Why are so many musicians computer programmers?

[dansouth]

"Who we are" is not fixed in stone. "Who we are" is partly concrete, partly liquid. Would Arnold Palmer have been who he was had his father not been a groundskeeper for a golf course? Would Mozart have been who he was had his father not been a composer and a perfectionist who pushed the young boy mercilessly? "Who we are" develops as we experience life and interact with the world. Education can be supportive of that development, but it's not responsible for it. We are. Our families and friends and mentors and supervisors can help, but in the final analysis, we have the responsibility to listen to the small voice within that say, "I'd like to try X and Y." The responsibility rests with us to find pathways to our goals and objectives. We're not always going to head down the right path, but the important thing is to start moving and make adjustments when appropriate. Would you prefer the system that was popular in the former Soviet Union? Children were given aptitude tests that "determined" their career choices as age six or seven, and they were trained according to what those tests indicated. I find that notion horrifying, that the STATE is responsible for choosing my destiny. I'd rather try some things on my own and bump my head against a few walls. I may end up bruised, but I'll eventually find my "way."

 

Yes, lots of kids don't know what they want to do at 18. The important thing is to do SOMETHING, otherwise they'll still be wondering at 28, and 38, and 48. If your first choice doesn't work out, try something else. Just don't try to sell me on the idea that some all-knowing, all-nurturing institution is going to do a better job of forecasting my destiny than I can.

[Hippie]

Lee wrote:

... But really there are so many people who are there because "that's what you have to do" and have NO real idea why they're there....

 

Yea LEE!!!

Right on!!!

There are so many friggin' "yes men" out there, that make a career out of kissin'-ass to the boss, probably due to their parents conditioning their kids, to follow the rules, and don't rock the boat. These people have been stripped of their identities, and they don't even know it.

Ahh, it makes me sick!!

 

Hippie

[John Worthington]

"Imagination is more important than knowledge"

- Albert Einstein

 

jw

[dansouth]

"Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration." - Thomas Alva Edison

[michael saulnier]

John Worthington

"Imagination is more important than knowledge"

- Albert Einstein

 

vs.

 

dansouth@yahoo.com

"Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration."

- Thomas Alva Edison

 

It's the battle of the titans... Gommorrah vs. Godzilla!

 

This has been fun... But I don't think these two posts can be topped!

 

You can't get more appropriate diametrically opposed, succinct quotes regarding this debate than this!

 

Well Done!

 

...but then,

 

...you could say...

 

guitplayer

"Jane, you ignorant slut!"

Dan Akroyd

 

http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/cwm/cwm3d/3dbiggrin3.gif

 

This message has been edited by guitplayer on 05-04-2001 at 12:25 AM

[Lee Flier]

"You can't get more appropriate diametrically opposed, succinct quotes regarding this debate than this!

 

AAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGHHHHH!!!!! It's even more hopeless than I thought!

 

In what way are these two philosophies opposed at all??????

 

The very fact that you guys even THINK they are opposed speaks VOLUMES about the massive presumptions that underly that thinking.

 

YOU GUYS ARE ALL FUCKING BRAINWASHED!!! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/eek.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/eek.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/eek.gif

 

I'm going to bed. I gotta rest up for this one. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

--Lee

[Lee Flier]

OK, I've had adequate sleep now and was thus able to determine that I really was, in fact, reading some of the things I read! First of all...

 

Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com:

"Who we are" is not fixed in stone. "Who we are" is partly concrete, partly liquid. Would Arnold Palmer have been who he was had his father not been a groundskeeper for a golf course? Would Mozart have been who he was had his father not been a composer and a perfectionist who pushed the young boy mercilessly? "Who we are" develops as we experience life and interact with the world. Education can be supportive of that development, but it's not responsible for it. We are.

 

False assumption #1: Education can ONLY be supportive of one's development, or else it is neutral. It is NEVER destructive to anyone's development.

 

Bull!

 

 

Yes, lots of kids don't know what they want to do at 18. The important thing is to do SOMETHING, otherwise they'll still be wondering at 28, and 38, and 48.

 

Assumption #2: If you don't go to an institution of education at age 18, you aren't "doing something".

 

Bull!

 

Would you prefer the system that was popular in the former Soviet Union? Children were given aptitude tests that "determined" their career choices as age six or seven, and they were trained according to what those tests indicated. I find that notion horrifying, that the STATE is responsible for choosing my destiny. I'd rather try some things on my own and bump my head against a few walls. I may end up bruised, but I'll eventually find my "way."

 

Well, so far, you haven't. You're pretty much spouting "the state's" party line all the way.

 

Just don't try to sell me on the idea that some all-knowing, all-nurturing institution is going to do a better job of forecasting my destiny than I can.

 

I'm incredulous at this! WHERE the hell did THAT come from? Have you been listening to Rush Limbaugh all day long? "America - love it or leave it! If you dare to be critical of any American institution that means you must be about to lay your evil communist agenda on me! You think you got it bad here, just think how much worse it could be!" Is that what you really think? I am just floored by the fact that you bring this up as if I was really going to try to "sell you" on this.

