Subject: My Opinion about the Technion

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 22:28:47 +0200 (IST)

We've discussed the Technion before in this forum and I don't see why we
should not again. Here is my up-to-date impression from it. I don't know
how much it applies to other universities.

I'll divide this opinion into pieces:

1. Quality of the material covered

Very good, in my opinion. Quite up to date and relevant to what we have to
learn, with a few exceptioins (like the infamous teaching of C-shell
programming in Matam and Mamat). But as a general role, there's not much
complaints here.

The material seems to cover basics and foundations instead of cutting-edge
technologies, which is a good thing, in my opinion, because a university's
purppose is to teach just that. The latter is best tought by experiencing.

2. The Faculty

The lecturers seem to know what they are teaching well. Whether they are
able to convey it well, varies from lecturer to lecturer. (and in large
part from student to student). As for conveying it in an interesting
manner - that's probably even rarer, but still at an OK level. I don't
think other universities differ much in this respect.

The T.A.'s are usually better than the lecturers at conveying the
material, but I encountered a few really bad T.A.'s.

An interesting thing to note would be how much the members of the Faculty
were enlightened in the sense that they were familiar with cutting edge
developments, open-minded, etc. This came as a disappointment to me a bit
as from my impression most of them were not interested or knowledgable in
anything beyond their particular field of expertise. It was much more
evident due to the fact that some of the hackers I know and many of my
fellow students were such enlightened people.

3. The Workload

The workload was very high most of the time. In some courses, my partners
and I spent days on end on preparing the assignments. (and I'm a
relatively bright person). Luckily, in Electrical Engineering most of the
assignments are pair-wise, which is a great system, as both students can
help each other and there's a more discipline to get the work going. (see
for instance http://www.pairprogramming.com/).

This is not the case in the Mathematics Department, for example. In the
course "Set Theory" my partner and I prepared several exercises together
(which were extremely long, even for both of us) and received half the
credit each for them.

Generally, I think that there should be a decent amount of workload as it
forces one to know the material better.

4. The Tests

Some of the tests were OK, others were extremely out of context with the
material that was learned. This is the one point that makes me extremely
unhappy about the Technion. By all means, tests should be easy in
comparison to the handed-in assignments, so those who have learned well
throughout the semester will score highly (while those who don't won't
succeed too much). In the Technion, this system is not present in most
courses.

After a while, I decided that taking courses that renewed a lot to me was
risky, as I risked a bad test, and so took a lot of courses in whose material
I was very knowledgable in. That way, I can pass the test even if the test
is out of proprtion to the material that was conveyed. It is sad that the
Technion causes people to take this path, as obviously one of the
objectives of the higher education is to teach people things they don't
know.

Some of the tests were simply downright too long. Or a test in the
"Internet: Architecture and Protocols" course that expected the student to
prepare a trace of the TCP protocol by hand (without having covered this
material in home-assignments).

5. The Students' Body

I was very impressed with the quality of my fellow students (at least
those that I came in contact with). Most of them were hard-working,
intelligent people who were also honest and trustworthy.

My friend (and fellow student) told me that when his brother started
learning Medicine in the Technion, he complained about the fact that while
he had been the smartest kid in his high school class, some his fellow
students at the Technion were smarter than him. This was not really the
case for me. From my impression, some of the fellow students were more or
less in my level, while other were inferior in many ways, intellectually.
Still, even the inferior ones were honest and hard-working and so I won't
dare label them as "bad" in any way.

6. Conclusion

I'm not sure if studying in the Technion was a wise decision on my part.
By all means, it took a very long time (so far 11 semesters and two
vacation semesters, as well as two summers that were spent doing
projects). While it tought me many things, I also felt that I was learning
new things during the time I was working (before I joined the Technion),
and was also learning new things by experiencing on my own, and from
various resources on the Internet.

I don't believe I would have able to study the more Eletrical
Engineering-parts of my study, on my own. This is one reason that I don't
regret having studied Electrical Engineering, instead of Computer Science,
which I'm almost certain would have been easier for me as I am a
programmer by trade and an able mathematician.

Maybe I just happen to be a bright student who cannot handle high loads
too well. Maybe I just hate to spent my entire timeframe on studies and
also like to have other interests like working on open source projects, or
corresponding with my friends. But I don't think there's anything wrong
with any of these two facts, and it's a shame the Technion could not have
made it easier on me. If I could study hard the entire semester and then
be sure I will score high on my tests, it would have made the work
worthwhile, and me less frustrated as a result. But as it is, it's not the
case.

Right now, my general impression of the Technion is more or less positive.
But I'm still not sure it was worth my time.

7. Workplaces Treatment of the Diploma

Here I have a lot to complain. It is unfortunate that some workplaces
treat university diplomas as a necessary pre-condition for getting into
some positions. Due to the recent recession, some workplaces have gone far
enough into demanding to accept only cum-laude students or those with a
high degree.

Let's face it: many university graduates write damn right hideous code.
And many of them are honour students. Also, many people with very little
qualifications can write very good code and have a very good output. I
don't think people with diplomas necessarily make better engineers, or
better team-heads, or better managers.

Recently I was rejected from a workplace because my grades were too low.
For the record, I have an average of %82, which is not bad at all.
However, I:

1. Don't take the second date exams if I succeed in the first date, even
with a very low score. Likewise, I never take a course a second time to
improve the grade. I figure that the extra points are not worth the extra
aggravation.

2. I don't dedicate 100% of my time to studying. I also spend a lot of
time doing other things, most of which increase my knowledge and
competancy as an engineer. I simply _cannot_ do that, because I know my
grades will have only a marginal effect on my proficiency.

So, despite the fact I wrote several open source projects, and am a
more able engineer than many perpetually honour students I know, I was
rejected upfront, without even a calling to a job interview. Not all
workplaces are like that, naturally, but it was still frustrating.

A person can get a good mastery of computer science from online
resources and books alone. But unfortunately workplaces don't seem to
share this view from some reason, which is unfortunate, as they are losing
a great deal of good candidates. (and accepting some very bad ones).

--------------

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish        [email-masked]
Home Page:         http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/

An apple a day will keep a doctor away. Two apples a day will keep two
doctors away.

	Falk Fish

---

From: Arik Baratz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 20:48:39 +0200

> purppose is to teach just that. The latter is best tought by experiencing.
I disagree. A university's purpose is to get you in a position where you 
have the capacity to learn and to advance on your own, while giving you 
a thorough introduction to the subject you are studying. If you'd have 
studied LOGO on a PDP-11 it wouldn't have mattered, IMHO.

> worthwhile, and me less frustrated as a result. But as it is, it's not 
I can only tell you about a frined of mine who has finished his EE 
degree in 4 years (8 semesters) and he was working one day per week in 
Intel, and he still had time for extra-curricular activities, and he 
graduated with honors (Summa *Cum* *Laude*).

