Subject: Academic education is Israel

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 23:01:43 -0000

Hi.

I'm currently finishing 11th grade and since I want to get to the 
atuda I'll soon be required to apply to various universities in 
Israel.

I want to study CS (Perhaps combined with managment), and would like 
to know where is the best place for me to apply.

My Bagrut grades are (Most of them are projected):

Physics: 85
Maths: 80-85
English (Regular 5 points + 2 translation): 92
CS: 99
History: 95
Bible: 70
Literature: 70
Ezrahut: 82
Language: 60

My psychometric exam will be about 750.

My question is:
1)With these grades, where should I apply?

---

From: Dan Kenigsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 11:06:53 +0300 (IDT)

> atuda

WHY? Maybe you should think again. Remember - not only are you determining what
you are going to do, but also what a 27 years old man is going to do in the next
decade. Are you sure he will want to wear green outfit? Or go through a
bureaucratic ordeal when he wants to go abroad, or see a doctor? And see his
friends having fun in south America while he's doing Katzin Toran? Would he
think of you kindly?

I'm not saying not to consider it, or apply for it. But check out your other
options before you commit.

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 12:14:15 +0300

> atuda I'll soon be required to apply to various universities in 

As Dan said, also consider if you really want to be an Atudai. Becoming
an atudai means a fixed path for you until the age of (roughly) 27 - you
study until you're 21 and then work for the army for 6 years, without (hardly)
chance of parole ;)
This used to make a lot of sense when it was hard to get a job after getting
a degree (the army pays pretty nicely for these last 3 years, especially if
you know how bend the army's salary laws for your own good), and when having
a BA was considered enough. Nowadays, the situation is slightly different:
getting a job (especially in CS, and even now (if you're good)) is easy,
and more people want higher degrees.

As an Atudai (well, sort of - I don't want to get into the whole story here)
meant that I had to do my MSc (toar sheni) while working almost full-time,
and it was hell. It didn't allow me to enjoy my studies, and it meant that
it took me almost 6 years to finish my MSc (I finally finished it after taking
a 2 month vacation and concentrated on writing the thesis). I was lucky to
be in actual army control for only 2 years (and that was also pretty lax)
and then 4 years without any army beaurocracy. I have no idea how anyone would
possibly remain sane after being under actual army beaurocracy (and quite
strict control on almost every aspect of your life) for 6 years ;)

But when I look at other things the army offers people who want to work in
CS-related areas, like taking a short programming course and then signing
for a total of 4.5 years, or studying to be an Handesai and then signing for
a total of 5 years, Atuda may not be all that bad...

If I was an MK, I would pass a law making the 36-month army service a MAXIMUM
mandatory service. Kids should not be allowed at age of 17 to sign for 4.5-6
years when the law only mandates 3 years, especially not by seducing them with
nice words (you'll work in computers and get a good job later! Yeah right -
I've seen people who were told that and then stuck in a boring job 5 years
rebooting Windows computers, and didn't learn any useful skills). Heck, kids
that age aren't even allowed to sign by themselves a much less
fate-determining contract... Only when someone finishes their 3 year service
they should be allowed to choose to stay on, if they wish. Or, if nobody
wants to stay in the military, create seperate bodies for some of the
technical areas the military needs - see for example the American NSA
(www.nsa.gov).

> English (Regular 5 points + 2 translation): 92

You should check which of the universities will accept you with these grades,
and then make a more informed decision. Do you have 5 unit math? I think
the Technion has such a requirement.

I'd say apply to both the Technion and HUJI (you didn't say where you live...).
I believe these are considered to be the best CS departments in Israel (I
don't know about TAU - I'll let other people comment on it).
I'd stay away from management in Toar Rishon, and later do an MBA (but don't
take my recommendation on this subject - I wouldn't be caught dead doing an
MBA ;))

> My psychometric exam will be about 750.

I think you should study Astrology instead. How do you make these projections
of bagrut and psychometric grades? ;)

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |     Thursday, Jun  7 2001, 16 Sivan 5761
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |Share your knowledge. It's a way to
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |achieve immortality.