 

In fact, we DO largely have our destinies decided by state-sponsored and corporate-sponsored institutions. Most people just don't know it, 'cause they just sit there parroting the same mantra that said institutions want them to. I see they've done a good job on you Dan! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/eek.gif

 

--Lee

 

This message has been edited by Lee Flier on 05-04-2001 at 01:02 PM

[Chip McDonald]

Some people in the world are autodidactic.

Some people in the world have developed narrowly focused interests.

 

When those interests coincide with a way to make money, it's going to be inefficient to bring another human into the loop.

 

http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com:

Just which "establishment" am I a slave to. The American establishment? The Russian establishment. The German establishment? The Chinese establishment? The Korean establishment? The Kuwaiti establishment? The Israeli establishment? Education is highly valued in all of these vastly different nations. Why? Because there's a massive global conspiracy to deflate self-esteem and turn people into miserable robots? That's ludicrous, Lee.

 

First of all, those nations are not so different in a few key ways. They are all industrialized nations. And while there is not in most cases a deliberate "conspiracy" to deflate self esteem, it is a de facto conspiracy. What industrialized nations need is lots and lots of workers - people who will work long hours at boring tasks that are meaningless to them, without complaint and without much reflection as to whether or not it is good for them. The purpose of "schooling" is to teach young people the above skills, and to have someplace to put them while their parents are out working. Horace Mann, who instigated the compulsory education laws in the USA, didn't even try to hide that motive. He stated it plainly.

 

Colleges are less limiting than this, of course, but by then the damage is already done and humans' natural ways of learning through association, not to mention their natural self worth, have been quite seriously twisted. It's a very rare child that understands what is being done to them at school, and those children are labeled "troublemakers" or "daydreamers" or "ADD". So the person who is even aware that he is not living up to anywhere near his potential is rare - let alone the person who does it.

 

So after having been subjected to over 16,000 hours of mind-numbing, state sponsored education, of having all his time regimented for him and being told what to learn and how to learn it and when to study, the poor 18 year old trying to find himself then "chooses" to accomplish that by... MORE SCHOOL?

 

If he really wanted to take control over his life, seems to me the way to do that was to seek NON INSTITUTIONALIZED ways of learning, that would allow him to find himself. In other words, to set about trying to undo the damage done by school as soon as possible. That is exactly what I did myself. But most people don't even understand that they've been damaged or stunted by institutions in any way. In fact, as we've seen in this debate, to even SUGGEST that SOME people MAY in fact be stunted by educational institutions and be better off learning in some other way, is met with the hue and cry of "Education is the best way! Without an education you are nothing! ANYONE will learn faster and better through a college education than any other way! And if you say otherwise you are a lazy unmotivated sod and probably a Commie too!" Almost no one tells their children about the various roads they could take after graduating only ONE of which is college. College is the ONLY road presented in such cases, other than the military or McDonald's.

 

Prove me wrong. Please list some top notch surgeons, astronauts, engineers, opera singers, ballet dancers, novelists, and financial analysts who have reached their full potential and made a lasting impact on society WITHOUT the benefit of education.

 

That's a "trick question" and you know it. It is not LEGAL for surgeons, astronauts, and most types of engineers to practice their trade without a STATE ORDAINED license, which requires a COLLEGE DEGREE.

 

As for opera singers, ballet dancers, novelists, and financial analysts, there are PLENTY of those everywhere without degrees of any kind, and many with little or no formal education.

 

In any case, we have no idea how many such people would distinguish themselves without an educational system, because we have NEVER HAD an industrialized nation without an educational system, and in the past 50 years we have presented few alternatives to our children BUT institutionalized education. Whether people are succeeding BECAUSE of education, or in SPITE of it, is something that no one can say. I know however, that in my own personal experience, I have succeeded in SPITE of school, and that damn everything worthwhile that I've learned in my life has happened OUTSIDE of a classroom. And I also know I'm far from alone in that regard.

 

The fact that people succeed in spite of having shackles on them might be a great tribute to those individuals' resolve, but it would be better to take the shackles off.

 

--Lee

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Chip McDonald:

Some people in the world are autodidactic.

Some people in the world have developed narrowly focused interests.

 

When those interests coincide with a way to make money, it's going to be inefficient to bring another human into the loop.

 

 

Very true, Chip. However, the people who could be better served by alternative forms of learning are not limited to very self-directed people (although the subject of why there are so relatively few people who ARE self-directed is a whole other can of worms). I do think there is usually a benefit to people working together and learning from each other.

 

So I'll just ask everybody to use their imaginations for a moment (if they have any left after having been wrung through the educational system http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif): supposing all schools were to just disappear tomorrow? Suppose educational institutions were outlawed, and there were no such thing as professional "teachers"? (and no, I'm not actually advocating this, just trying to get people to imagine how other might actually learn things aside from their fearful visions of falling off the edge of the earth.)

 

We're still an industrial society. The world still needs doctors, lawyers, scientists, programmers, businessmen, musicians, etc. Everything else is the same, but no one can go to school to learn a profession. I'm talking from preschool all the way through college. Can't go to school.

 

How do you suppose we would accomplish that?