> enough into demanding to accept only cum-laude students or those with a
Why wouldn't they? They have a lot of people to choose from, and they 
understandably want the best. They can't invest in interviewing 
everybody, so they use the Technion's scoring system as part of the 
filter. Sure, they will lose some bright minds but it's good enough a 
filter for the most part, and they still interview the people so they 
won't get the screwups that cheated to become cum laude :-) Even if they 
write crappy code, they have the capacity to learn well.

> workplaces are like that, naturally, but it was still frustrating.
Did you add your open-source work to your CV?

> a great deal of good candidates. (and accepting some very bad ones).
I don't think workplaces accept bad candidated based on their Technion 
scores. They interview them as well. Read my previous paragraphs for my 
opinion as to why it is okay to judge people according to their success 
in university. And my grade is lower than yours, so I'm not just saying 
that.

-- Arik

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 21:13:03 +0200 (IST)

> studied LOGO on a PDP-11 it wouldn't have mattered, IMHO.

Well, I had the capacity to learn and advance on my own as far as computer
science is concerned before I joined the Technion. It was probably not the
case for Electrical Engineering, so you may be right. But I don't think
what we say is contradictory. The best way to get a student in a position
where they have the capacity to learn and advance on their own is by
teaching them foundations and principles.

> graduated with honors (Summa *Cum* *Laude*).

Good for him. I'm probably not so qualified, at least not psychologically.
And part of the reason I did not succeed was my strategy for finishing the
Technion (i.e: don't take Moed Beth, etc) I personally think there are
students who achieve none of the above, and still graduate. Some people
are more qualified than others.

> write crappy code, they have the capacity to learn well.

It is unlikely for a student to cheat and become cum laude. But I
understand your argument. Still, if it was up to me I wouldn't rely on the
Technion's scoring system to filter my candidates. Even someone with an
average of 70 in the Technion (at least in EE) is well above the general
populace as far as intelligence is concerned. (trust me - I know).

The difference between a 75-grade student and a 90-one is usually that the
other one's life revolves around studying. As an employer (if I were one),
I would look for the best engineers. And I will certainly appreciate
someone who was heavily involved in the open-source world (and I can judge
that his code is good), than someone who graduated from the Technion with
a grade of 95 and has no other things for his record. But that's just me.

> Did you add your open-source work to your CV?

I added some of it:

http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/SFresume.html
http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/SFresume_detailed.html

Mostly the most major one. There's also a lot of experience in smaller
amounts. This is harder for me to put on my resume because I don't want it
cluttered (like some resumes of Americans which I encountered), and maybe
because it's also harder for me to prove that I wrote it, or it is no
longer relevant.

> in university. And my grade is lower than yours, so I'm not just saying

If I cared about my Technion grade so much, I would have:

1. Studied in the CS Faculty.
2. Take Moed Beth or courses at other times.
3. Invest more times at studying.

etc. But I don't care about it too much. Should I, just to satisfy
prospective employers? I don't think so! I'd rather spend more time on
becoming a more capable engineer than on getting my average higher by 10
or 15 points. (which is not going to make me a better engineer)

So I don't think you can judge people by their grades alone. I had
Freecell Solver right on top of my resume. Yet, this particular workplace
thought it was not as important as a high enough average. But luckily not
all propspective employers think this way, and I know of at least three
who even at this times would have gladly hired me if I were available.

"I wouldn't want to work in a workplace that does not hire me as an
employee". (Groucho Marx via myself)

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

> -- Arik
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email-masked]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

	Falk Fish

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 00:52:23 +0200

I have so much to comment on, and so little time :( I'll just comment on
a few points then...

> (which were extremely long, even for both of us) and received half the

When I studied in the Techion (math department), the load was high. I'd
even dare say very high (there were moments I felt I was about to buckle
under the load). But I still think that there was no better way to study
what I studied, except perhaps stretching the degree to 4 years instead of
3. With any "discounts" - less courses, less homework or paired homework -
I'd be a worse mathematician when I came out of the Technion (whether I
needed to be a good mathematician, and whether I'm using this knowledge
now, is an altogether different issue).

On my opinion on group homework, see
	http://nadav.harel.org.il/homepage/musing/educooperation

(in short, I hate it. I can write pages on how cheats and slimy people
twist this system into getting high grades without working and without
getting punished).

> unhappy about the Technion. By all means, tests should be easy in

I cannot say I shared this observation. Unfair tests were quite rare,
and even when the tests was "unfair", it was usually something like "it's
unfair to give 50% of of the grade on an issue we only spent 30 minutes in
class on" (which is not completely unfair, if you think of it). Unfair
grading was a little more common (bizarre factor schemes which didn't
preserve score orders, a-posteriori changes in the point worth of different
questions in the tests, and so on).

> succeed too much). In the Technion, this system is not present in most

Why should tests be easier than assignments? If tests were too easy, in
order to seperate the "good" from the "bad", the grader will be forced
to deduct points off trivial things, just so that he doesn't get a 99
average over the class. This is what happens in school literature tests
and the like. When you're studying science, each question should have a
definite answer, and the teacher can take off all points if you didn't
think of the right way to solve the question. The questions should be
hard enough that bad students will not be able to solve them (and fudging
some amorphic answer will not help them). But the questions shouldn't be
open problems from the TA's Ph.D., of course :)

> material in home-assignments).

In the math department, when a test was too long (for most people) we
were given an extension. Once I had a 5 hour test (!). Yes, even teachers
can make judgement mistakes - but they need to be open enough to try to
solve these mistakes, instead of just blaming the "stupid students".

And yes, I hate these "hand-traceouts" things in EE courses... It really
annoyed me in the "digital systems" course I took.

> dare label them as "bad" in any way.

If the "inferior" people got higher grades than you, maybe they weren't
really inferior? Just a point to think about.

One of the things I really liked about the Technion was that I finally
got to study with a few people (but by no means most people) who were
equal or better wannabe-scientists than me. And got to study from TAs who
were obviously better than me, and teachers that were much much better than
me and I could aspire to be like them.
This was a very different experience from school (where the number of
teachers I could aspire to be like was very small).

> improve the grade. I figure that the extra points are not worth the extra

Good for you. You should know that some employers frown upon grade sheets
with too many second exams on it (these things appear on your grade sheets).
I never took a second exam either - I found them morally reprehensible
(just a defect in my brain, I know).

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |       Sunday, Nov 2 2003, 7 Heshvan 5764
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-790466, ICQ 13349191 |The 3 stages of sex: Tri-weekly, try
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |weekly, try weakly.

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 12:28:10 +0200 (IST)

> twist this system into getting high grades without working and without

I think the pair-wise system is good regardless of the fact that it
reduces the load on the homework checking. This is because the couple has
more discipline this way and are also able to cooperate and learn from
each other. Many times, they balance their own deficiencies. And yes - it
takes less time, which is good because the schedule is very crowded
anyhow.

I think that the prime concern of the Technion should not be to prevent
cheating this system. By all means, people who rely entirely on their
partners (or worse: copy their homework), will either not do well on the
test, or study just for the test, which would still mean they know the
material well.

