[FRIAM] are we how we behave?

[Steven A Smith]

Dave -


> First some elaboration:
>
> In 25 BC, Vitruvius (considered the founder of the discipline of architecture) stated:
>
> "The ideal architect should be a man of letters, a skillful draftsman, a mathematician, familiar with historical studies, a diligent student of philosophy, acquainted with music; not ignorant of medicine, learned in the responses of jurisconsults, familiar with astronomy, and astronomical calculations."
Reminds me of the (in)famous Robert Heinlein quote so (s?)favored by
Libertarians and other strong Individualists:

    “A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
    butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet,
    balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take
    orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze
    a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal,
    fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.” 

> In 2004(5?) Christopher Alexander (architect) spoke to an audience of 1000 or so software developers; noting that professional architects are responsible for 10 percent of the built environment while software developers would be responsible for, essentially, 100% of the environment within which we all live, work, and play.
>
> Is it unreasonable to expect software developers to have an equivalent, in terms of modern knowledge, educational foundation?

I do think Alexander's point here is acutely relevant to this
discussion.   Having the experience/background to consider *what* is
worth doing is as (more?) important than merely knowing *how* to do it
efficiently.   This brings me back to the thread(s) with Glen/Marcus on
the question of the role/value of "culture".   I think I want my fellow
citizens/travelers in this world to be broadly aware of a range of
cultural/social/historical issues if they are to help me make
fundamental/important decisions about the world we live in.  Those
decisions can take the form of high-level policy formation, of voting
(or not), or of everyday decisions about our "built" environment.  
Alexander was a proponent of Vernacular Architecture which seemed to put
off many Architects who did not like the idea that each culture and
every individual in it had a lot to offer regarding the understanding of
built environments.  It threatened their elevated status as priest-like
experts.   But that is not to say he did not value a rich understanding
of the context for which someone was going to design a building, a room,
a garden, or a neighborhood.  He was a proponent for allowing the
embedded knowledge of the people living in those places to guide the
design process.

> The term "modern polymath" has gained significant traction in the business and the design press. Business attention comes from an awareness that in order to thrive, to innovate, in a highly dynamic and complex context, decentralization of analysis and decision making is essential. But, this requires a qualitatively different kind of employee — one with both breadth and depth of knowledge. Moreover, both in business and design, work is done by teams  — multi-disciplinary teams; teams that must transcend individual silos of expertise. A modern polymath is someone with significant, integrated, breadth of understanding with multiple (albeit to different degrees) instances of depth. The visual metaphor is a "broken comb."
>
> Much more could be offered in terms of identifying and arguing for the need of broadly educated individuals and extension of that need into almost any discipline.
>
> Now the jumping up and down with a bit of YELLING.
>
> AS THEY HAVE EVOLVED, CONTEMPORARY UNIVERSITIES CANNOT GRADUATE INDIVIDUALS THAT EVEN APPROXIMATE MODERN POLYMATHS.
My own experience as a "hiring manager" from time to time during my
career at LANL reinforces that *beyond* college.   I looked at interns
(mostly undergrads) to begin grooming as potential full hires later and
was disappointed with A) how few were actually studying a rich set of
topics, not just following a fairly narrow line. and B) how the
institution (LANL) made it hard for me to consider them even as *student
interns* if their grades were not top-notch.   I would MUCH rather have
a B-student who was *trying* to be a polymath, taking a wide range of
classes (and sometimes biffing them) and even more importantly, getting
some kind of work experience (even fast-food service) than an A+ student
who only took classes they *knew* they could ace, didn't bother with
things they might be *interested in* outside their core curriculum, and
weren't risk-taking enough to have outside interests. 
> I could list numerous reasons for this assertion, but will, instead, offer a single illustration.
>
> The program that I delivered at Highlands (co-taught with Pam Rostal) was designed to graduate software developers who were modern polymaths. We devised a set of 321 "competencies" and students had to demonstrate their mastery of each at up to five different levels ranging from "rote application under supervision" to "making a contribution to understanding." Competencies ranged in subject matter from Anthropology to Zooloqy. We also utilized 'just in time learning' and tinversion of the teaching approach: graduate level first, fundamentals later.
>
> It worked. The first year we had half the students (Freshmen to Graduate level) presenting refereed papers at two conferences with the highest rejection rate of all conferences at that time. All of our students were offered mid-level positions in industry - very notably at a national, not just local level) in software development — not entry level.
I was not aware of your approach at Highlands and applaud what you were
up to there.  You must have a few significant "success stories" out
there in the wild by now?  Do you stay in touch with any?  I don't know
your tenure at Highlands, but I suspect your heyday with this program
was after I quit seeking newhires (about 2004).  In any case, it
reflects my own blinders, assuming HIghlands *couldn't* be doing
anything so aggressive/successful!
> [An article for the Cutter Journal on this subject should appear in the next few weeks. I will share with anyone interested when it is published.]
I look forward to reading about it.
> The point of this reminiscence: As an experiment we put the knowledge base expected of our students in the form of traditional 3-4 credit courses. The number of courses and credits required was the equivalent of 4 undergraduate degrees and 3 Masters Degree programs.
Reminds me a tiny bit of what I believe to be the case of my
grandparent's generations 8th-grade educations.   Best I could tell,
reading some of the textbooks and curricula required in those days for
graduating 8th grade, most of the material exceeded what the average
grade 12 student is expected to master. 
> Our program could not be replicated at any other university as it violated EVERY precept of university teaching and organization.
Seems like the advantage of working at a fringe/lesser-known 4 year
college where you were (apparently) allowed to be very aggressive in
developing your program.  Was this a consequence of enlightened
management or (benign?) neglect on their part?   Jenny Q. has reported
to me her own experience there somewhat more aligned with the latter
assertion than the former.

- Steve

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20190306/a1d93d9c/attachment-0001.html>