 

--Lee

[dansouth]

I've always been a daydreamer. I was punished for "not paying attention" in kindergarten. I have been humiliated on numerous occasions by teachers who asked me to answer questions that I did not hear. I've been admonished by bosses for "lack of focus." Am I damaged, dysfunctional, hopelessly and irretrievably corrupted? Has my creativity and imagination been squashed? No way! In fact, I'm STILL daydreamer. When I'm "off in space," my mind is doing very important work. Despite the "assembly line mentality" that I've encountered at a few places of employment, most of my colleagues and supervisors have realized the value of my creative imagination. Despite having Eva Braun as a kindergarten teacher, of my educational experieces have STIMULATED my imagination.

 

Is it a terrible thing to be able to switch off the daydreaming periodically. I'm glad that I can focus when I'm driving a car. I'm glad that I can be disciplined enough to pay my bills each month so I don't get booted out of my house. Does this "training" make me a less creative, successful, happy, or self-esteemed person? NO FREAKING WAY!!!!!!! I am happiest and most fulfilled when I'm accomplishing my objectives, and I can't accomplish much of anything without some structure and discipline in my life. Believe me, I've tried.

 

How on earth could I have any self-esteem if I had a mind full of grand visions but no practical way of achieving them? Both are necessary. Inspiration and perspiration. Knowledge and imagination. Freedom and discipline. No one gets very far without a balance in these areas. Show me a person who has a wonderfully creative imagination and no aptitude for realizing their aspirations, and I'll show you a person with the lowest self-esteem you can imagine.

 

Henry James said, "If you don't become the best that you can possibly be, then I promise you, that you'll never be happy as long as you live." Education, if applied properly, can propel is toward our goals, a necessary step on the road to self-actualization. But I certainly agree that misapplication of education can bring results that range from wasteful to devastating. It is the individual's charge to navigate the myriad educational opportunities available to choose the "path" that leads them to their personal destiny. Blindly poo-poo-ing education as some horrible, dehumanizing force is ludicrous nonsense. Educational opportunities abound. Anyone can improve their life through education.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com:

Is it a terrible thing to be able to switch off the daydreaming periodically. I'm glad that I can focus when I'm driving a car. I'm glad that I can be disciplined enough to pay my bills each month so I don't get booted out of my house. Does this "training" make me a less creative, successful, happy, or self-esteemed person? NO FREAKING WAY!!!!!!! I am happiest and most fulfilled when I'm accomplishing my objectives, and I can't accomplish much of anything without some structure and discipline in my life. Believe me, I've tried.

 

False assumption # 1247: without formal education, one will learn no "discipline" and will become a dysfunctional mess incapable of having any structure in their lives.

 

Inspiration and perspiration. Knowledge and imagination. Freedom and discipline. No one gets very far without a balance in these areas.

 

Totally agree! But how does NOT getting a formal education preclude one from having that balance?

 

Blindly poo-poo-ing education as some horrible, dehumanizing force is ludicrous nonsense.

 

First off, to the extent that I pooh-pooh education, it is not blind. I have evidence behind what I say. Second, I am not condemning education across the board, as I have already mentioned several times now. I have only mentioned the POSSIBILITY that there are individuals whose potential would be better served by learning through other means than formal education, and that formal education would in fact be HINDERING those individuals, and I am met with totally blind statements like this:

 

Educational opportunities abound. Anyone can improve their life through education.

 

That only goes to show how deeply these assumptions are entrenched, and how defensive people get when they are questioned.

 

NOT everyone can improve their life through education. Some people's lives are much improved without it. And NOT getting a formal education does not equate to falling off the edge of the earth, having "lesser" skills than others, no discipline, illiteracy and social chaos.

 

Why are you so afraid to even consider that possibility?

 

--Lee

 

This message has been edited by Lee Flier on 05-04-2001 at 04:00 PM

[dansouth]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

NOT everyone can improve their life through education. Some people's lives are much improved without it. And NOT getting a formal education does not equate to falling off the edge of the earth, having "lesser" skills than others, no discipline, illiteracy and social chaos.

 

It has nothing to do with comparisons to others. When did I mention that? Is THAT the source of your hostility toward education. Do educated people make you feel inferior? If so, don't, because that's silly. My point though all of this is that education enables us to improve. I took some Italian classes last year. I could have tried to teach myself, and I would have learned some Italian, but I learned MORE in LESS TIME by going to class. Lots of people speak Italian better than I do, including three-year-old kids in Italy. What difference does THAT make. Education isn't competition. I know more about the Italian language than I would have without taking classes. I know more about music for having taken lessons. Etc., etc. Why do you have such a problem with that?

[dansouth]

Assumption #2: If you don't go to an institution of education at age 18, you aren't "doing something".

 

My point was that if you wait until you have your life figured out before you start heading in some direction, you'll wait forever. You'll only find your way as you're moving in some direction. It doesn't have to start out being the "right" direction. But the argument that eighteen-year-olds should not pursue education because they don't know what they want to do is moronic. They'll learn more about their life and their goals at work or in some class - even the wrong class - than they will sitting at home waiting for their lives to suddenly make sense.

[Guest]

I'm sorry to interrupt.

 

But another twist to this topic will follow.

 

There has been a study on doctors and their ability to make the right diagnose on a number of different cases.

 

There were two groups of doctors, one with doctors playing an instrument and one that doesn't.