---

From: mulix <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 12:52:54 +0300 (IDT)

> technical areas the military needs - see for example the American NSA

you are avoiding an important issue (from the army's perspective) - the
training required to bring the person to the level his position
requires. some positions do not tolerate "learning on the job", for
example, a fighter pilot... from the army's persepective, a two year
long training, or even a year long training, do not justify themselves
unless the person agrees to sign for more than the basic three years.
even a position (such as the one i was in) where the training is
relatively short (because you only get in if you already know what you
are doing) but you constantly learn on the job (on the army's time or
off of it) new skills and techniques only makes sense for the army if
you agree to sign some 'keva'. plus, there is the law of supply and
demand - as long as some (good) people are willing to agree to the
army's conditions, the army can make all the conditions it wants to, be
they 6 years or 16.

> the Technion has such a requirement.

the technion does not have such a formal requirement, as far as i know,
but since 5 point math get a double bonus (they count as 10 points)
plus a 30% (if i remember correctly) modifier, getting in without 5
points can be almost impossible. the competition, especially for CS, is
fierce :(

-- 
mulix
http://www.advogato.com/person/mulix

linux/reboot.h: #define LINUX_REBOOT_MAGIC1 0xfee1dead

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 13:16:47 +0300

> unless the person agrees to sign for more than the basic three years.

No, this is crap, and this is exactly the kind of crap they feed Atuda
prospects (I was seduced into signing for 6 years even though I wans't
an Atudai! But I'm starting to tell my long, boring, story..).

Every company would love to have trained people to stay with it. Every
company would prefer people with 3 years of experience to people without
experience. But no company accepts people without experience by forcing
them to sign, in advance, for 6 years. That's just not an accepted practice
in democratic society.

You can offer incentives for people to stay after 3 years: making the army
service more enjoyable (is crappy food an medical service REALLY NECESSARY
in the army?), making technical people part of external DoD bodies not
ruled by army beaurocy (e.g., see the NSA example I gave before). Treat
people like human beings, respect them, and make them feel like they make
a different (rather than being a 300-shekel-per-month Windows rebooter).
You'd be surprise but most people don't stay in the army (or try to quit
in the middle, using all sort of ugly tricks) for the way they are treated,
not because (for example) they would get more money outside.

The reason for my external-bodies suggestion is that the people we're talking
about, hackers, nerds, and the similar populations, hate living under strict
disciplanry control, and such control is not needed (and is in fact counter-
productive) for the work they are many times supposed to do. They don't like
to wear starched green clothes all the time. They don't like to polish their
shoes. They don't like to be told how/when to work. They don't like to be
mistreated by the medical staff (where the default is to assume you're
pretending to be sick - once I was home sick 2 weeks just because they
mistreated me in the first couple of days). They don't like to be promoted
based on pazam rather than what they actually do. They even less like to
be promoted based on irrelevant military courses (such as kurs kzinim).

> army's conditions, the army can make all the conditions it wants to, be

What you're saying makes my blood boil ;) Of course it "makes sense for the
army". You know what - it would make sense for them to sign people for 30
years. Why bother trying to convince people to stay in the army, when you
can coeerce them into it? Why not say to all new recruits

   "You know what, we have two kinds of open positions: either clean toilets
    for 3 years, or we have interesting things to do, but you'll need to
    sign for 10 years (but don't worry, we'll pay you for the last 7 years)."

This is not hypothetical - this is *exactly* what is happening, with all
sorts of "kadats", atudai, handesai, and similar plans. As I said above
I wasn't an Atudai at all (I finished my BA before I was enlisted), but
they still managed to got me to sign for 6 years. Actually, after 2 years
I was given the choice (again, long story...) and I chose to stay, out of
my free will, for 4 more years, so why did they need me to sign for 6 years
in the first place?

The legislative branch must come and say NO! to this. The army should not
be able to do anything that "makes sense for the army". Not only is this
absolutely not fair and immoral, but we need well-educated and smart people
outside the army too! Every year the army wastes from a smart person's
life (I saw many such young people) is a year that person won't be working
in the industry. One of the reasons we can afford such a huge army (by
huge I mean cost-wise, not number of people) is that we have such a large
per-capita income and taxes.

