First of all, let me say that I really like the idea of people in the field establishing the curricula for an introductory course...The Computer Science field is unique in that, unlike mathematics, the subjects that need to be taught are changing almost yearly. However, I see a few inherent problems with this approach. Computer Scientists and Engineers are NOT educators for the most part. I guess thats why they included the Education Board in the process. But put that aside for a few moments...

One of the articles that they cite recommends the integration of laboratory work into lectures. We have discussed this same topic in the discussions that we've had during class time. I think that the general concensus was that interactive demos might be a good idea. I rememebr that my perspective was slightly different than that of my "peers". I think that lectures are extremely valuable and that I learn most from doing the programs and lectures. Other memebers of the GISP find the lecutres dull and useless. First of all, I question why they consider them dull. I wonder if the former TAs think that the lectures are boring because the material that is being taught is old news to them...they've heard it a thousand times. But then I have examine why other memebrs of the GISP, those that are freshman and to whom the material was new. Perhaps I just learn in a different way...

This is my reaction to the idea of integrating labs with lectures...I think it takes away from valuable lecture time...I consider it useless. Here is a clear example of why I think that: I was in Danah's section. Once, in the beginning of the semester she put on an intro to UNIX help session in the lab for her students. Everyone else that attended seemed to be able to follow along and keep up, their screens had the same things that Danah's did. All I remember was trying to keep up with the rest of the students and Danah. I wasn't that familiar with Unix before that help session. I wasn't that familiar with Unix after the help session either. It's not that Danah wasn't a good teacher...the other students were getting it. They could implement the simple tasks that Danah was showing them. I had to keep raising my hand for help. It didn't teach me anything, it just made me feel stupid.

I fear that that would happen to some other students in the class. I fear that they might drop it for that same reason. Maybe that fear isn't founded.

The article then went on to say that undergraduates need to have a knowledge based in the history of computing. While I think that it might be a good thing to know, I don't think that it is neccessary...at all.

The goals that the curricula provides I mostly agree with. Except for preparing us for the workplace, and the ethical issues associated with the computing field. That is silly. Undergraduate programs are not girl scout camp. Those issues remind me of Donna Reed and secretary school. Yes, we need to learn how to type. But we'll be able to figure out for ourselves how to compose ourselves in the workplace.

I don't know, this paper should have had an entire week to itself because I think that it is going to spawn a lot of reactions. I really can't go on.

I agree with you that the interactive labs where the whole class would try to follow the leader are essentially useless. People learn at their own speed, and trying to have someone lead a group of people, some of whom know more than others would be a waste of everyone's time, as some people would want to go faster and some would want to go slower. On-line interactive diagnostics like we have been talking about with the homeworks could be very useful though. Students can work at their own pace either and repeat the exercise as often as needed thus removing the risk of feeling embarassed that they can't keep up.

With regard to teaching ethics. I'm not sure what opinion I currently have on the issue, but I think it is important for students to realize the potential that they have at their fingertips and the responisbility that they have to not abuse that. Whether it is our responsibility to teach morals or even manners is another issue altogether.

First, I want to apologize for the section. I wish I had known...

Second, I want to address your Donna Reed comments. I wish I agreed. I truly wish that people would learn how to compose themselves in the workplace but I don't believe that they do. Freedom and power without an ethical outlook is very dangerous. It allows individuals to control other's lives. A friend of mine wrote me the following, "it's kind of ironic, given how programmers are often staunch defenders of privacy and will decry the government's attempts to regulate encryption, that invasions of others' privacy aren't held up to the same standards." Why is this? Why are individual's given the power to harm others? How can we stop this? Maybe teaching ethics would not work but it sure would be an aim at the right direction.