3 ms·

> The author argues that programming schools should be vocational schools I dont see where. The implication is that they are assumed to be contrary to reality.

by jack9 9y ago

> The author argues that programming schools should be vocational schools I dont see where. The implication is that they are assumed to be contrary to reality. It's supposed to be a list of obvious facts.

allenz 9y ago
The full tweet, from the link: "CS programs have, in the main, not decided that the primary path to becoming a programmer should involve doing material actual programming. There are some exceptions: Waterloo, for example. This is the point where I joke "That's an exhaustive list" but not sure that a joke." This reads to me that Patrick wishes that the joke were not true, which is corroborated by other comments of his, such as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7761134#7762383 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7761134#7762383 The fact that you think that the article is in any way objective is why it is so dangerous. Ideology is like water. Patrick's assumptions and biases shape how he presents his "facts" and which facts are left out. It's not objective! What he is really doing is presenting a specific market-based worldview, which has certain insights and major deficiencies. Consider for example "There is no hidden reserve of smart people". It sounds like an actionable insight, but is it true? Is it even falsifiable? What does it mean? And what actions would it lead you to take? My answer: it reinforces the perspective that smart people are the only people worth considering, that there are few smart people, and (in context) that these people are mostly "generalists" and entrepreneurs. It values "intelligence", probably measured in terms of short-term ability to make money, and leaves out values and self-reflection. It leaves out the possibility that you can learn from anyone (c.f. the story of the $20 fan[1]). It leaves out the possibility that your hiring process could be discriminatory or unwelcoming. And so on. This, I argue, is a good demonstration of why programmers need liberal arts; technical decisions are never just technical decisions. We must remember to ask who wins, who loses, is that desirable, is that just? [1] http://cs.txstate.edu/~br02/cs1428/ShortStoryForEngineers.htm http://cs.txstate.edu/~br02/cs1428/ShortStoryForEngineers.ht...
- jack9 9y ago
  > The author argues that programming schools should be vocational schools I still don't see this argument being made in ANYTHING you posted now. > The fact that you think that the article is in any way objective is why it is so dangerous. How does this relate? I asked for how you came to a conclusion and have gone off into other topics that you're using to characterize a perspective or ideology. I don't care about what you think or what the author thinks. I care about finding how you jumped to a conclusion based on the article's text. The handwaving to make your own intellectual assertions (right or wrong) have nothing to do with my issue, in the content of what you originally stated. Good luck with whatever.

by jack9 9y ago

allenz 9y ago

The full tweet, from the link: "CS programs have, in the main, not decided that the primary path to becoming a programmer should involve doing material actual programming. There are some exceptions: Waterloo, for example. This is the point where I joke "That's an exhaustive list" but not sure that a joke." This reads to me that Patrick wishes that the joke were not true, which is corroborated by other comments of his, such as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7761134#7762383 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7761134#7762383 The fact that you think that the article is in any way objective is why it is so dangerous. Ideology is like water. Patrick's assumptions and biases shape how he presents his "facts" and which facts are left out. It's not objective! What he is really doing is presenting a specific market-based worldview, which has certain insights and major deficiencies. Consider for example "There is no hidden reserve of smart people". It sounds like an actionable insight, but is it true? Is it even falsifiable? What does it mean? And what actions would it lead you to take? My answer: it reinforces the perspective that smart people are the only people worth considering, that there are few smart people, and (in context) that these people are mostly "generalists" and entrepreneurs. It values "intelligence", probably measured in terms of short-term ability to make money, and leaves out values and self-reflection. It leaves out the possibility that you can learn from anyone (c.f. the story of the $20 fan[1]). It leaves out the possibility that your hiring process could be discriminatory or unwelcoming. And so on. This, I argue, is a good demonstration of why programmers need liberal arts; technical decisions are never just technical decisions. We must remember to ask who wins, who loses, is that desirable, is that just? [1] http://cs.txstate.edu/~br02/cs1428/ShortStoryForEngineers.htm http://cs.txstate.edu/~br02/cs1428/ShortStoryForEngineers.ht...

jack9 9y ago
> The author argues that programming schools should be vocational schools I still don't see this argument being made in ANYTHING you posted now. > The fact that you think that the article is in any way objective is why it is so dangerous. How does this relate? I asked for how you came to a conclusion and have gone off into other topics that you're using to characterize a perspective or ideology. I don't care about what you think or what the author thinks. I care about finding how you jumped to a conclusion based on the article's text. The handwaving to make your own intellectual assertions (right or wrong) have nothing to do with my issue, in the content of what you originally stated. Good luck with whatever.