If you don't think that the army wastes peoples' years Just Because They
Can, you probably haven't been in the army...

The "law of supply and demand" is absolutely irrelevant. The army is the
worst kind of monopoly that exists (because you're forced to buy its product,
i.e., serve it for at least 3 years), and it must be controled by the
legislative branch before it devours our society. Imagine another monopoly,
Microsoft, doing what the army does. You'd be told something like

	"You now *have* to spend $1000 on our products and use only them for
	 a year. We can sell you Microsoft Bob [an example of a useless
         product] for that $1000, but we'll give you another option -
         buy Microsoft Office for $2000. What would you prefer? Hey, we're a
         very nice company - we're giving you CHOICE!"

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |     Thursday, Jun  7 2001, 16 Sivan 5761
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |I had a lovely evening. Unfortunately,
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |this wasn't it. - Groucho Marx

---

From: mulix <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 14:33:11 +0300 (IDT)

[ warning, very long reply and obviously a heated issue for nadav ]

> an Atudai! But I'm starting to tell my long, boring, story..).

i beg to disagree. consider two equally good candidates for position
foo. which one should the army choose? the one who will do the training,
do the minimum time required on the job and then leave, or the one who
will guarantee that he will stay for some extended amount of time,
therefore doing the job better, by virtue of accumulated expereience?
and yes, these candidates are both EQUALLY good.

> them to sign, in advance, for 6 years. That's just not an accepted practice

ehm, this is the army. the army operates under unique circumstances, in
that virtually all of its man-power starts untrained and without
experience. show me a company that starts this way and i'll show you a
chronicle of bankruptcy-in-happening.

> not because (for example) they would get more money outside.

actually, the unit i was in was really superb in all of these respects,
and i still chose to leave once my three years were up. not because of
my unit, which was incredible (and an excellent preamble to a high
tech career), but because it was still a part of the army and
occasionally you were reminded of that in the most unpleasant ways
you can imagine.

> be promoted based on irrelevant military courses (such as kurs

again, the unit i was in did not have much in the way of control,
exactly because it was counterintuitive to production. and i know of
many other places, where your average hacker/nerd/cs graduate is likely
to end up, where it is the army in name only. most of the time. it's the
time when you are forcefully reminded that you ARE in the army that
cause you to leave in the end.

>     sign for 10 years (but don't worry, we'll pay you for the last 7 years)."

why bother? because coerced people are far less productive then people
who vulonteered or were persuaded to remain. witness the large army
presence at the last technion job fair, for example.

> my free will, for 4 more years, so why did they need me to sign for 6 years

excellent question. because that way they can plan in advance on having
the necessary man-power? or simply because they can and people will
agree to their conditions?

i understand you dont think people should not be _given_ this sort of
choice. do tell me, however, how you can justify the two years of
training a fighter pilot undergoes before he starts being "productive",
if he's only productive for one year and then he is free to leave? he
might choose to stay, but he might also leave. how can the army justify
that option economically?

> per-capita income and taxes.

i think it can be safely said you had a bad army experience, and i'm
sorry for that. i, on the other hand, learned somethign new every day in
the army, did the things i love with people who shared my passion for
writing code, and accumulated lots of experience. all this, without
signing for one extra minute of keva. i dont doubt many people share
your misgivings about the army, but neither do i doubt many peolpe share
my kind of story. in recent newspaper articles, my unit was called "the
hightech greenhouse of israel". how much of that per-capita income you talk about
is coming from people who, once they leave the army use _the knowledge
they learned in the army_ to make many millions of dollars? (checkpoint
comes to mind here...)

> Can, you probably haven't been in the army...

oh, i have been, and i hated some of it, and i loved some of it, and all
in all, it's a matter of luck. what you do, where you do it and who you
do it with are the difference between X years of heaven or X years of
hell.

>          very nice company - we're giving you CHOICE!"

how is this the same, nadav? again, consider two equally good
candidates. which one should the army choose for the position? the one
who will bring more use to the army, by staying and doing the job
longer (and because of accumulated experience, better). plain and
simple, dont you agree?
-- 
mulix
http://www.advogato.com/person/mulix

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 15:47:14 +0300

> chronicle of bankruptcy-in-happening.