I did not feel that I was not competent because I relied on my partner. I
never relied on my partner to do the job for me. I remember one course
(Image Processing and Analysis) in which my partner and I spent days on
end thinking and consulting about the exercise _together_. Eventually, it
was me who most of the time reached the solution, while my partner wrote
it down (because he has a better hand-writing). Was my partner a cheat? He
spent as much time thinking about the problems as I did, still engaged in
a cognitive process, and could learn from my solutions. Judging by the
grades that were received in the course, most other people just copied
their homework.

> questions in the tests, and so on).

I can testify that there were several tests that had no connection
whatsoever to the material at hand, and gave things that were not taught
in class at all. Maybe this is not the case in the Mathematics department.

Note that on some tests I was deducted points for things I did wrong or
did not know well, and was OK with it, because it was my problem not the
test's. I still do remember the "Probability" test in which a question was
badly phrased, and I ended up receiving 92 instead of the much deserved
100.

> open problems from the TA's Ph.D., of course :)

I'm not saying tests should not be challenging or require some thought on
the taker's part or require a good knowledge of the material at hand. But
they should be easier than the assignments. That way you know that only
the students who have prepared the assignment will ace the test, while
those who copied them or did not study the entire semester will not know
what to do anyhow.

I recall a story that the Comnet-lab engineer told us about the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He said that there the students study
about four courses each semester with a lot of challenging homework.
Afterwards, the tests are easy in comparison to he homework. This is a
good system. And no, they don't deduct points on stupid things, like
crazy.

And you must be a poor soul if you care so much about the statistics of
the received grades. In UNC, it is possible that the statistics is much
different than the Technion, but it is actually a good indication.

> solve these mistakes, instead of just blaming the "stupid students".

I had some test extensions. They weren't always enough.

> annoyed me in the "digital systems" course I took.

:-)

> really inferior? Just a point to think about.

I did not say "inferior". I said "inferior intellectually". And yes, some
people who were not as competent or insightful or bright or experienced as
me, received higher grades. So what? Does it mean I am less intelligent
than they are? Are the Technion grades a 1 to 1 indication of
intelligence.

Like I said, had I wanted to receive higher grades, there were several
measures I could take. But I don't care about my grades as much as I care
about my competency and so am not going to take these measures.

> me and I could aspire to be like them.

I felt that some people whom I was taught by were more knowledgable than
me, at least in certain areas. But I never felt someone was better than me
as far as brightness is concerned.

> teachers I could aspire to be like was very small).

I actually had a few very good teachers at junior high/high school. There
were also some students who were quite bright and intellectual.

> (just a defect in my brain, I know).

I don't find Moed Beth exams as morally reprehensible. Maybe they are a
bad solution to a valid problem. (they don't exist in the USA, for
example). I did take some Moed Beth exams, but only if I failed the first
one.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

	Falk Fish

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 14:00:51 +0200

> takes less time, which is good because the schedule is very crowded

My experience is that the two people usually divide the exercises among
themselves, and each person does a different exercise. This is the only
real way to save time when working in a pair... But you don't really learn
from each other this way, because you don't really bother to check your
partner's work (assuming you trust him).

If you just want to talk with another student about a certain exercise which
you couldn't solve, you can do that in individual assignments as well - these
aren't tests and nobody forbids you to discuss them with your fellow students.
This is what I did in my math courses - I had a good friend studying with me
and we used to talk to each other about exercises we were having trouble with.
We never copied from each other - just gave one another hints when one was
read to give up on some exercise. I think this is the best way to learn from
another student - not to dump half of the exercises on him. Remember that
during the test (and in many respects, in real life), you won't have someone
to give half the work to.

> grades that were received in the course, most other people just copied

If your partner came to the technion seeking to perfect his hand-writing
and thinking-out-loud-in-a-group skills, he probably succeeded. But I doubt
people study EE for that.

> those who copied them or did not study the entire semester will not know

Why do you think that everyone who prepared the assignments should ace
the test? Most people I studied with did assignments on their own and did
not copy. None of them had a 100 average. And this is the way it's supposed
to be... The GPA isn't binary -"100" for "good people" and "50" for cheats -
the spectrums of GPA is very wide. The tests must be difficult enough to
separate those that have a GPA of 90 from those of 80 (for example).
Obviously, they must not be too hard that everyone gets a GPA of 60 and gets
frustrated with his studies.

> good system. And no, they don't deduct points on stupid things, like

Such courses - where you have a lot of exercises and small or no test - are
also common in the Technion, especially in MSc studies in the math department.
But you'd hate those courses if your load is too high. On some of these
course, I needed to spend about 10 hours a week to complete all the exercises.
One of these courses I couldn't even finish because of the huge exercise
backlog I got myself into (1 month in the army) and I got a 60.

So as a person that doesn't get intimidated in tests, many times I actually
preferred tests to these homework.

> as far as brightness is concerned.

Never? Well, I was awed at the wisdom of the Math professors. Stuff that
took me hours to do they knew how to do in 30 seconds. When I had a question
that wasn't in the curriculum, they still knew the answer. Most of them
had encyclopedic knowledge and very quick and sharp thinking. I don't remember
saying myself too many times "This teacher is just some ordinary shmoe who
took the same course the last semester and now trying to teach it".

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |       Sunday, Nov 2 2003, 7 Heshvan 5764
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-790466, ICQ 13349191 |I work for money. If you want loyalty,
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |buy yourself a dog.

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 14:53:16 +0200 (IST)

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Nadav Har'El wrote:

> themselves, and each person does a different exercise.

That's not how I work.

> This is the only
> real way to save time when working in a pair...

Wrong! By meeting and thinking about the exercises together, it is also
possible to save time. For example, I vividly recall trying to solve
adventure games on my own and keep getting stuck at certain points. When
my friend and I played them together we had a much nicer time and it went
more quickly. The same is true for exercises like that.

I do know that some people divide the load. Or some of them prepare two
version individually and then compare the results. But I like to meet
together and prepare the exercises and so far this paradigm has worked
very nicely.

In one course, I had a partner who prepared the exercises all by himself,
while consulting his brother who had already taken the course. This was
quite annoying.

> But you don't really learn

Read my comments above.

> to give half the work to.

The problem with this system is that you should still prepare two versions
of the assignment. In Set Theory, for example, my partner and I wrote one
version of the assignment which we solved together, and then realized it
was very long, so instead of me copying it with my ugly writing or trying
to LaTeXize it, which would have taken much more time, we decided to write
both our names on the sheet. But then we were given half the credit each.

> people study EE for that.

My mother told me of one thing Prof. Mashler (a famous Mathematician and
Mathematics Education expert) told her. He said that one day one of his
students came to him and said: "Listen, this exercise you gave - I thought
of it for a long time, but was unable to solve it. Sorry". So he told her:
"That's OK. The important think is that you've invested the mental effort.
After that, you will probably understand and recall the solution better".

Some of the exercises and sections took my partner and I several hours to
solve. And I can't say that my partner did not help me reach a solution or
analyze dead ends. The very mental exercise forced him to understand the
material we learned better.

> the test?

By ace, I mean do very well. Not necessarily get a 100 score on the test.

> Most people I studied with did assignments on their own and did

Right.

