Agree.
As a footnote, I would add that my experience parallels yours: the
practical stuff got me a life, and the theory came in handy much
later on when I became a sysprog and then a product author for
vendors. Theory AND skills -- both, both, both. Balance, balance,
balance. Anyway, of what use is the theory if you can't put it to
work? (Don't ask that question of an academic; the answer will leave
you nonplussed.)
David
At 11:15 AM 6/29/2006 -0500, you wrote:
Absolutely correct in that balance is needed. When I got my degree in
computer sciences back in the early '80s, I actually got both. The
first 2 years was teaching programming languages and more of the "pay
the bills" stuff. The last 2 years was spent teaching the theory-type
classes, OS theory, compiler design, and so on. When I got to the real
world I used the training I had in the programming languages. Later,
when I got moved into systems, I was able to put the theory to use in
order to understand what MVS was doing under the covers. I didn't have
any specific MVS training, but the theoretical knowledge I got made the
OJT much easier.
Today, as was mentioned, we get script kiddies who have no knowledge of
what actually makes the boxes tick. The stuff still has to get
translated into 1's and 0's for the box to work with and we're losing
the ability to get there.
My $.02.
Rex
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