Every company has some experienced people, and many inexperienced people (which
are also paid less). Just look around you, in everything from waiting tables in
restaurants to high-tech companies. Of course, everybody would just *love*
to have only experienced people, but that just doesn't happen.

Besides, the whole idea of Atuda was to let you get some knowledge and
experience before you join the army, so you'd be productive right away.
True, you won't be productive on the first month, but take my word for it -
it doesn't take a person 3 years to become productive. In my service, I
considered myself productive after 6 months.

> occasionally you were reminded of that in the most unpleasant ways

Read what you write again: read the first line of the above paragraph, and then
the last two lines. Don't you see a contradiction? Many people tell me
"my army unit is not a normal unit and it was wonderful..." but then go on
saying "but the food was uneatable, and I couldn't bare staying there
another day and eat that food" or "I couldn't get decent medical treatment
and on one occasion I nearly died". Somehow people don't see the
contradiction...

Unfortunately, many people don't even have the experience you had: they
simply had a crappy service, like the reboot-the-Windows-PC guy I told you
about. I know plenty of people who had service similar to that, supposedly
in the high-tech area but in actuality it was simply a way to get them to
sign for more years.

> cause you to leave in the end.

Again, you completely contradict yourself in this paragraph. Your last sentence
is exactly my point.

> presence at the last technion job fair, for example.

This is not quite true. Say a coereced person does 50% work than a person
who truely likes the job. So instead of trying to find 10 people to come
to your unit, isn't it simpler to just get 20 people in their mandatory
service? And isn't it even easier to get 10 people who will come for double
the time? Easy, yes. Fair or good for the overall economy, no.

> that option economically?

Maybe the case of pilots is somewhat different, and requires an exception.
But exceptions should be made only in very rare cases. Currently it is
almost a norm to tell new recruits something along the lines of "you can
either have a crappy job at the army, or a good job - but all the good
jobs need signing more time". I was told this when I enlisted 7 years
ago, my younger sister was told this 2 years ago, and they are still saying
this. And not only for hightech jobs - just look the the army's latest
"kadats" brochure.

> sorry for that. i, on the other hand, learned somethign new every day in

You couldn't be more wrong :) Do you know me as someone who complains only
about wrongs done to him? Do you think I also wrote that essay about how free
software can help poor people because I am a poor person?

I had a very non-standard and interesting army service. I wasn't an Atudai.
I only spent one month in the actual army, and the rest of the time I was
in a non-army body. After two years I became an ordinary civilian, and stayed
in that place for 4 more years, out of my own free will and without the
horrible green clothes (but did exactly the same important service for our
country). I traveled abroad several times during my service. I finished my
masters degree during those 6 years (although it was very hard, as I said in
a previous post).
No, I did not have a bad army experience. But I see other people around me,
having a REALLY BAD army experience, just because they were less lucky in the
cosmic roll-of-the-dice.

> signing for one extra minute of keva. i dont doubt many people share

This is how it should be. And if you really loved it, you could have stayed
there after the 3 years were over (of course, not everyone would stay but
if only 25% stayed, it would be enough and they didn't have to force everyone
to stay 3 years).

> they learned in the army_ to make many millions of dollars? (checkpoint

Wouldn't they get the same knoweldge by working 3 years in the civilian
industry? They would.

I'm not saying serving in the army is not important - it certainly is. But
there are other important things in life. It is up to the knesset to decide
just how important the army is, and put it in its place - not to become
more important than it really is. Similarly, the military gets some part of
the national budget. Maybe it's 10% and maybe it is 50% - but it is up to
the knesset to decide that, and once it is decided the army should be
satisfied by what it is getting, and not try to get more using ugly tricks.
If the army will benefit by increasing its budget by 10%, it doesn't mean
it should be done - there are other considerations too.