> Such courses - where you have a lot of exercises and small or no test -

I do not mean a small or no test. The test is not small and it is the
lion's share of the grade. It's just less hard than the home exercises.
That way, if you took the time to prepare all the exercises, you'll have
an easy time doing it. Like if you got used to hiking carrying a bag of
rocks, you'll later on march faster without it.

> took the same course the last semester and now trying to teach it".

I suppose that if you teach a certain course a lot of times, you end up
getting a lot of intuition in this particular field. Don't get me wrong, I
met some very bright and insightful people at the Technion, and some of
them were certainly my equals. What bothered me a bit was that I did not
met a lot of people who were as eclectic as I am in the Faculty. Most of
the people who were eclectic were either undergraduate students or Haifux
members. Some of the gems I encountered are:

1. A graphics professor who claimed that two-dimensional graphics was
dead, implied that no-one is using it, and that no research is carried
forth in this area.

2. A doctorant who, despite being a system administrator, used only
C-shell, sed and awk for his scripts, because he did not know Perl (or
Python/Ruby/etc.) or bash, and did not take the time to learn. He also did
not know how to use CVS, and other useful tools, and did not wanted to invest
time in learning them.

3. A CS masterant who admitted that she did not take any courses that
required programming aside from what was required by the degree. ("because
it is too much work"). Isn't computer science as much about computers as
Astronomy is about telescopes?

4. A Digital Systems T.A. who was not familiar with the term "checksum".

5. An "Information Systems" (CS + Industrial Eng.) graduate who was not
familiar with the Turing theorem, did not believe it at first, and was not
very familiar with regular expression, closures and lexical scoping.

Maybe I'll think of more later.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

	Falk Fish

---

From: Adir Abraham <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 15:07:18 +0200 (IST)

> programming in Matam and Mamat). But as a general role, there's not much

I disagree with you regarding that example. C-shell is not taught as a
matter of programming, but as a matter of principle of learning what
script language is, and what is its use. Ofcourse, in the end, you are
tested on (small) programming - but that's not the issue. You can disagree
about using C-shell as a programming "language", but you are not qualified
enough (in my opinion) to know what are the academic reasons behind using
C-shell for that course. Whatsoever, you can't shove too much on that
course, and C-shell is really a small part in it.

> purppose is to teach just that. The latter is best tought by experiencing.

Universities are supposed to give you a basic background as a kickstart,
so while you leave the univerisity, you will take those tools and use them
to develop better things, probably at work or in research, if you go
there. Some courses are more "updated" and some are less "updated", but
the bottom line is that you are supposed to get tools and lines of
thoughts, and not more than that.

> material, but I encountered a few really bad T.A.'s.

Not really relevant. The TAs are used to "translate" what the lecturers
say, to what the student has to do (homework, exams, etc.), and they are
used to give a different view to what the lecturer says. Some courses use
their TAs in order to teach extra material, etc., so saying that the TAs
are better in conveying the material, I believe that it's not relevant.

> relatively bright person). Luckily, in Electrical Engineering most of the

Whether you are not a "bright person" - sitting days and nights has
nothing to do with it. I think that sitting on homework is a matter of
understanding the material, digging into the material, and organizing
time.

> (which were extremely long, even for both of us) and received half the

In subjects such as Set Theory (I took it as well) - you have to
understand what you are doing, and get into the proofs by yourself.
Dividing the work has nothing to do with it. Both of you should understand
all the material (or else, you will know the material which you've taken
to do homework, and that is probably half of the material in your case).

> unhappy about the Technion. By all means, tests should be easy in

Some of the tests are built to force a "relative" grade. They can knock
you off with the exam, and those who survive (= know the material better,
and are less stressed), succeed to get the 50... If you are the best in
your class (with 50) - it can jump, theoretically, up to 100. I personally
don't like this method, because I think that it's mentally frustrating -
but it works, and you do get a grade in comparison to your knowledge (as
if you got an easier test), in my opinion.

> succeed too much). In the Technion, this system is not present in most

I think that doing an "easy" exam, sometimes dones't serve the system of
your course. Sometimes the only way to know if you're good or bad is to
check what you understood. If you understood the material well - you will
get a better grade, even if the test looks "out of context". Same in here
- different methods of testing.

> material in home-assignments).

If it's in the syllabus and/or the lecturer or the TA covered that
material, or it's piece of material that you can understand as a
conclusion from what you learnt - it can be in the exam. That's the way it
goes.

> programmer by trade and an able mathematician.

I very much disagree with you about this. CS is a very wide subject, and
EE is even more (I think that it covers CS as well, except for the
theoretical parts of it). I'm not sure that you could study "CS" alone,
while it contains many tiny subjects. Some of the subjects you know after
digging into their homework and other ways of exercising. Maybe you could
learn them all by yourself, but I'm not sure that you have had that time
to do it, even as a free listener. If you wanted to taste EE (which covers
the computers part as well, ofcourse), you could go into computers
engineering which probably fits your case, and I think that it's a pity
that you didn't do so, if you prefered CS over EE - educationally
speaking.

> too well. Maybe I just hate to spent my entire timeframe on studies and

I don't know you that well, but.. Al Ithalel Hoger Kimefate'ach. I don't
think that "being a bright person" is a problem. You could have gone to
your counselor and he would have assisted you (and would have checked if
this is your problem).

> made it easier on me. If I could study hard the entire semester and then

The Technion is not a picnic. It's not even close to that. If you have a
problem or you think that you have one - you should go to the counselors
of your faculty, using the TAs, nagging the lecturers, etc. That's the way
you can help yourself. Nobody will do it for you.

> worthwhile, and me less frustrated as a result. But as it is, it's not the

The Technion doesn't really care if you're frustrated as well. You should
go to counsultation if you're such a position. I also consider to do that,
as I believe that I took too much on my neck in the last 2 semesters, and
I start feeling it now.

> But I'm still not sure it was worth my time.

That's a matter of taste, ofcourse.

> qualifications can write very good code and have a very good output. I

It's not only a matter of code. Really!

> For the record, I have an average of %82, which is not bad at all.

82 is fine. I'm sure that it was a matter of bad interview (if you did go
to an interview.. if you didn't - I take my words back).

> improve the grade. I figure that the extra points are not worth the extra

They do. It depends on your grade. I wouldn't think twice in order to
improve a 60. However - a grade which is closer to 80 - every course and
its own reasons.

> 2. I don't dedicate 100% of my time to studying. I also spend a lot of

Nobody does. Really. Unless you are a machine.

> grades will have only a marginal effect on my proficiency.

You are being a human. Congratulations :)

> workplaces are like that, naturally, but it was still frustrating.

Keep on going. There are many fish in the sea.

> resources and books alone. But unfortunately workplaces don't seem to

You can't prove that. The only way to prove that you have CS abilities, is
to have a CE/CS dilpoma, and/or to get an interview and to hope that they
are looking for an EE person who knows CS concepts. Don't forget - you are
an *electrical* engineer, not a computer scientist.

> a great deal of good candidates. (and accepting some very bad ones).

