Jukka Larja (roskakori2006@gmail.com) on 10/12/09 wrote:
---------------------------
>AM (myname4rwt@jee.male) on 10/12/09 wrote:
>---------------------------
>
>> Compare 2 sentences:
>>
>> Ungo: "But if you're looking for the
>> most common Atom bin by number of chips
>> shipped to date, that would be the N270
>> (2.5W @ 1.60GHz), the backbone of the
>> netbook revolution."
>>
>> and "I don't have any figures (and
>> haven't seen any), but I think the most
>> common Atom bin by number of chips
>> shipped to date would be the N270".
>
>Yes? Seems like he states something that he takes for granted. I don't see anything
>to imply that he has some official numbers from Intel. They aren't the only way
>to support the statement, even if _you_ think they are needed.

Even if _he_ thinks it's obvious, it doesn't make it a fact or obvious to others. The same applies to you.

>> Don't you find it's actually much easier
>> to grasp things at your own pace rather
>> than one set by the lecturer?
>
>Sure, but the problem is that the text-book is going to collect dust on my table
>for most of the semester, until just before the exam I'm frantically trying to learn
>some useless bits of information to pass.
>
>Lectures are a bit like watching a documentary on TV. I could very well attent
>just for fun. If lectures don't suit you, then don't attent, but don't presume that your way of studying suits everyone.

It's actually you who bases the argument on assumptions rather than clarifications (recalling how you entered this discussion), so don't try to assign your own imperfections to others.

Besides, I simply fail to see what fun can a classical lecture can provide (and don't know anyone who really enjoyed them). I recall there was some fun a few times when our lecturers didn't know the subject well and got totally confused, but in the end it was a waste of time.

Lest you should get me wrong again, let me clarify: for me there is a *huge* difference between classical uni lectures intended for studies and nontraditional approach or talks by interesting people.

>> To me it's a no-brainer that
>> educational value of a lecture
>> can at best approach one provided
>> by good sources (error-free, good
>> coverage of the subject, all
>> students are able to grasp things
>> at their own pace, concentrating
>> on hard parts as long as it takes
>> to understand them etc.). This,
>> in short, is why I really don't
>> understand why you're such a big
>> believer in lectures.
>
>I do believe more in exercises, but lectures are cheaper. The common theme here
>is activating the students, which is pretty hard if you only give them a book and
>tell them to take the exam three months later.

Lectures and activation of students are orthogonal things. I can easily imagine lectures less activating than a competition (even if it's not very well thought out) or game-based approach, but the reverse is really hard to imagine.

>>> It is also less than clear to me
>>> that there are some good sources
>>> easily available, but we can
>>> just agree to disagree about
>>> that. I don't think it's more
>>> than a minor point.
>>
>> Do you really think that good
>> lecturers are more available than
>> good sources?
>
>No, but since availability of good lecturers has nothing to do with availability
>of good sources, I don't see any problem here.

Well, since you mentioned costs, why a good lecturer would be cheaper than good sources? Esp. if lectures are not meant to replace the sourcese, but to supplement them. Apparent lack of logic there.

>> I think "professor" is usually used
>> to refer to a course instructor
>> rather than someone doing research.
>
>I thought this might be the case (I think in Spanish profesor means pretty much
>just teacher, so it may well have similar meaning in most related languages). In
>Finland, however, job describtion of a professor includes doing research. If you don't, the job is called teacher.
>
>> Even if he does some research, I don't
>> see why he would do a better job
>> retelling students what he learned
>> from published papers himself than the
>> authors in their manuscript.
>
>Published papers may well be too advanced for students, especially on basic courses.
>However, I think your point is just as valid if we replace papers with good teaching
>material made by some of the same experts.
>
>> Or why professor retelling a chapter
>> from the book is better than reading
>> the same chapter at a time when one
>> is best prepared for studies rather
>> than one set by course schedule.
>
>If you first design the course, and then start looking for good book on subject,
>you probably end up with less than perfect fit. Even if the book or other sources
>contain everything needed, just going through most important stuff, preferably taking
>another view than source material, is helpful.
>
>As I told earlier, I found it very effective to first read a chapter from a book
>and then go to the lecture, where lecturer presumed we had read the book and didn't
>get stuck on details. It helped to establish overall picture of the matter at hand.
>Of course, those who didn't do the reading weren't very happy, so I'm not sure if
>that style was a net win for an average student.
>
>Anyway, I see Dean actually wrote much of what I think a lot better than I could
>(I'm having a very annoying feeling of being kicked to the face by language barrier).
>If you understand his points, you can presume most differencies compared to mine are from "misunderstandings".

