Re: Testing job applicants

[Pete Fenelon <pete@fenelon.com>]

In alt.folklore.computers Mike Swaim <swaim@gemini.c-com.net> wrote:
>   A good CS program should cover both theory and practice. I've had CS
> classes that were pure theory. I also had a (required) class on how
> projects should be done. Both are necessary. I don't think that this is a
> particularly engineering thing. When I was a physics major, we also had a
> class on doing research properly.

Hmmm. There's different levels of "practice", though -- some places 
regard "write a Pascal program to..." as practical work; others regard
"program these two boards to talk XYZ protocol to one another over this link"
as practical work. I know which I regard as more useful.

>   It's easier and faster to teach a good programmer a new language than to
> teach someone who knows a language to be a good programmer.

Agreed 200%. There's far too much emphasis in introductory courses on 
language syntax and specifics. Ideally, whoever teaches CS101 or
its equivalent should just teach algorithms and data structures; the
mechanical details of programming are something anyone with enough
talent can pick up given time.  Drilling it into heads that prefer to
soak it up at their own rate is one of the best ways to alienate bright,
enthusiastic novices. You also get generations of programmers who regard
whatever language they were taught as "the only one for the problem" -- 
a problem if you grew up (as I did) in the Pascal era and could see that C and
C++ were more elegant, useful and practical :) 

pete
-- 
pete@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas" (HMHB)