It's always like that. They can always fire and get new ones, so maybe
sometime, they will get you as well. I can give you some great examples of
people who got work in their very relevant fields, but had to wait between
0.5-1.5 years after their graduation (in the Technion). Bottom line - your
turn will arrive.

Good luck!

-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
Adir Abraham
Technion's Advisors Group and Public PC Farms Manager
[email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Haifa, Israel
ICQ# 1841481
Cel# +972-53-243438, +972-55-481245
KeyID: 0xD8DC85C7  Fingerprint: 138D 8F41 7A06 44A0  3DBB 9DC3 FE8B 2658
____________________________________________________________________________

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 16:26:54 +0200 (IST)

> course, and C-shell is really a small part in it.

C-shell is a very bad example for a script language or for a UNIX shell.
It is broken in so many ways, and pretty much braindead and impossible to
work with. I don't know how it entered the corriculum and certainly don't
know how it stays there all these years despite being a non-standard way
to program in UNIX, and something that no-one should absolutely not use in
any production code.

If the Technion taught Bourne Shell or Bash or Perl if the latter was
appropriate in this case, instead of C-shell, I would not have complained.
But C-Shell by itself is a braindead script language, and it's a disgrace
that the Technion teaches it.

> thoughts, and not more than that.

<nod />

> are better in conveying the material, I believe that it's not relevant.

I agree that the T.A.'s job is different than the lecturer's one. I know
of several good T.A.'s who ended up being a sucky lecturer. However, most
T.A.'s are better as T.A.'s than the lecturers' are good as lecturer's.
And I encountered good and bad lecturers and good and bad T.A.'s.

> understanding the material, digging into the material, and organizing

Actually, it's also a matter of implementing the material learned in order
to solve some problems. And this can take a long time in many courses.

> to do homework, and that is probably half of the material in your case).

I assure you that in the exercises we solved, both of us understood the
material well. I don't think that prohibiting pair-wise work necessarily
makes it the other way around.

> if you got an easier test), in my opinion.

I'm very unhappy about such tests.

> - different methods of testing.

See my answer to Nadav, and what I heard about UNC.

> conclusion from what you learnt - it can be in the exam. That's the way it

The rules for making the trace were given in class, but an implementation
of them with all the calculationis was never shown. I think that we should
be given an exercise doing that in our homework, because giving such a
thing in test without preparation cannot assure that the student have ever
done such a thing.

> that you didn't do so, if you prefered CS over EE - educationally

First of all note that I did ended up taking a lot of CSish courses that
are given by the EE faculty, so my degree was relatively pseudo-CSish in a
way. Secondly, CS subjects are usually easier (at least for me) to learn
on my own, than EE subjects. In CS, I can usually learn this stuff from
books without too much problem. In EE, I'll usually have a harder time
because I don't have much background in Electronics, Signal Processing,
etc. and so need the assistance of the faculty.

> I don't know you that well, but.. Al Ithalel Hoger Kimefate'ach.

What does it have to do with it?

> I don't

I did not say that being a bright person is a problem. But not being able
to handle high loads is. As for the counselor: I once went to her saying
if I could have a time extension and other benefits due to my bad
hand-writing. It turns out that to do so, I had to go to some "Makhon
Ya'el" where I should take a series of 6 hours long tests (and have to
bring something to eat), just to determine if my bad hand-writing is
caused by some inherent psychological problem. Apparently they do it for
all people with mental disabilities.

I decided it was not worth the effort. (and naturally don't really believe
in such tests). Maybe I could have given them a note from my Psychiatrist,
but did not try it yet.

> The Technion is not a picnic. It's not even close to that.

I did not say it was. And I don't think it should be.

> If you have a

How exactly can I complain about a test that was balantly unfair? (and
that the other students in the class felt so). Like I said, I don't slack
off in the semester. I prepare all the homework, go over the material and
prepare previous tests in preparation for the test. But then I have no
idea what to expect for the tests, and may fail because the test is
unfair. And this makes for a very frustrating learning experience.

When I go to a test I want to be sure that if I studied well throughout
the semester and know the material perfectly, I'll do well on the test. If
this was the case, I would have nothing to complain. But, sadly enough,
this is not the case.

> The Technion doesn't really care if you're frustrated as well.

Well, it should. Frustrated students don't work as hard, are less happy
with their studies, and keep telling everybody how much they hate the
Technion.

> You should
> go to counsultation if you're such a position.

I don't have a problem dealing with the frustration. It's just a feeling I
have. But I'd still would rather be less frustrated from unfair grading
and more willing to study.

> I also consider to do that,

Care to enlighten me what else it's a matter of? When a software house
hires programmers they want them to write software that is maintainable,
works efficiently, is modular, easy to understand, etc. How would the fact
that one is a university graduate give him an advantage over an equally
knowledgable non-graduate, who is a much better programmer?

> to an interview.. if you didn't - I take my words back).

I did not go to the interview. My C.V+Grades List was rejected because of
the low grades.

> improve a 60. However - a grade which is closer to 80 - every course and

Well, let's agree we disagree. Extra tests == Extra frustrations. What
matters in a course is that _I_ know I know the material well, not that my
grade reflects it. I joined the Technion to get a good knowledge, not to
get good grades.

:-)

> Keep on going. There are many fish in the sea.

And I encountered some very good fish recently.

> an *electrical* engineer, not a computer scientist.

I am a good programmer despite the fact that I don't have a diploma in CS.
And many people who have graduated from CS (even with Masters or Ph.D's)
make very poor programmers. Like I said in an earlier post, I don't think
an engineer is someone who has necessarily graduated from the university in
the relevant field. A CS/CE diploma is not a proof of one's capabilities
as a Computer Scientist.

> sometime, they will get you as well.

Actually, a bad worker wastes a lot of time for his prospective workplace.
In fact, the general rule of a thumb for interviewing is "when in doubt,
don't hire."

> I can give you some great examples of

I hope it will. But I still think these workplaces are not making a wise
choice.

> Good luck!

Thanks! Good luck to you too!

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

	Falk Fish

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 18:05:29 +0200

> to solve some problems. And this can take a long time in many courses.

I don't know about EE, but in math, succeeding on your homework (and the
tests) wasn't just about understanding the material and organizing time -
sometimes you had challenging exercises that did take a bright person to
come up with the idea needed to solve them. But for the inexperienced
bright person, it also takes time. Like Eddison once said, "Genius is 1%
inspiration and 99% perspiration". Unfortunately this rule applies
everywhere - both during your studies and later at your work. Another
relevant quote: "no pain no gain" :)

> makes it the other way around.

What you describe is akeen to reading a book of exercises solutions. Sure,
you'll know the solutions to the given exercises - but what happens when
the test comes up and you have a different exercise to solve?
Remember that a few years after you graduate, you're unlikely to remember
more than 20% of the material you learned (and maybe this is an overestimate
as well). What you should remember, however, are the thoughts processes -
how to solve problems, how to be a good scientist, and so on. There is no
way to learn these except working on your own. Reading other people's
solutions probably isn't enough.

