[48] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
No subject found in mail header
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (USENET News System)
Wed Apr 22 09:46:09 1992
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1992 08:36:02 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
From: USENET News System <news%u.washington.edu@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L@UHUPVM1.BITNET>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.pacs-l
Path: tdowling
From: tdowling@lib.washington.edu (Thomas Dowling)
Subject: Re: Computerspeak
Message-ID: <1992Apr21.190024.26256@u.washington.edu>
Sender: news@u.washington.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Washington Libraries
References: <PACS-L%92042111500444@UHUPVM1.BITNET>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1992 19:00:24 GMT
In article <PACS-L%92042111500444@UHUPVM1.BITNET>, KINGH@SNYSYRV1.BITNET writes:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> From: Sherron, Gene "Imaging Systems: An Overview for Management" _Educom
> Review_ pp 34-38
> (referring to University of Southern California, p. 35)
> ...Rather, the University
> felt that the 'immeasurable' improvements in quality, accuracy, and
> productivity of the admissions process were so significant that the system
> has been enlarged to include financial aid processing."
>
> Good that an abstraction or a building "felt" that the system did
> improve the admissions process. Spending a million dollars and more on
> something that makes significant though "immeasurable" improvements might
> not seem rational to people who can't get into the university because
> of faculty lay-offs and course and program close-outs.
If you're complaining about something abstract like a University "feeling,"
I would refer you to the entry under "synecdoche" in the dictionary of
your choice.
If, on the other hand, you believe that money from a less-than-perfectly
justified computer system would otherwise have gone directly to faculty
salaries and program support, you're on a very interesting campus, indeed.
>
> And from Monastersky, R. "A moisture problem muddles climate work." _Science
> News_ v 141 (April 4, 1992), p. 212.
> ..'dramatically increased computer power would not, by itself, be sufficient
> to simulate the present climate or our confidence in climate-change
simulations
> produced by existing models...
>
> Oh, oh -- we've hammered the idea that NREN will solve these problems
> without the need for "thinking," into each Congressperson's brain. Are
> scientists starting to doubt computer power?
I trust no one is telling Congress that funding the NREN will magically
create the computing power that meteorologists need. In fact, it sounds
like the person quoted here is saying that computing power is not the
issue.
Also, I'd like to imagine that we are not confusing our poor, feeble-minded
representative about the capabilities of computers and the networks that
link them. I am not familiar with any part of the NREN that will do any
imaging work.
>
> From Berger, Carl "Ann Jackson and the Four Myths of Integrating
> Technology into Teaching." _Syllabus Computer Science_ (PO Drawer Q,
> Sunnyvale, CA 94087) pp 2-4.
> ..."the reality behind this myth is that technology shouldn't
> have to compete with standard instructional formats. There's a place -- and
> a need -- for both in education today." But, didn't technology proselyti-
> zers tell us learning would be quicker, that you could learn more in a
> shorter time, and that computer-aided instruction was so much better than
> traditional methods that it was worth the billions higher education is
> putting into computers, telecommunications, and networks.
Well, I'm not responsible for anyone who listens to proselytizers. If
you are concerned that educators have on occasion considered oncoming
computer technology a panacea, I'd say that you're right--in a limited
number of cases, with a very limited number of educators. In my experience,
teachers have usually (and correctly IMO) seen computerized tools as just
so many more weapons in an aresenal that gladly makes use of whatever it
can get.
If you see this as a funding issue, have you asked any educational
administrators about their priorities, in terms of people vs. hardware?
Obviously, I take issue with a number of the sentiments I infer from
your post, but what bothers me most is the subject tag of "Computerspeak."
To me, this is a serious issue that involves dealing with marvelous
computer-related systems whose designers are often unable to describe
or document those systems in ways others will understand (this is not
unique by the way: try asking a lot of orchestra members to describe the
issues involved in a piece they just spent two hours rehearsing). This
kind of "computerspeak" presents some interesting and exciting challenges
to those of us who spend our times in the area between the computers and
the users.
To lump that together with this more general rough use of the English
language muddies the issue and gets us nowhere.
|Thomas Dowling | tdowling@u.washington.edu|
|Engineering Library | (206) 543-0741|
|University of Washington FH-15 | Seattle, WA 98195|
