others can not ?
> 
> I'm going to read what I wrote to see how you got that impression.
> Nope, I didn't say that. All I said is that it can help.
> 
> > Why did the studding at university became like religion, that only the
> > ones that part of that "cult" can have access to things, while people
> > that do wish to know, but can't handle this religion, are not
deserve it ?
> 
> I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to unpack this question. You're
> mentioning a lot of terms I am not sure I get the way you get.
> 'deserve' is a very loaded word. It means that you have the right to
> something because of who you are or the work you did. So which one is
> it? What are the "things" that one would deserve being a part of the
> cult?

Most of this argument, is does a person that learned at the
university, is better then a person that did not, hench, he or she
gives you better filters to accept such person to work for you, or
with you.
So I still can't find an answer (that is not questionable) to why
people that learned at the university have better resources, and
acceptance, then people that have the same knowledge but got it
elsewhere ?
The only way I can understand it, is that they are part of a cult or a
religion ... because any other answer I was given until today is
highly questionable for me, and still doesn't really answer the question.

> 
> > "Until lions have their historians, tales of the hunt shall always
> > glorify the hunter."
> >     African Proverb
> 
> I like that one. Can you please explain its relevance to the topic? I
> hope you don't mean what I think you mean.

What do you think I meant ? 

Sometimes it takes years to understand a meaning of something, so
please do not take any shortcuts, because then you will not learn to
think, you will learn only to ask for an answer.

> 
> -- Arik
>

Ido