>Well this discussion all boils down to the role of education. THere are two

You might only know of two, there 

>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

If you knew anything at all about University admissions policies and you would 
know that there are many forces at work. There is pressure to fill quotas which 
are imposed on you and to which you have very little input. If you don't fill 
the quotas your department and faculty get quite drastically penalised 
financially and most departments are already struggling. There is a finite pool 
of potential students and many competing institutions. You do your best to fill 
your course with people who as far as you can tell want to do the course and 
who meet the entry qualifications. The applicants are also under pressure to go 
to university and do something even when they don't really want to and often 
under pressure to do courses that various authority figures (parents, careers 
people) think are more "useful" than the ones they actually want to do. 
Computing is one of the default choices as I pointed out before. Ultimately 
this means that there is a certain proportion of people who should not be there 
for whatever reason.

>From your comment I would assume that you think it unreasonable that people 
>need to have a Maths qualification to enter a University Maths course and they 
>should teach Maths from scratch. If not why should University Computing 
>courses have to be different?

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

I love this quaint idea that you have departments themselves get all the money 
from their students! However doing the best we can is certainly what we try to 
do (and quite a few people make themselves ill trying). Personally I don't 
think the students should be paying at all but that is another matter.

And one of this has anything to do with intuition anyway.


Reply via email to