[geeks] Education [was: [rescue] Mainframe on eBay]

[velociraptor]

On 9/27/05, Sridhar Ayengar <ploopster at gmail.com> wrote:
> velociraptor wrote:
> > Yes.  And teaching principles also means teaching those necessary
> > for developing the practices.  As an example of that, a good IT security
> > curriculum would give a foundation in general host security (e.g. what
> > things make a host secure) and while a lab might address these on a
> > given OS, the focus of the curriculum would be the broad principles of
> > host security, not "how to secure OS du jour 2025."
> >
> > I am a Heinleinian after all: "Specialization is for insects."  By
teaching
> > tools you are teaching specialization; and specialization, in the worst
> > case, can result in extinction.
>
> If you're saying that the theory that should be taught is that which is
> required in practice, I agree wholeheartedly.
>
> My issue is that much of the theory being taught can only be taken as
> theory.  I'm not saying all of it falls under this category, nor am I
> saying that most of it does.  I'm just saying that there's way too much
> impractical, even useless information being taught to students for whom
> theory will never be a primary concern.

Yes, and no.  It depends on the field and the depth of theory.  But in
general, I think the principles are far more important than the specific
implementation of them.  As I said, practice is a moving target.  If you
have ever been to a 60-year old doctor vs. a freshly minted graduate,
you see some of these "practice" issues in action.

There's nothing wrong with a grounding in the "current" practices, but to
focus exclusively on current practice at the detriment of the broader
principles and theory.  Especially when those practices are sold to the
students as the be-all, end-all of practice.

Regards--
=Nadine=