I'm not saying, by the way, that learning from other peoples solutions, and
even their mistakes, isn't educational. It certainly is. But you must also
exercise your own brain if you want to learn to solve problems on your own.

> I'm very unhappy about such tests.

Me too - they tend to penalize too much people who get stressed by tests.
Ideally, the test should be calibrated such that a bright person should
get 100, less bright people should get less than 100. If a class has 10
bright people, all 10 should get 100. If the class has none, no one should
get 100. An "average" person should get an "average" score in the test, and
not go home feeling like he just flunked the test.

> What does it have to do with it?

Shlomi, I think the more relevant phrase is "Ein Hanachtom Me'id Al Isato".
You keep claiming that your were the brightest student, and even the teachers
weren't brighter than you, with no proof, other than asking us to take your
word for it.

Remember that being above-average (which you obviously are) isn't the same
as being the brightest....

> unfair. And this makes for a very frustrating learning experience.

There's a saying "expect the unexpected". Make sure you know the material
so well, that nothing can suprise you. Sure, this takes time and effort, and
yes it requires a good memory. Unfortunately, both these things are still
needed in real working life too (good memory is slowly being replaced by
electronic tools, but it is still very useful to have one).

I remember a test in the "Real Functions" course in the Math department.
During the course we learned a lot of complicated proofs, and we knew that
sometimes the teachers like to ask you to prove a theorem for which we saw
the proof in class. However, there was one theorem that was so complicated
(it took us 2 hours to cover in class) that I was sure we'll never get to
prove this in the test - so I didn't memorize this proof before this test.
And lo and behold - the teacher told us to write this proof during the test!
Naturally, I didn't remember the proof. Rather than cry "Unfair!", I simply
went and proved the theorem myself; I remembered a few key ideas and filled
in the details, and my experience in proving theorems (that only comes from
exercising) came in very handy. I got a 100 on that test.

So "hard" and "unfair" isn't the same. Remember that the test isn't supposed
to cover 100% of the material - it's supposed to force you to learn 100%
of the material, and test you on a small sample of it.

> this was the case, I would have nothing to complain. But, sadly enough,

A GPA of 82 you quoted means indeed that you did well. If you wanted to
do exceptionally well, you may have needed to study exceptionally well.

And I still don't see how you can "know the material perfectly" and still
get a grade below 100 - unless the test was misgraded, which is indeed very
unfair (but usually gets corrected in appeal).

> with their studies, and keep telling everybody how much they hate the

I think the teachers, at least the Math teachers I know, do care if the
students are frustrated, and try to keep tests fair and calibrated to
the level of students, not demi-gods. Sometimes they make mistakes, and
sometimes they have bizarre inventions on what to do on tests (I can tell
you a lot of stories about that :)). But the teachers too like to learn
from their mistakes.

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |       Sunday, Nov 2 2003, 7 Heshvan 5764
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Entropy: Not just a fad, it's the future!
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 22:42:58 +0200 (IST)

<nod />

> What you describe is akeen to reading a book of exercises solutions.

Wrong. We both solved the exercises together, while consulting and
criticizing each other's solutions. And so we both shared the mental
process and integrated the material well.

> exercise your own brain if you want to learn to solve problems on your own.

I can asure you I have exercised my own brain plenty of times in the
Technion, even when doing pair-wise work. Pair-wise work is a
great system, just like pair-programming is a great system.

<nod />

> weren't brighter than you, with no proof, other than asking us to take your

I did not claim I was the brightest student, just one of the brightest.
(why do you people keep misinterpreting what I said). It is very probable
that the teachers were more experienced than I am in their particular
fields of expertise, and so were brighter in this regard.

> so well, that nothing can suprise you.

I thought that nothing could surprise me with "Image Processing and
Analysis". My partner and I prepared all the home assignments (which took
us several hours), and prepared all the tests from the tests booklet
(which was also quite time-consuming), and reviewed the material that was
taught. The test was an open-material one and despite all that it
contained completely out of context exercises, which no-one had any idea
how to do.

Knowing the material so well that nothing can surprise you is easier said
than done, at least in the Electrical Engineering faculty.

> Sure, this takes time and effort, and
> yes it requires a good memory.

My memory is OK. And in EE, most of the courses have an open-material
test and if they don't you don't need to remember everything by heart,
just the important principles.

> Unfortunately, both these things are still

I don't remember investing so much time and effort in my working life to
achieve such poor results. Sorry.

> of the material, and test you on a small sample of it.

What if you learn 100% of the material, and it covers a completely
different 100% of it? Or it is simply too long? That's not "hard" - that
is balantly unfair. And such tests are common where I come from.

> do exceptionally well, you may have needed to study exceptionally well.

Let's face it: in courses I had a background in, I could get a good score
(not always perfect, but satisfactory) with an average amount of studying.
In courses I did not have a background in, I was many times extremely
prepared yet landed on an unfair test, and so got a low grade. I'm sorry,
but I do not come pre-packed with knowledge in all Electrical Engineering
fields. Some people seem to have a knack for it, more than I do, and so
can outmanuevere poorly-written tests, in a similar fashion that I can
handle poorly-written tests in CS.

If a student studied hard the entire semester, knew the material well, and
yet got a low grade on the test, it's not his problem - it's the teaching
staff's. I think the UNC system with tests that are challenging but easier
than the given homework, is better than the mess that currently takes
place with the EE department tests.

You can ask any EE student how many unfair tests he or she encountered and
you'll almost always receive an answer of more than 1.

Also, I don't know what it means to study "exceptionally well", but I'd
rather not study more than I have studied up to now. I've studied a lot
and studied well, and most of my grades are OK. But the extremely low
grades I recieved when I know I knew the material much better than that
and the test was unfair, are frustrating me.

> unfair (but usually gets corrected in appeal).

Several reasons come to mind:

1. The test is too long to be solved in the allocated time frame.

2. The test requires knowledge of techniques that were not covered in the
class, or gives exercises that were never encountered before by the
student.

3. The test does not seem to have anything to do with the homework. (like
two tests I took in "Waves and Distributed Systems", which I handed
without solving anything)

4. The test uses completely uncovered material (like a test my friend took
in "Digital Communications").

Maybe I'll think of more later. Face it - it happens, and too often to be
an exceptional case.

> you a lot of stories about that :)). But the teachers too like to learn

Whatever. Many EE teachers are having a poor success in achieving this
end.

My friend took "Introduction to Data Structures and Algorithms", which is
a basic course given by the EE faculty. My test was OK, and I got a 100 in
it. His, however, was littered with correctness proofs. In the entire
course, I think there's one demonstrated correctness proof. Plus, at this
level and in this context, the students are not required to know how to
prove the correctness of an algorithm. This is much more the domain of the
more advanced "Design and Analysis of Algorithms" and does not belong
there and was not shown in class or practiced in homework. What were they
thinking?