The outcome was that the group of doctors that played an instrument had a higher rate of correct diagnoses.

 

How about that for a change?

 

------------------

--Smedis,--

[dansouth]

Originally posted by smedis:

I'm sorry to interrupt.

 

Oh, please do!!!

[-]

Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com:

Oh, please do!!!

 

Yeah, this topic has turned into a fight that has to get broken up by the ref before someone gets reeeeeealy hurt.

 

Craig, where are you? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

[dansouth]

I'm outta here. Lee wins. Have a great weekend. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com:

It has nothing to do with comparisons to others. When did I mention that?

 

As I keep pointing out, that assumption is everywhere in your posts.

 

Every time I say "Some people learn better by other methods than formal education" I get a reply like this:

 

"...the notion of 'I've always learned better outside of the classroom' is bunk. You can learn all of those same things while you're taking classes, working on assignments, doing internships, etc."

 

(as if you have any idea what people learn who don't attend college)

 

"Educational institutions are not responsible for personal baggage. If someone has baggage, they need to deal with it. It's a separate issue. It has nothing to do with education."

 

(as if anyone who doesn't fit into the mold of the educational system must have personal baggage that they need to get over)

 

"...if you look at the aggregate of ALL computer science grads and compare that to the aggregate of ALL people who did NOT study computer science in college, you'll find that the percentage of the C.S. grads who know how to program computers is MUCH higher than the percentage of non-grads."

 

(as if most people ever have a chance to find out how well they would be able to program a computer if colleges did not exist)

 

"Yes, lots of kids don't know what they want to do at 18. The important thing is to do SOMETHING, otherwise they'll still be wondering at 28, and 38, and 48."

 

(as if anything other than work or college isn't "doing something")

 

"Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration." - Thomas Alva Edison

 

(as if, without a formal education, no one would perspire)

 

"I'm glad that I can focus when I'm driving a car. I'm glad that I can be disciplined enough to pay my bills each month so I don't get booted out of my house."

 

(as if humans would not be able to discipline themselves if no one were waving carrots and sticks in front of them in a formalized institution)

 

And most recently....

 

"They'll learn more about their life and their goals at work or in some class - even the wrong class - than they will sitting at home waiting for their lives to suddenly make sense."

 

(as if the only choices one has in life are work, school, or "sitting at home waiting for their lives to make sense")

 

Why else would you mention any of these things in the context of this thread, if your underlying assumptions were not as I state them?

 

Is THAT the source of your hostility toward education. Do educated people make you feel inferior?

 

ROFL!! HELL NO, and I have no idea where you'd get that idea! I feel that the education I got is TOTALLY superior to anything I could have gotten from a classroom and that's my whole freakin' POINT! It is POSSIBLE not to go to school and to still outperform someone who does, know more about one's chosen field than someone with a degree in it, to be just as much or more motivated, etc. It is also POSSIBLE that if you are a person who excels outside the classroom, being IN a classroom will hold you BACK from your goals, not bring you closer to them.

 

Like I said at the beginning of this thread, if you can't accept these as possibilities, you're living under a rock.

 

My point though all of this is that education enables us to improve.

 

It CAN enable us to improve. I think we all know that already. It doesn't NECESSARILY enable us to improve. And someone who goes to school and is NOT improved by it is not necessarily lazy or unmotivated. Nor are they just "in the wrong program". They may be better served by learning another way. THAT'S ALL.

 

I took some Italian classes last year. I could have tried to teach myself, and I would have learned some Italian, but I learned MORE in LESS TIME by going to class. Lots of people speak Italian better than I do, including three-year-old kids in Italy. What difference does THAT make. Education isn't competition. I know more about the Italian language than I would have without taking classes. I know more about music for having taken lessons. Etc., etc. Why do you have such a problem with that?[/b]

 

I don't - FOR YOU. But for you to say "Because this worked for me, it would work for ANYONE" is what I have a problem with. IT WON'T. If I wanted to learn Italian, I would go to Italy or to an Italian neighborhood of any American metropolitan area and inside of a couple of months I could probably speak better Italian than you could by sitting in a class. I would be learning in a REAL WORLD situation, where I would HAVE to speak the language because everyone else was. I find that superior to classroom learning. If you don't, fine. But just don't presume that everyone will benefit, or that they might not benefit MORE by thinking outside the box of "work or school".

 

You say you know more about music from taking lessons. What you actually know more about is the things they taught you in the lessons. If that makes you a better musician by the standards you set for yourself, great! I took theory lessons for awhile and I found they were not serving my purposes in terms of knowing more about music by the standards that I set for myself. I learn better by playing with other people, by studying on my own from books, by listening to records. When I take music lessons, I really don't get it. And someone with less self esteem than I had, who had the same experience I did, might have felt compelled to give up music or concluded they were just a dumbass.

