From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dan Cross <cross@math.psu.edu>
Message-Id: <200106121454.KAA08032@augusta.math.psu.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: the 'science' in computer scienscience
In-Reply-To: <20010612003610.3980A199E9@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Cc: 
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:54:29 -0400
Topicbox-Message-UUID: b6431d6c-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

In article <20010612003610.3980A199E9@mail.cse.psu.edu> you write:
>  [...]
>
>This means that we have a hard time imparting anything
>from generation to generation that can really be useful
>except for how to reason about problems.

But knowing how to reason about the problem is a good 75% of the battle
(if not more).  When I was 20 years old, I read, ``The Elements of
Programming Style,'' first edition.  The book is older than I am, but
it _profoundly_ influenced how I thought and worked, even though I've
never programmed in PL/I and only rarely work with FORTRAN.  It was
then that it occured to me that it's the principles, not the specifics,
that are timeless and really important.  The problem with education
these days is that the students want to learn the specifics; mistakenly
assuming that's what's important, and education, hungry for student
currency, is more than happy to cater to them.

Anyway, how do you teach someone to think?  I have no idea; your
suggestions are a good first step, but it seems that the `proper mind
set' outcome is a side effect of exposure with that method; is there a
way to directly target the thought process?

	- Dan C.