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

	Falk Fish

---

From: guy keren <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 11:50:17 +0200 (IST)

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Shlomi Fish wrote:

> Several reasons cometo mind:
>

the project was too large to be designed, programmed and tested until the
dead-line set by management. so we sat down, decided what is more
important (= will make a small project sell-able to customers), and
defined a sub-set of the project, that could have been prepared until the
said dead-line. had we not doen so, we'd have much lower sales, or even no
sales at all because we won't have any working program at all.

the same goes for such a test. you go over the questions, and put them in
order of 'getting more points per minute', and then solve them in this
order. the 'points per minute' is an individual thing, dependin which
qustions _you_ find easier to answer, and thus this order is different for
different people.

> class, or gives exercises that were never encountered before by the

ah, but that's the same for you, as it is for most other students, so
relatively, you shouldn't do any worth or better then them.

and in the project - we were supposed to develope a protocol we've never
developed before. so we went on the internet, searching for something
similar to take ideas from, and use as the bases of our work.

and in your open-material test - you go to the books, and quickly look for
something that looks as close as possible to the question at hand, and
begin from there, finding the analogies.

> without solving anything)

mostly the same as above, only that most students will do even worse,
since they will need to learn much more 'during the test', and in the
previous case. you'll still get your relevant positioning in class, and
the factor will make it higher ;)

> in "Digital Communications").

just a worse case of the previous thing. more learning, a lower initial
grade, a larger factor.

shlomi, the examples you bring cause the same problem for all students
taking the exam, making all grades lower. they later apply a factor,
because they don't know how to make an exam on the same leevl of
difficulty each time - it's not as easy at it sounds, after all.

but the un-fairness is the same for everyone.

and if you think a given test was unfair - do the moed bet. stop having
silly principles that show nothing. if you realy know the material well,
you won't need to prepare to the mode bet at all, so it only will take
about 3 hours of your precious time (ok, 3.5, counting the time it takes
walking to and from the room where the test is given). add 2 hours to
re-go over the material just to refresh your memory.

remember, each part of the system is flawed, so they patched in fixes on
top of it, in order to make the hole system less flawed. perhaps
re-designing it from scratch would have resulted a better system - but no
one seems to want to do that. so either learn how to use the technion's
system, or leave it, and go to a different system that you think is better
(bgu comes to mind). and if, one day, you get to be in the position of
interviewing people for work and filtering resumes - then you can do that
in a way you think is more fair.

what you are describing so-far, is your in-ability to flex yourself into a
large system, or inability to understand the rules by which it works, or
your inability to adapt to those rules even if you see them. there are two
things you could do:

1. don't go working for large organizations, unless you know in adance
   exactly how they work, and that you can fit in. go to the smaller
   companies, where the system is more flexible, and where you can
   participate in changing it, in cases where you think it can be
   improved.

2. learn how to 'learn' a system and how to adapt yourself to fit it. this
   is a rather desired ability, in many large organizations.

for some reason, i did manage to fit into the technion's system, because i
didn't take it too seriously, and saw it all as one big 'game',
or 'exercise'. (and i didn't go to EE, and blessed the maker every day for
that, because doing too much homework was never my cup of tea. hoorey
for 'non-mandatory' homework ;)  ).

and for the same reasons that you bring up, i avoided joining large
companies so far - because psychologically, it is hard for me to give up
on doing things the way i want them done. maybe one day i'll learn how to
either fit into them, or how to influence them from inside, and then i'll
go joining one of them.

until then, why whine so much? doesn't make anyone too happy, after all,
not even you - does it? no, please don't answer this question. it's
rethoric...

-- 
guy

"For world domination - press 1,
 or dial 0, and please hold, for the creator." -- nob o. dy

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 13:31:19 +0200 (IST)

> qustions _you_ find easier to answer, and thus this order is different for

Did that. Still got 57 on "Linear Circuits" as the final grade, because of
a long test.

> relatively, you shouldn't do any worth or better then them.

I don't really care how the other students did (except for those I
personally know). But sometimes I got misgraded or even failed the test
because of such a thing.

> similar to take ideas from, and use as the bases of our work.

How am I supposed to do that without access to the Internet, or to
libraries, or the ability to consult my peers, or in a time frame of 3
hours? I think this entire analogy to a project is a very bad one.

> begin from there, finding the analogies.

1. Not always we have books, as they are not always avialable in the "Dean
Library", that lends books to students for a fraction of their price. So,
we have to rely on the material given at class, or our notes.

2. The books are many times incomplete, too verbose, and so quite useless.
In "Waves and Distributed Systems" I could not find any part of the book
that really discussed the material that was taught in class.

The material at hand is not always enough, and often there's no mention
of the problem at hand.

> the factor will make it higher ;)

I don't want a factor! I want a fair test! How hard can it be?

> just a worse case of the previous thing. more learning, a lower initial

Again: I don't want a factor. I want to be tested on the material I
learned and do well or not depending on my knowledge and mastery of it.

> difficulty each time - it's not as easy at it sounds, after all.

It would be if they gave very high-level homework, and then tests that
were relatively easy in comparsion to them. That way, students who did not
study the entire semester would fail them anyhow, while students who
studied hard and solved the homework would do very well, or at least well
enough. That was the case (at least from my impression) in some courses I
took, but not all.

> but the un-fairness is the same for everyone.

Like: "Tsarath Rabim - Nehamath Tipshim" (the problem of many is the
comfort of fools)? Well, I do my best not to be a fool.

> re-go over the material just to refresh your memory.

Actually, the Moed Beths in Spring Semesters are at the end of the summer,
so I'll need more than 2 hours to go over the material. In any case, if I
took a  Moed Beth, I would study as hard as I did for Moed Aleph.

The problem is that you don't know how a Moed Beth is going to be. For
example, in "Linear Circuits", after the long Moed Aleph, a factor of 40
points was given in the Moed Beth (!!).

But the reason I'd rather not take a Moed Beth for a course I got over 55
in, is because:

1. I don't care about the grades too much.

2. I don't want to invest the extra effort just to hopefully improve my
grade. (I heard of a student who got 60-something in Hedva 2m, then took
the Moed Beth and failed. Took it again, and again got 60 something, took
the Moed Beth and failed. And now he's taking it again.)

Actually you voiced your opinion against taking Moed Beth here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hackers-il/message/1391

Right.

> your inability to adapt to those rules even if you see them. there are two

I did not say I was unable to adapt myself to the Technion. I did, in a
way. Most of my grades are OK, with some exceptionally high grades in
several places. Some of my grades are very low, but I don't care enough to
fix them and leave them at that.

My problem is that I think I was many times mis-graded and this is a bit
frustrating. And I'm pretty sure it's not my fault but the Technion's.

>    participate in changing it, in cases where you think it can be

OK, I'll give it a thought. The largest organization I worked for was
Harmonic Lightwaves, and I was only a  Summer intern there. I was actually
quite impressed from the atmosphere there. It was a medium sized company
and not something on the scale of Sun or larger.

>    is a rather desired ability, in many large organizations.

OK.

> or 'exercise'.

OK.

> (and i didn't go to EE, and blessed the maker every day for

We have non-mandatory homework in EE, but not in all courses. I prepare it
anyhow, because it can raise the grade if the test is lower and also
serves as a good way to become prepared for the test.