 

Likewise, I used to flunk out of algebra in school, in spite of my parents' and teachers' best efforts to help me learn. Again, most other kids who flunked a subject would probably just feel shitty about themselves and never crack a math book again. When I became interested in computers as an adult, I suddenly "connected" with the concepts of how algebra worked because of how it applied to programming. Had I stuck with the "traditional" educational concept that "you have to learn algebra so you have a foundation to understand programming", I'd never have become a programmer and I'd never have learned to be good at higher math, much less like it. Yes, a math major will know more about the abstract concepts of higher math than I do. If that's what interested him, great for him! But I learned what I needed to know to make a good living, in an enjoyable and motivating way, and even became fascinated with math to the point where I wanted to study it even further, when no amount of "discipline", punishment, reward, or anything else could make me learn it in a classroom.

 

I suspect that there are many, many more people who are like me but don't know it. They simply accept that "education is the way for anyone" and that's that. If people presented options to their kids in a more balanced way, I'd quit yelling about it. I don't have a problem with the fact that schools exist. I have a problem with the fact that most alternatives are marginalized and swept under the rug in favor of the education "mantra".

 

'Nuff said.

 

--Lee

[dansouth]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

If I wanted to learn Italian, I would go to Italy or to an Italian neighborhood of any American metropolitan area and inside of a couple of months I could probably speak better Italian than you could by sitting in a class. I would be learning in a REAL WORLD situation, where I would HAVE to speak the language because everyone else was. I find that superior to classroom learning.

 

Of course that's superior to classroom learning. But (a) we can't all pull up stakes and move to Italy, and (b) an even MORE superior way to learn is to immerse yourself AND take classes at the same time. The classes will explain ambiguities and correct mistakes that you make, or that the people your are speaking with make. You can tell the difference between people who come to the US and TAKE ENGLISH CLASSES and those who don't. My point was that the class enabled me to learn more faster than I could have on my own. Is there a better way? Yes. Is it as practical? No. If I had depended on going to Italy to learn Italian, I'd know no Italian today. Is that better, Lee? Should I sit here and wait for the stars to be in perfect alignment before I pursue my ambitions, or should I find the most effective, practical way to learn and get started immediately. Obviously the answer to that question is different for you than it is for me.

[Hippie]

Lee,

You've got it figured out! Why let the competition in on the secret!

If people are disagreeing with your view, it is their loss! Just let them go be "children of the corn", and get on with it! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

-Hippie

[Michael Riehle]

You know, I think the problem is that the discussion moved away from education right into schooling.

 

But, wait! You say, aren't they the same thing?

 

Nope.

 

I think education - however you get it - is critical to your success in life. I even believe that some of it should be through formal schooling.

 

My problem with the degree snob thing is that quite a lot of formal education is worse than useless. Rather than helping you to acquire useful skills, they build in stupid prejudices. It's just possible, as well, that what frustrates me most about this is that the problem is *not* consistent across disciplines.

 

One of the things that's always frustrated me about CS degreed programmers is that they turn out to be pretty poorly educated individuals in a lot of respects. It's hard to talk to some of them because they only speak jargon. They often come out indoctrinated in The Software Way (or these days it's sometimes worse: The Microsoft Way).

 

But, hang on, in an earlier message I said that general education is a waste of time. Well, the problem here is that education vs. schooling thing. It's always been a wonder to me that I learned more algebra and english grammar in one semester of vocational electronics than I did in four years of english and math classes. Oh, and I managed to learn DC and AC theory, digital circuit theory and BASIC programming while I was about it (okay, those things took more than the one semester http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif ).

 

It's also always been interesting to me that the best programmers I've worked with over the years who *did* have a college degree had it in almost anything but computer science. Psych, Math and English majors tend to make the best programmers IME. CS Majors often can't write working code to save their lives.

 

I hear this about other technical professions as well.

 

It isn't really a lack of knowledge I see, though, as much as an attitude problem. One of the more common stupidities that a lot of schools perpetrate on CS majors is the single-person team working with well-defined specs on easily-understood systems. That just never happens in the real world. You always have to work in teams. Nobody actually knows what the widget you're building is supposed to do, so somebody better spend some time figuring it out. Moreover, the requirements *will* change in the middle of the project at least once.

 

On top of that, a lot of us self-educated types had to learn to cope with four or five different programming environments simultaneously. That includes, BTW, the Psych major who learned how to program because he wanted to try some simulations to test a theory he had (I actually knew a guy like this at one time, he had a masters degree in psychology and he was an amazing programmer). Some of these CS graduates can't cope unless it's in C++ or Java (whichever their instructors favored) on Windows.

 

Of course, what's really amazing is that this subject was a heated argument almost two decades ago in the Communications of the ACM.

 

Now, when you start talking about K-12 education it's worse. I really think that it's a wonder any of us can think after we get out of high school.

 

You know, it's funny. A lot of the guys I knew in high school who were decent musicians were also the sort who rebelled but never actually got into trouble. These were the people who could read and write better than the valedictorians but wouldn't bother with homework because it got in the way of practice time. I also knew people who failed classes because they were busy programming games on the school computers (oh, like, well, me!).

 

I wonder if rugged individualism is part of the reason why music and programming go together?

 

I do know that the single biggest skill I've found both good programmers and good musicians lacking in is the ability to work with others. I really think musicians are worse, though.

 

There's the old joke about managing programmers is like herding cats. If that's true, then managing musicians is like herding cats across a river with no bridge or boat.

