R Bartlett wrote:
Well this discussion all boils down to the role of education. THere are two attitudes

1) We'll take your money, but really you shouldn't be on this course - we would like people who can already program so that we don't have to teach anything.

Even calibrating this discussion for massive cynicism, I don't see
how you can reasonably contend that:

 a) there is a binary choice about the role of education;

 b) your option 1) is one whole prong of that choice.

2) We'll take your money, and do the best we can with you.

In your hypothetical dichotomous world of TEACHING, as you put it,
where does the responsibility of the student to bring aptitude and
drive fit in?  Surely, uninterested or unbright students will still
suffer progressive disenchantment and dismay under option 2).
At best, someone will just be giving them hugs, and commending
them on their "deferred success", as they continue to fail anyway.
Personally, I think that's worse than just failing them fast for not
keeping up, so they can cut their losses and switch to something else
while they still have the time, money and enthusiasm to try again.

Or do you intend option 2) to be: "We'll take your money, and
give you a degree in spite of what you're capable of"?  I get spam
about such degrees all the time, but I hope they're not relevant here.
Frank Wales [fr...@limov.com]

Reply via email to