> either fit into them, or how to influence them from inside, and then i'll

Unless of course they already behave the way you want them too. Don't
know, never worked in a company like that.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

	Falk Fish

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 13:43:51 +0200 (IST)

> very familiar with regular expression, closures and lexical scoping.

Some others:

6. An EE student who was hardly familiar with C or UNIX, and
believed he can survive in the workplace knowing only Matlab.

7. An EE graduate who did not know English very well when he graduated
from the Technion, and completely survived without it.

8. An EE student who did not like Mathematica because "it sucked as an
Equation Editor", and wrote incredibly hideous code for the "Structure of
Operating Systems" course.[1]

9. An EE honours student who finished his degree without taking any course
on computers, programming or digital circuits, and while almost entirely
staying away from signal processing. (granted - there were several fields
of EE which did not interest me as well, either)

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

[1] - Just an anecdote. This guy once lost all his work because he invoked
the command "tar -cvf *" without the archive name, and overrided the first
file that contained most of his program logic. The course staff instructed
us to issue "tar -cvf arc_name.tar *" (which is dangerous) to package our
code for review. However, I knew the command was dangerous (instinctively
at least) and CD-ed to the .. directory and used tar there.

Naturally, this is a human mistake, but the course staff should have known
better than to teach students that. That same staff kept calling
directories "mehitzuth", which is actually partitions in Hebrew. Will
wonders ever cease?

	Falk Fish

---

From: Adir Abraham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 14:01:21 +0200 (IST)

> > not know how to use CVS, and other useful tools, and did not wanted to invest

A doctorant doesn't have to know all those things. He knows the relevant
things for his job and/or his general knowledge. If he's a doctorant, it
doesn't make him need to know Bash, etc.

> > Astronomy is about telescopes?

Maybe. But computer science is not about programming, that's for sure (we
can argue if theory of programming belongs to that or not, but programming
is only a tool, not a computer science).

> > very familiar with regular expression, closures and lexical scoping.

I don't remember if they have to learn computability theory or not, but if
they don't have to learn that - he will not know anything about Turing
machine, as simple as that (I don't see the direct relation between turing
machine and an information systems degree).

> believed he can survive in the workplace knowing only Matlab.

He's right. EE is splited to many subjects, and if he's into image
processing, signals processing and computer vision - he can handle very
well using Matlab only. EE has nothing to do with "real" programming,
necessarily. Same goes with the environment (Unix). If the sysadmin
installed Matlab for him - he can use Matlab without knowing anything
about Unix. It's about simplicity, and people who are responsible to their
specific jobs.

> from the Technion, and completely survived without it.

You can take "Anglit Metzumtzemet" as a Hova course if you are a graduate
student, and you can choose a 3rd language to your thesis writing (German,
Russian, etc.) - all in the Technion. This way you can survive without
advanced English. I don't see a problem here.

> of EE which did not interest me as well, either)

The person doesn't like programming. EE isn't about programming, and
doesn't necessarily have to use programming - at all. 3rd time.

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 15:27:22 +0200 (IST)

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Adir Abraham wrote:

> thingsfor his job and/or his general knowledge. If he's a doctorant, it

Right, but how about a system administrator? I expect a system
administrator to know such things. And I also think Perl (or any similar
language) is a very useful skill for anybody, and he did not know any of
these things, despite the fact that he dealt with computers extensively.

In my case, I often took the time to learn a tool during the first time I
needed to accomplish a task with it. Eventually, I was glad that I learned
this tool, because it then facilitated my future work.

> Maybe. But computer scienceis not about programming, that's for sure (we

Computer Science started out and was developed for formulating and
theorizing the programming and computing processes. The amount of research
in the field of CS was miniscule and isolated before the 20th century.
Programming is the practical implementation and realization of computer
science. There are pure theoreticans in any field, but I tend to respect
people who also like to see some discoveries materialized.

Then again, in my entire EE studies I was never shown how to:

1. How to replace a light-bulb.

2. How to do a wiring of circuits.

3. How to open the computer and tweak its components.

Luckily, I learned #1 and #3 before I came to the Technion.

> machine and an information systems degree).

But what about regexps and closures? I think it's common required
knowledge nowadays as they are becoming a common theme in most
cutting-edge computer languages.

> about Unix. It's about simplicity, and people who are responsible to their

I'm not sure he's right. Many signal processing systems are written in C
or even in Assembler. Matlab is usually used only for prototyping. (I
think). He was also talking about control systems and robotics which he
expected to write in Matlab. In any case, I'll bet he'll end up learning C
sometimes during his working-life.

> advanced English. I don't see a problem here.

He wasn't a graduate student, he was a graduate. In any case, I would
expect a Technion graduate to have learned English well throughout his
studies. Even ESR recommends it in his "How to become a hacker FAQ":

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html

I once said to him: "It's your call." and he said he wasn't familiar with
this phrase.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

> KeyID: 0xD8DC85C7Fingerprint: 138D 8F41 7A06 44A0  3DBB 9DC3 FE8B 2658
> -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> mQEPAzLax/sAAAEIAK2bI8utornDYd5LdU+/TABNmqXneiXuLx4j8OKD2GjfS/O8
> E6nrX69ot4uU5ryjp5h+7VHBZqCQz+8VC8ly2ANtycejAc82gllVC96fbA+Y6uuN
> uI9aXkwNqhphmmQZIVaOZDRAo9//1zX9r41xY+8rKSQuNcp+FPD/A5Itng0xhsfS
> KkCV4tT0mGpiydUHFrugk/bouXPYwUHXSnHp/mPdGsjgqipezHPzCWIn3xcJjk2/
> tjd5/ym+arWpKW5nvTuvalcMi2DIcEilSrT5NLwgeuh3eqitYOc9WTiMNMvUiVcP
> sucJkdxNwjEX9MgD/bLY9wT/13brqxk71tjchccAEQEAAbQnQWRpciBBYnJhaGFt
> IDxhZGlyQHZpcGUudGVjaG5pb24uYWMuaWw+iQEVAwUQMtrH+6sZO9bY3IXHAQGb
> 0gf9FwrJBKaTP0yvf3+vwtB+9ftS0woz1TawJwflC5EoHJs7D/5GzkAaRV82RSkH
> P9fSHmM+LUB0huBBK1qtNyXHWIjQTmYwFYC8Oen4q0Fyze7cloSnpD1rVjI0HoCO
> UU8bbz0Iseizdjhnl2PTItQ+dkKzLcww1jW5iPXOWd1o8/8s2aebhrpDRO8BfAYg
> H29jhmDtuVQDPgFfkN/kP+xpHQplMN5Qh1oP22f+Wyg8sVvSv8P7cM+88u46FHi3
> zvHpVnZKIBtKhksnH1PYXtz7FvS7vA+MbpM47kgmQGL5Ygig0pUUbBCGlzmg2Hvd
> 262YCdVYNwpIjQWBLJI8orea0Q==
> =dgNP
> -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish        [email-masked]
Home Page:         http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/

Writing a BitKeeper replacement is probably easier at this point than getting
its license changed.

	Matt Mackall on OFTC.net #offtopic.