 

 

------------------

Michael Riehle

Bass Player/Band Leader

fivespeed

CA Local Bay Area Music Webring

[stratman_dup1]

O.K. So I'll ask one more question then leave you all alone http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif . If I was to try and teach myself some programming skills, what would be the best language to start off in?? There are about a thousand different languages out there it seems, which would be the most worthwhile to pursue at first??

 

What I'm looking for is the best programming language to learn that might actually lead to employment in the field. Which would then hopefully lead to having an employer that would pay me to learn other languages and really improve my marketability, not to mention pay scale.

 

Thanks Guys and Gals.

Thanks especially to Popmusic, you couldn't have posted this thread at a better time. Getting into programming is something I've been SERIOUSLY considering lately, and I'm getting some valuable insights here.

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by Stratman:

O.K. So I'll ask one more question then leave you all alone http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif . If I was to try and teach myself some programming skills, what would be the best language to start off in??

 

See, the thing here is that if you're not sure, it's maybe not a good thing to do. One could be given a variety of answers - Java, ANSI C, some sort of scripting language, and they could lead to a "good job"....

 

But - things change pretty rapidly. Not only that - but I find it curious that people can learn things like object oriented encapsulation being motivated merely by needing a job, instead of curiousity.

 

My father is a real eastate appraiser; it's nothing but convoluted laws and statutes combined with empirical terminology to describe all aspects of a the condition of a building.

 

He finds it interesting. I find it tediously, mind numbingly boring. I can't stand it. Likewise, I can't learn it. It would be such mental torture to be forced to do that.

 

So, with programming, I suppose one could pick a language and "learn" it, but I don't see in the real world being able to get by with just that.

 

I would say:

 

A) Master getting around on a P.C., and to trouble shoot it. Get an old 486 and learn how DOS worked.

 

B) Then, do the same with a Unix variant. Just learning Unix could maybe land you a job...

 

C) Make sure you fully understand the mechanical aspects of how a disk drive and memory works. Then make sure you understand the fundamentals of logic theory/how logic gates work, and then how that translates into solid state memory. That will make things A LOT easier....

 

D) Learn BASIC; *non-visual*....

 

E) Learn to write batch files.

 

 

I think at *that* point you can then take a step that leads to an intelligent decision in choosing an education...

 

 

Go out and buy a "You Can Learn" book on the following:

 

ANSI C (actually one of the best sources is available online as the... frick... I can't remember the name of the FAQ now! Uhg... There's a good Peter Norton book on it; there's also a lot of doggish books...) C++ before C doesn't make sense to me, but apparently they teach it that way in college now, and I'm just a dillettante, so....)

 

COBOL (not a lot of point to it now, but...)

 

HTML (not really a "language", but....)

 

Novell Netware (an OS, but still....)

 

Visual Basic

 

Some sort of dbase compiling language (I don't know what's happening these days; it used to be Clipper and... uhg.. can't remember)

 

Java variants

 

Perl

 

.. and just so you'll know what it's about, for kicks,

8086 Assembly

 

(and I'm forgetting something important, but "oh well" you get what you pay for..)

 

 

See how long it takes you to write a "hello world" program in each. After you've done that you'll then know if you even want to pursue it seriously. I really think one should take those steps or else you might find yourself in something deeper than you want to be. Also know that a lot of grade schools now have classes on programming that does the above to a certain degree, and that that is who you'll be competing against; except they'll have a head start....

 

ANSI C is probably the best base for today. If you can learn that you should be able to leap frog into other things easily enough I think, although I don't think it's actually used anywhere. If you can't teach yourself to get around C, then check out getting NT certification, which is what it would appear many CS grads do these days; pretty much guarantees a "decent" job, but again you can leverage that into something else (probably). If you do do this stick to all of the meticulous naming conventions and pay attention to the form and style of things and make it a habit, that's important to your long term sanity, trust me...

 

I just saw a friend tonight who is getting out of school as a CS major. "Oh yeah man, you'll never believe it, I've been doing computers!

Yeah!"

 

So I inquire as to what he's learned...

 

"Oh man, I know Unix and can set up an NT server, and what's really going to pay off is Visual Basic!"

 

????????

 

Upon talking to him further, again I found he was a victim of having learned to get around in X-Windows or KDE, and couldn't tell me how to browse a directory tree from the command line...

 

FURTHER, he didn't even know what that meant. "So what flavor of Unix do you know?" I asked...

 

"What do you mean? Oh, Linux? Is Unix the same? I'm really going to do that next"...

 

????

 

"So you don't know the diff between a Berkely variant and Linux, that doesn't mean anything to you?"

 

"No..."

 

"What about BSD, or Perl? Scripting languages?"

 

"No... that's all that?"

 

"How about C?"

 

"well, I'm going to learn that on my own"

 

"Ok, that's good..."

 

"yeah, it'll take a couple of weeks, but"

 

"just a few weeks?"

 

"Yeah..."

 

"So, can you program BASIC without using the Visual environment?"

 

"What do you mean?"

 

"Do you know what a pointer is?"

 

"No... hey man, I'm not trying to be a hacker!'

 

... and on and on.

