I am digressing a bit, and want to concentrate specifically on
"raw memorization" vs "understanding."
I am a big fan of theory for a few reasons. I mean REALLY
understanding theory, not just saying "yeah I get the theory, but I do not
understand it." No. If you understand the theory, you understand it,
period. If you cannot explain something to someone, you do NOT know that
something. Period. Implementation details aside.
Although both ways can be used to conquer any test, be it raw
memorization or knowing the theory well and having some cached info in your
head, ultimately, I think you are doing yourself a disservice by failing to
understand the theory.
1) For someone who just memorizes and memorizes answers, when "new
technology" comes out, they are baffled at first, and take a long time to
relearn.
2) For someone who knows the theory, when "new technology" comes out, it
is trivial to apply the theory to most new technologies and easily
understand it.
While this is a bit drastic, simply because many people begin to
learn the theory as they memorize all sorts of information, I feel this is
closer to the truth than most people realize. Some people just outright
never learn it.
As for the 3x3 bit, that is just embedding cached knowledge in
someone's head. No different than someone eventually memorizing the
decimal -> binary conversions. The difference is, the man who knows the
theory will be able to derive back the answer should he forget. The one
who just memorizes will forget, and fail. 3x3 is somewhat of the simple
extreme case since it has been drilled in since day 1.
Also, it is akin to realizing that 3x3 is merely a shortcut for
3+3+3. The one who just memorizes would sadly never know that. It is also
why you learn addition before multiplication.
Being asked to code a tcp/ip stack for vpn and understanding the
different phases of IKE and IPsec are a bit different. Ultimately, you
should only need to learn what you need to succeed in whatever job field
you are in. However, UNDERSTANDING it is a key issue. Also, to design a
protocol in itself does NOT require high math. A protocol, by definition,
is a language of types. A form of communication. You need zero math to do
that. As for the actual encryption ciphers and how they function, if you
wanted to know precisely how they worked or were to design a new cipher,
then math would enter into the fray.
I do not blame the test. The test has no way of discerning
between one who truly understands and someone who memorizes. Sure there
are ways to draw it out a bit more (written essays, open ended answers),
but that makes things a bit difficult to grade and handle effectively in
large numbers. I just worry a lot more when someone simply passes by pure
memorization, and does not know WHY answer A is so. Odds are that
individual will quickly forget, and will take a long time to get back his
knowledge. The one who understood it will easily regain that knowledge. I
think HR should stop depending on the CERT as a shortcut "verification"
system and just ask the senior engineers for doing their own little cross
examination. Of course, there could be a chicken and the egg
syndrome. What if you have no seniors? ;)
At 06:11 PM 11/20/01 -0500, Michael Snyder wrote:
>I disagree.
>
>Everyone seems to think teaching to the test is a bad thing, but I think
>it's a lot more fuzzy than that.
>
>Here's an example,
>
>If I ask you what 3x3 equals, you can answer 9 (I hope). How do you know
>that? Did you go to college and study math theory for four years? Do you
>how many pages it takes to prove that 3x3=9? Do you know the concepts
>needed for the proof?
>
>I'm assuming that you were learned 3x3 just like I did, with a 3rd grade
>teacher going over it and over it and over it. She was in effect, was
>teaching to the test.
>
>Let's jump forward a few years. Lately I've been dealing with
>L2TP/IPSEC/VPN. I think I understand the basic concepts these protocols
>well, seeing that I use them daily, but in truth do I really?
>
>If someone asked me to code a tcp/ip stack for vpn, I wouldn't have a clue
>where to start. I think it would take me years just to start understanding
>the high math needed to code a vpn protocol.
>
>My point being that I have learned the correct answers on how to use vpn by
>being told the correct answers thru self study, reading and experience.
>
>I have in effect taught myself the correct answers to use when I see the
>correct questions. Is there a difference here other than learning that
>3x3=9 and passing third grade math test? I'm not sure there is.
>
>I think anyway you look at it, a pass is pass. If someone can learn to pass
>the test, but can't effectively use that knowledge in the real world, maybe
>we will find the fault is in the test itself.
-Carroll Kong
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=26945&t=26639
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