> longer (and because of accumulated experience, better). plain and

Why are you bringing up what the army wants all the time? The army will
prefer people to enlist for 10 years. I will prefer to pay them 100 shekels
a month, instead of 300, and to call the first 9 years "sherut chova" and
only the last year "keva". It will prefer people to sleep in tents rather
than build places to sleep. It will prefer to get 90% of the national budget,
and not anything less. It will prefer people to do 180 days of miluim every
year.
But it doesn't matter what it prefers. It should be aware of the costs to
the economy of its preferences. And it should retain at least some spark
of morality, dignity, fairness, and respect to the human beings that it
enlists.

And again, I don't think that the choice to stay in the army longer, when
made in advance, is really a free choice, or a fair "michraz" between
candidates. In this michraz you have one monopoly and many people who are
forced to "use your services", which is what makes it fixed and causes so
many people to enlist for extra years (6 years is really a lot, but many
people I know, not atudaim, did more than 3 years - anything from 3.5 to 5
years.)

Sorry about all this ranting ;) Nothing is against you Muli, of course - I'm
just clearing some anger :) I think we should open a new list,
ranting-and-bitching-il for this kind of postings...

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |     Thursday, Jun  7 2001, 16 Sivan 5761
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |A smart man always covers his ass. A
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |wise man just keeps his pants on.

---

From: Adi Stav <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 02:34:56 +0300

> and not anything less. It will prefer people to do 180 days of miluim every

Actually, the army does not want to receive 90% of the budget, because
that would harm economical growth and would reduce the overall budget in
the future. The army has an "econimical planning" unit that does the
necessary calculations and estimation to decide what is the optimum amount
to request, that would leave the army with as much money as possible both
in the present and future.

Of course, that supports your point further.

---

From: mulix <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 17:37:37 +0300 (IDT)

> the last two lines. Don't you see a contradiction? Many people tell me

allow me to clarify: my unit was fantastic in the _professional_ aspect,
but it was still a a part of the army. professionaly it was wonderful,
but it was still a part of the army and as such, sometimes things
sucked. .

i agree with you on general  army suckiness. i disagree with you on the
army's _professional_ suckiness. does that clear up the
apparent contradiction?

> software can help poor people because I am a poor person?

i guess i shouldn't have assumed. your email came accross with the sort
of tone i associate with strong _personal_ feeelings. i'm glad you
didnt suffer too much :)

> if only 25% stayed, it would be enough and they didn't have to force everyone

the army, or rather my superiors, would have loved for me to stay (and
indeed, tried to tempt me in many ways) but i was set on starting the
technion as soon as possible. if i was "forced" to stay, it wouldn't
have hurt me one bit.

> Wouldn't they get the same knoweldge by working 3 years in the civilian

they would - if they could get in in the first place. how many companies
do you know that train _completely unexperienced and unproven_ people
and give them this kind of knowledge?

> Why are you bringing up what the army wants all the time? The army will

because i agree with you that the army should not be all powerfull and
omnipotent, should not take too many resources from society.  however,
the only way for the army to do that is to use whatever resources it
does have in the most effective way. and unfortunately, you, and i, and
every other 18 year old are _resources_ for the army, to be used in the
most effective possible way.

you cannot give with one hand and deny with the other. we agree that the
army is a necessity, do we not? we agree that it should be as efficient
as possible in its usage of resources, do we not, in order to be the
least burden for society? well, for the army, just like for any other
company, a person _is_ a resource, to be used as effectively is
possible. some army units understand nowdays that sometimes that means
giving their people good conditions and a good salary and treating them
like human beings. one day, i hope, the entire army will realise this
and then they wont need to coerce someone into signing 'keva', since
they'll be able to compete fair and square for that person. until that
happens, the army will use whatever advantage it has. i am NOT saying it
is right, but i am saying its justified, _from the army's point of
view_.

> ranting-and-bitching-il for this kind of postings...

nothing personal here either, nadav :)

but can we get back to hacking now?
-- 
mulix
http://www.advogato.com/person/mulix

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 05:49:46 -0000

> options before you commit.

You do have a point here.
I still have a few months to decide if I want to do it, and I'll re-
consider it.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 05:51:10 -0000

> points can be almost impossible. the competition, especially for 
CS, is

I am in 5 points... I had no other choice since I wanted to take 
Physics and CS.