 

He'll probably fall into some sort of pseudo-network installing job I'm guessing. Probably could buy a book on NT and study it for a month and get the same position, but oh well.... I'm sorry, as far as I'm concerned he got ripped off for his "education". I know a lot of guys that know how to answer the questions for NT certification almost verbatim, but it's not from thinking about it but rote memorization.

 

This is the sort of thing the Japanese used to be criticized for at one time, BUT - they do it right and go all out, where as now a lot of schools are turning out people brainswashed into thinking they've had a "comprehensive" education and they haven't. If I pay someone that much money and spend that much time at it I want to come out being a wizard, not just someone who can hook up an ethernet card. There must be a saturation of that kind of people out there right now, and the pay has to be dropping because of it.... But maybe not, I dunno.

 

I know, shut up and stick to talking about music....

 

http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[Lee Flier]

Stratman,

 

What language to start with really depends on what kinds of applications you would like to get into. What kinds of things do you see yourself programming? Web sites? Business applications? Controllers? Audio hardware or software? Games? The platforms would be different for any of those things.

 

--Lee

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com:

If I had depended on going to Italy to learn Italian, I'd know no Italian today. Is that better, Lee? Should I sit here and wait for the stars to be in perfect alignment before I pursue my ambitions, or should I find the most effective, practical way to learn and get started immediately. Obviously the answer to that question is different for you than it is for me.

 

Well, you just completely ignored part of my post in order to stay stuck in your thought box. Besides going to Italy, another option I mentioned was to find a neighborhood in the city where you live where there are lots of Italian immigrants. If you don't know of one, there are usually expat clubs and language clubs for just about any language. My sister learned Spanish and Nepali that way. Five years of Spanish in school didn't teach her anything close to what she learned from a couple of MONTHS of hanging around with Hispanic people in our city. And when she was going to travel to Nepal she got a Nepali grammar book and then also found a group of Nepalis who live here in Atlanta and give regular social events. She told them she was interested in learning the language and they were all eager to help her. She'd go to the parties and be around them speaking the language and they would answer her questions and correct her mistakes. Again, within a very short time she was well versed in the language, and had made some great new friends and learned a ton about the culture in the process.

 

I am NOT saying this to actively discourage anyone from taking a class if it IS in fact the best way to learn in your situation. What I'm trying to get across is that it's limiting to ASSUME that is the fastest way, or that anything other than taking a class is simply "waiting for the stars to be in perfect alignment". It is just bizarre how you hang onto that notion. Instead of saying "I want to learn Italian. I'll go take a class," if you simply said, "I want to learn Italian. What are my options for doing that?" and you ASSUMED there were other good options that you hadn't thought of yet, it would cause you to think outside the box more and then come up with some fresh ideas that may, or may not, include taking classes.

 

--Lee

[michael saulnier]

Humans are nature's "learning machine". No other animal depends so little on instinct, so much on learning, comprehension, and imagination. It's integral to our beings to have to learn things to survive in the world.

 

Adaptation is also a dominant human trait. We all individually adapt to our circumstances and life experiences... learning lessons along the way.

 

I think it's futile to argue what the "best" method for learning is for any particular person. Each person should ideally choose their own path as they enter adulthood. If they pick college only to mark time or because someone else wanted them to be there... well hopefully they'll find some value in the relationships they make while they're there. If they adapt to the "system" and apply themselves, I hope they gain whatever information, knowledge and wisdom they can find.

 

On the other hand, if they choose to ignore college, I don't think it's a bad choice as long as it IS a choice. The worst thing is to be anywhere you're not getting anything out of it... If you CRAVE college and can't afford to go... that's sad... It's just as sad to be spending thousands of hours in college with no direction, interest, passion, or result.

 

Ironically we're at the cusp of potentially major changes in how we all can access information and opportunities to learn. Hopefully the early trends in "remote learning" will continue to blossom and anyone who wants to will be able to find a learning experience that suits them and is available to them wherever and whenever they want or need it.

 

I think Lee's mainly ranted against the societal norm that ONLY going to college is an acceptable choice and that formal educational systems CAN'T be counter-productive or even damaging to a person. I think she's right that some people are hurt by the regimented approach to learning commonly applied in our public education system.

 

I was a "smart kid", 99th percentile in "standard testing", but I was also bored to tears by many of my teachers. I was also very leery of being a "smart kid" in the eyes of my peers. Any attempt to lump me with the "brainiacs" was typically met by me with undone homework, and "not living up to potential" comments on my report cards.

 

Because my dad was moved by his job a lot, I attended 12 schools before I graduated from high school. About half were conventional public schools and the others parochial Catholic schools. I was lucky that in sixth grade I met a great and caring teacher who "took me under her wing". She inspired me to excel in her class (English), and exposed me to the idea I could be a musician. She invited me and a couple of the other kids to join the school choir and she brought us over to her house for practice where she had her very own Hammond Organ! It was a big WOW! at the time. It was the first time I actually met a person who wasn't a STAR who played music. Cool! Anyway... she helped me to adapt to conventional education and I eventually went on to college... I can't say I use much of what I learned there... Oh well...

 

Lee is a person who has "broken" traditional stereotypes... Female guitar playing rocker, engineer, software developer... NOT Mommy, Nurse, School Teacher, Secretary, or whatever. Obviously women's roles have evolved beyond these stereotypes... but my guess is that Lee had to "push" her way through some of these in her life and has the "scars" to prove it... and she's preferred to "do it herself" and has succeeded at it. Great adaptation skills.

