(17-07-2014 00:28)Maik escribió:  la caga jenifer aniston, pero por suerte muy poco, ya que casi ni aparece.

Cita:The Myth of Technological Supremacy

There is a strong belief that credible and
top-ranked engineering programs require
as many high-level, highly specialized,
and highly technical courses as possible
to ensure students are truly competitive
and successful in today’s job market. In
other words, the more technical acumen
students show on their transcript, the
higher the regard in which their graduating
program will be held, the higher-paying job
they will find, and the more successful an
engineer they will prove to be.
The premise of this argument is fallacious,
simply because it is impossible—
and irresponsible—to suggest that
any engineering curriculum could ever
capture the myriad of rapidly changing
technical skills and knowledge needed in
the 21st century innovation and information
economy. A recent report suggested
that much technical information can be
outdated within two years and even the
popular media—in books such as Thomas
Friedman’s The World is Flat, Daniel Pink’s
A Whole New Mind, and Derek Bok’s Our
Underachieving Colleges—recognize that
21st century innovation in technology and
the business world now happen at speeds
almost incomprehensible by comparison to
the times when many current engineering
faculty members and practitioners were
in college.

Any argument suggesting, therefore,
that technically or technologically focused
curricula sensu stricto provides a four-year
engineering student with either a competitive
or intellectual advantage is simply incorrect.
Legal educators faced the impossible task
of teaching technical legal details of thousands
of individual laws created during the
19th century and so moved their educational
program to a fundamentals-based paradigm
instructing students to learn how to “think
like lawyers.” Similarly, the engineering
profession should not stand in the way of its
own growth with an argument that it must
teach more and more technology. As argued
again recently by Grasso in an IEEE Technology
and Society Magazine essay, “Dead
Poets and Engineers”—and by so many others
across the engineering profession—the focus
today must be on teaching our engineering
students to think creatively across scientific,
technological, and liberal arts disciplines.

Cita:The Myth of Specialization

It is not, therefore, the drilling-down detail
and precision that an early engineering
education should give our future engineering
professionals, but the ability to
learn and reason across (and out of) disciplinary
boundaries. Students showing
“T-shaped” breadth and depth that comes
from a holistic approach to their craft during
their undergraduate years—mastering core
fundamentals as well as gaining an understanding
of areas such as business, foreign
language, humanities, and social sciences—
will be truly competitive graduates in 21st
century engineering markets. They will
be able to acquire highly technical, highly
specialized skills in postgraduate study,
just as surgeons are trained after a solid
grounding in more general medicine. World
leaders such as IBM, CDM, and MITRE
Corp. are already appreciating the value
of “T-shaped” thinking with both management
investments as well as their deployment
of “services” markets that deliver
technologies contextualized and customized
to the social, economic, environmental,
and business needs of individual clients.
More importantly, if we continue training
the majority of engineering students in
narrowly prescribed technological formats,
we will potentially create a resource not for
global engineering leadership, but simply
another global commodity, traded by markets at its lowest value and dependent upon
the economic whims of any engineering
employer—an issue discussed in reports and
essays including the 2007 National Center
on Education and the Economy’s Tough
Choices or Tough Times as well as the aptlynamed
“Engineers as Commodities” by IEEE
Life Fellow George McClure.
However, if we train our students to
be proficient in engineering thought, as
“T-shaped” and holistic thinkers with
fundamentals strongly in place as well as
the skills to reason, learn, and innovate
beyond traditional disciplines, we will have
created truly competitive and value-added
engineer. This paradigm shift will require
engineers pursuing highly specialized fields
to gain additional skills in the first few years
of practice, similar to the legal or medical
professions. It will also allow engineeringtrained
individuals to bring their skill and
acumen to professions ranging from law to
finance and policy—all of which should, in
fact, be infused with our professional expertise.
The holistic engineer is, therefore, the
most competitive employee of all.

Cita:Yet the "learn to code!" camp may have set people on the uphill path of mastering C++ syntax instead of encouraging all of us to think a little more computationally.

(18-07-2014 11:24)Jarry escribió:  Dem0 pasa fuente
relacionado: http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/06...-education
"Dont learn to code, learn Computational thinking"

Cita:Yet the "learn to code!" camp may have set people on the uphill path of mastering C++ syntax instead of encouraging all of us to think a little more computationally.

(18-07-2014 02:13)guadalu escribió:  *vicente prepara su zunga y el frasco de aceite*

Cita:Work is bullshit. You know it, I know it; mankind has always known it. Sure; you have to work at what you want to accomplish. But that’s not the point. It is the flash of genius; the glimmer of intuition; the afterglow of achievement; the savoring of experience; the incandescence of meaning; all these make life worthwhile, pregnant, impossible, aching with purpose. These are the ends. Work is merely the means.

(18-07-2014 20:37)VincentVega escribió:  

(18-07-2014 02:13)guadalu escribió:  *vicente prepara su zunga y el frasco de aceite*

Ja! mas quisieras...mio necesita tiempo...has to be perfect