I don't think it's just misunderstandings, as I mentioned before. Yes, some people prefer a lecturer, others would rather read a book, but don't forget that a lecture can be at best as good as a good source -- this is indeed a basic truth which you have to deal with.

>>>> Don't get me wrong: there *are*
>>>> people who dedicated themselves
>>>> to education, and yet their
>>>> expertise is hardly questioned
>>>> by anyone (e.g. Don Knuth comes
>>>> to mind), but such people are
>>>> few and far between.
>>>
>>> In engineering you are probably
>>> right. Large part (perhaps even
>>> most part) of research is done
>>> by or with private companies
>>> and independent research by a
>>> university is rare.
>>
>> Not necessarily engineering, even
>> in Finland, I think, major body
>> of leading-edge basic research
>> (one which has scientific
>> significance) is done by
>> institutions like VTT rather than
>> universities. No?
>
>I don't have any numbers, but I'm pretty sure the answer is no. VTT also works
>together with universities, just like private companies do. There are also institutions,
>some funded by government, some by private entities (most by both) that fund research
>done in universities. It gets quite muddy soon, if one tries to define exactly whose
>research what is, and by what percentage.
>
>Oh, and then there's the definition of "leading-edge basic research". What does
>that even mean applied to engineering?

The clarification is in the parenthesis. Much of university research simply doesn't have scientific significance, which is more or less a fact. I don't think it's bad though, it's a pretty good thing if there are good mentors or modern equipment for students to play with. Plus, there are good exceptions which stand out from the rest.

I think that VTT would be better characterized
>as doing practical research[1], when compared to many fields in universities. I
>think the point of cooperation between university and other entities is that university
>does the basic research and that other entity will be first with practical applications.
>
>[1] VTT actually characterizes itself as "applied research organisation".
>
>> Because I would like to understand
>> a few things.
>
>I see. Sorry, I cannot help you. I did my best and failed. I don't think banging
>my head to the wall a bit more is going to change anything.
>
>I could tell you to re-read the thread, as you always tell me, but I don't think
>you would gain any insight from that. Just as I don't think I would.
>
>> No twisting; you said you think you're
>> a good teacher; you mentioned 1st-year
>> students, so I understand there must
>> be some educational value in your
>> exercise.
>
>I'm good enough teacher to know that you don't teach about things you don't understand
>well enough. The three statements as a concrete exercise on a course is meaningless
>speculation, if there isn't rest of the course available. I cannot evaluate its
>goodness unless I know what other things the course is about, and learn more about the subject in general.
>
>But just as an educated guess, I'm pretty sure I would come up with better exercise,
>if someone would force me to teach such a course. The point would be, there's no free lunch.

You're stating an obvious thing now, and the argument was *never* about whether OoOE is free or not. If you got it that way for some reason, then you're still missing the point of the whole conversation completely.

So let me suggest that you should stop whining how difficult it's for you to express yourself in a foreign language, but instead concentrate on the subject if you really have something to dispute my points with -- in theory or in practice. Otherwise, what's the point?

Besides, you deleted several important questions or points which I'd like to see answered or addressed so we make some progress:

>You quoted me out of context. You took part of my text talking about the example
>I had set up and presented it as something I generally think is true. I was all
>surprised because I cannot fathom how you still at that point managed to miss the context of the example.

No need to misrepresent. I quoted the context to avoid any additional discussion, but it appears you'd go a long way just for the sake of arguing rather than doing actual clarification.

>So I gave up. It doesn't matter whether I'm doing über bad job at writing or you
>reading. Were obviously not getting anywhere.

Then why not try a different approach? Point out what you think I'm missing from Jouni's or your own posts, and be clear about it.

>There's no free lunch and everything affects everything. Although my point was actually to opposite direction.

Of course there's no free lunch. How does it contradict something of what I said to Jouni or to you? Remember, the discussion concerned quite specific aspects: clock rate, pipeline length, if-ex distance and perhaps a few other things I don't recall right now.

>By the way. I think you got that fanboy of theory thing I said wrong. It seems
>that most of the time you use the title I don't quite understand what you want.

To undersand what are you grounds to state that someone "didn't get any of the discussion".

>It's not black and white. Interpreting your way is only wrong from the point of
>view that you may interpret differently than what the writer _thought_. If you just
>take the text and forget the thought behind it, there aren't wrong interpretations anymore, just different ones.

OK. Then doesn't it apply to anyone else, including you? Funny question, but if you agree it does, why bring it up?

>> I use "academic" as a synonim of
>> educational. Does it look better
>> now?
>
>Yes, although I still disagree with "great". I wasn't sure if academic was only
>applicable to university education (it pretty much is in Finnish, since we have
>a more general term(s) in use if we don't want to specify university setting).
>
>-JLarja