 

On the other hand, DanSouth has promoted the view that society generally agrees with... formal schooling is the "best" way to pass information and knowledge from those that "know" to those that don't. You can't argue that for millions of people, formal higher education HAS worked for them. Like any institution, it serves the "norm", casts out the aberrant, and tends to place itself on a pedestal... proclaiming all opposing voices uninformed.

 

I'm guessing DanSouth's experiences are quite a bit different from Lee's... he's not female, he got something positive out of his educational experiences, and he's never even seen the doors Lee's had to push through.

 

I'm not saying that's his fault, he can't help being a man any more than Lee can stop being a woman. But there's no question the perspective each brings to this debate is pretty different.

 

So... keep blasting if you want... I admit I find it kinda funny... but I don't think there's a way for either of you to change the other's mind... even if this goes on for years.

 

"God Bless us, every one." Tiny Tim

 

guitplayer

 

 

 

------------------

http://www.mp3.com/acousticvoodoo

[-]

Originally posted by guitplayer:

but I don't think there's a way for either of you to change the other's mind... even if this goes on for years.

 

Oh no!!! Don't give them the idea to let it go on for *YEARS*!!! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/eek.gif

 

Seriously though, this has been an interesting discussion, but maybe we can just agree to disagree. Group hug, anybody? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

[Master Zap]

EVERYTHING I've ever made money doing, has been completely self-taught. I'm educated in technical school as an electronics major. Funny that, I couldn't wire up a simple one-transistor amplifier now to save my life methinks. Although I could probably build a computer given a bucket of TTL circuitry, a CPU, some RAM circuits and an EPROM.

 

In school we actually DID have some programming classes. In Pascal (bleayuch). Me and a friend were excused coz we knew more than the teacher. (We had extra time to make our final project - a graphics subsystems for our text-based Swedish ABC80 computers). I even had time to whip up my first raytracing engine to it, can you believe, before the final exams... and that was just because I had heard the concept of ray tracing explained to me once.

 

School was partially painful for me, because I'm the kind of guy that, if I am not MOTIVATED to know something, it just flows by my non-stick teflon half of the brain. If I am ever so slightly motivated, it goes into my "everything sticks forever" roach-motel side of my brain. But it's funny that the motivation MUST be there. I simply cannot study stuff I am not interested in, period. Like in School I was fundamentally un-interested in history, religion, and other social subjects, so I really don't know shit about them from SCHOOL. But lately I've taken up a massive history interest and am reading books and stuff and absorbing every bit in them like a sponge. Gimme same book back in the school-years and I would have forgotten everything before I read it.

 

Self-teaching is for me the only way, really.

 

Nowdays, I make my money as a programmer writing CAD software. I also make money making music. Neither of which I realy have a formal education in doing. (N.B. you can tell if I suck or not on the music side of things by listening at this page http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif )

 

What I do have is the drive to teach myself things that interest me, resynthsize that information into some form of output (code, text, music, whatever - like the recent interest in history gave me an idea for a novel I should write some rainy day).

 

But I have been sort-of "lucky" through School that they didn't bore me COMPLETEY apathic (although a rather un-healthy doze of lazyness stems from my school-years, but then again some say laziness is the mother of invention, and I tend to agree, you never work so hard as when you are working to avoid work http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif ) so I am getting along fine in spite of my PARTIALLY poor grades. Actually my teachers kinda realized the situation and a couple gave me A-grades in spite of writing poor test results...

 

Anyway, I ramble... but to go to the spain analogy mentioned earlier, I really dosn't matter either way how you "attempt" to "teach" me spanish if I have NO BLOODY INTEREST TO LEARN THE LANGUAGE.

 

Now, putting me as a live-in with a family who has a GORGEOUS spanish daughter... now there's some motivation right there http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

Thats the kind of motivational excercises the educational facilities should do more of ....

 

/Z

[Lee Flier]

guitplayer,

 

You're very right, it's futile to argue what the "best" way is for any individual, and you're also right that that isn't what I'm arguing. I'm only saying that parents shouldn't be afraid to give their kids options, and young adults shouldn't be afraid to give THEMSELVES options; also that some kids are very badly hurt by the educational system and could really blossom in a different environment. That's it. And I wouldn't have spent nearly this much time arguing about it if I didn't feel a certain amount of "duty" to speak up for young people who may still be going through this decision and feeling alone, thinking they're stupid or lazy for not wanting to go to school, etc. They're probably just pursuing the wrong course and nobody has bothered to tell them there are any others. My experience and temperament are pretty much like Zap's, and there are lots of people like us.

 

P.S. Believe it or not, if any extra difficulties were presented to me because of being female, I never noticed. I've always just done what I wanted to do and never had a chip on my shoulder toward men and it's not been a problem. I don't personally mind skewering stereotypes, I feel it's part of who I am. Whether the stereotypes have to do with gender, age, education, music, whatever, I probably am going to try to take 'em apart. It's always fun and educational. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

--Lee

 

This message has been edited by Lee Flier on 05-07-2001 at 10:10 AM