View Full Version : Arnold Clark attacking the education system
I was holding off posting this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-18158510), hoping someone else would. Basically though: One of the country's biggest companies, the car firm Arnold Clark, has described many young Scots - 81% of applicants for an apprenticeship - as "unsuitable" for work.
My thoughts on this are:
They're being disingenuous.
They want free publicity for their apprenticeship programme.
They're setting the stage to hire cheap foreign labour.
Maybe they're getting applicants from the lower end of the spectrum. Being an apprentice mechanic is a skilled job, yet you're not even required to pay the same as someone unskilled on minimum wage. Perhaps their apprenticeship programme wasn't that attractive.
It is not the function of the education system to minimise the training costs of companies like Arnold Clark.
EDIT: Another point that just occured to me, out of about 3,000 applicates they had 19% that were suitable. More than enough to fill any places, so what are they complaining about. I'm the first to admit that the education system needs to be changed at all levels but that just seems like Arnold Clark complaining for no reason.
Anyway, opinions? thoughts? discuss...
I think that there ARE issues with the way that the colleges run pre apprenticeship courses. My eldest lad did one of these at college and I was quite appalled at the lack of structure and enthusiasm in the tutors (and i was working there at the time). There is MUCH more that could be done to link into industry and make the courses relevant to the student and the employer. The employers also need to engage better. Many of them want something for nothing, they offer work experience and then just give the kids a brush and ask them to make the coffee for a week or a fortnight. I know that an apprentice will be doing that stuff but they need to be enthused and they need to see possibilities. The education system on the whole does not engage well with students who dont want to follow an academic route so that is maybe something which needs to change. Finally the kids themselves..... They have much to learn still at 16/17 and employers should expect that they are getting someone who will need work. Getting up in the morning, drinking their friday nights wages and not turning up on a saturday morning and general lack of application is to be expected. As parents we do too much for our kids as well. They should be able to get themselves up in a morning and get themselves to work. Granted its often a challenge to do that but we must make them take responsibility from an early age. Making their own phone calls, getting the bus, sorting their own money out, organising lifts. My lad was lucky, he got an apprenticeship with a company who knew what they were doing. When he was late or missing from work they gave him a hard time. They read him the riot act more than once but they have a long history of apprenticeships and knew what they were doing. They put EFFORT into my lad and now, five years later,they have a good and loyal member of their team. He is highly skilled and earning plenty. He appeared in an advert for their apprenticeships recently and he was joking with the works manager ..."bet you never thought I would be the face of the apprenticeship programme" and the manager said "oh I'm not surprised. You were hard work boy, but worth it in the end" and there is the point I guess. Successful apprenticeships take work on both sides.
I dont have a very good opinion of arnold clark after them saying this. I applied for a trainee salesman job a few years ago and they couldnt even be bothered to reply to me. So I rang them and they classed me as "unsuitable." I applied for another job with another company doing the same thing, got it, and now I am currently the 2nd top salesman. Maybe they are too quick to judge people!!
I think that there ARE issues with the way that the colleges run pre apprenticeship courses. My eldest lad did one of these at college and I was quite appalled at the lack of structure and enthusiasm in the tutors (and i was working there at the time). There is MUCH more that could be done to link into industry and make the courses relevant to the student and the employer. The employers also need to engage better. Many of them want something for nothing, they offer work experience and then just give the kids a brush and ask them to make the coffee for a week or a fortnight. I know that an apprentice will be doing that stuff but they need to be enthused and they need to see possibilities.
Didn't realise that was a thing. Not sure if I like the idea of pre-apprenticeship courses. Just seems like industry offloading it's training obligations on to the education system again. It is not the function of the education system to minimise the training costs of companies. I don't mind a college providing additional training during an apprenticeship provided companies using this training cover some of the costs and maybe provide guest lecturers.
What I don't like with apprenticeship programmes is some places use them as an excuse to get cheap labour, expecting an apprentice to do the same work as a full time employee. You're supposed to be mentored and trained as an apprentice.
The education system on the whole does not engage well with students who dont want to follow an academic route so that is maybe something which needs to change.
Trust me, the academic side is just the same. Lazy entitled lecturers who can't be bothered and know less than the students, outdated courses and degree programmes, teaching that focuses too much on one vendor or method, etc. I'm the first to admit that education at all levels needs to change.
