3 ms·
Covering how $a or $b does stuff on a PowerPoint slide isn't the same thing as having students write a $thing. Which sort of sucks when they go on the job a
by bulatb 13y ago
Covering how $a or $b does stuff on a PowerPoint slide
isn't the same thing as having students write a $thing.
Which sort of sucks when they go on the job and have to
write a $thing!
That statement is true for many different projects in many different niches. Colleges can't possibly teach them all. If they try, then classes spend less time on CS fundamentals and employers are unhappy. If kids learn about $thing, that means less time for theory and employers are unhappy. (Not to mention that practically speaking, less time on theory means they won't be passing "top tech" interviews at all.)
"We need people who know $thing" does not imply that "colleges should teach kids $thing" is true. Is $thing important because you know it and use it, or do you know it and use it because it's important?
- com2kid 13y ago> That statement is true for many different projects in many different niches. Colleges can't possibly teach them all. If they try, then classes spend less time on CS fundamentals and employers are unhappy. Well yes, very true, I believe in fundamentals. But the 3 types of common memory storage (stack, static, heap), and how each is commonly implemented, seems like it should be covered. :) Likewise, common GC algorithms should also be gone over! CS curriculums really are over stuffed, just from a theory point of view there is so much that is already not covered.