I dont have a very good opinion of arnold clark after them saying this. I applied for a trainee salesman job a few years ago and they couldnt even be bothered to reply to me. So I rang them and they classed me as "unsuitable." I applied for another job with another company doing the same thing, got it, and now I am currently the 2nd top salesman. Maybe they are too quick to judge people!!
I really do think full feedback should be mandatory and recorded in all interviews, so that people can't be rejected for dodgy and arbitrary reasons under the auspices of something general that sounds plausible.
Plus you have to factor in the fact that many will be applying in the full knowledge that they are "unsuitable" as a way of keeping the Jobcentre happy since they don't take the need for suitable jobs to be available to apply for in the first place, as long as you have applied for something they are happy (or at least as happy as they are capable of being)
Plus you have to factor in the fact that many will be applying in the full knowledge that they are "unsuitable" as a way of keeping the Jobcentre happy since they don't take the need for suitable jobs to be available to apply for in the first place, as long as you have applied for something they are happy (or at least as happy as they are capable of being)
Under 18s dont get benefits as a rule and so this wont be an issue. If firms are offering apprenticeships they are usually going through the careers service or an industry training board.
The idea of pre apprenticeship courses Req is that it readies the youngsters for workplace training - it should be dealing with some of the issues that Arnold Clark are saying prevent them from getting suitable applicants. The article says that the single biggest issue is surprise at the number of hours they are expected to work. I dont know why they are surprised at this lol. The transition is difficult from school or college to work but they can offer incentives to keep good time - a bonus or an early finish or a day off. They need to be imaginative too.
Perhaps it is their recruitment process which is wrong, if you dont ask the right questions you dont get the right applicants. Although I would have thought that 20% was about right from application to interview. From 100 applicants you interview 20? That doesnt seem too bad to me.
under 18s dont get benefits as a rule and so this wont be an issue. If firms are offering apprenticeships they are usually going through the careers service or an industry training board.
How do you know these "Unsuitables" are under 18? I'm 44 & have been told to apply for apprenticeships by the Jobcentre on the grounds that they are not allowed to discriminate on your age anymore.
How do you know these "Unsuitables" are under 18? I'm 44 & have been told to apply for apprenticeships by the Jobcentre on the grounds that they are not allowed to discriminate on your age anymore.
The article quoted was specifically discussing School leavers at the "lower end of the achievement" spectrum - these are the kids likely to have left schoool before they are 18. Under 18s are not entitled to benefits as a matter of course and therefore dont need to meet the actively seeking work conditions that older jobseekers have to. Apprenticeships can be valuable for older people too but this is about school leavers not more mature applicants - you would probably knock the younger ones into a cocked hat Alrock
Education standard was hardly mentioned by AC. They were complaining about poor attitude and communication.
Education standard was hardly mentioned by AC. They were complaining about poor attitude and communication.
Yes, I think they are the two main problems Duke!
C3............:eek:
Education standard was hardly mentioned by AC. They were complaining about poor attitude and communication.
Yes, I think they are the two main problems Duke!
C3............:eek:
Must I posted my series of quotes from as far back as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle regarding people complaining about the following generations again. In each case it's essentially the same complaints. At one point Socrates is complaining about the generation of Plato. Plato in turn complains about the generation Aristotle is a member of.
Regardless my same points apply, if you pay peanuts and treat people like animals don't be shocked when you start to attract Monkeys.
Arnold Clark's company said the biggest difficulty it faced was apprentices failing to adjust to a full working week, having become used to studying 18 hours a week at school or even less at further education colleges.Many college courses were branded “state-sponsored babysitting” by Arnold Clark, which said not enough training was geared towards the world of work.
It not Arnold Clark's fault for bringing this to the forefront. We all know of cases of little lazy scrottes not wanting to work
Arnold Clark's company said the biggest difficulty it faced was apprentices failing to adjust to a full working week, having become used to studying 18 hours a week at school or even less at further education colleges.Many college courses were branded “state-sponsored babysitting” by Arnold Clark, which said not enough training was geared towards the world of work.
It not Arnold Clark's fault for bringing this to the forefront. We all know of cases of little lazy scrottes not wanting to work
My problem is they seem to insinuate that these lazy people are the norm. Rather than those attracted or forced to apply to their particular apprenticeship scheme. The media that picked up the story didn't see fit to indicate that either. In theory my degree programme had 20 hours teaching and 20 hours personal study. In practice no one did any where near that amount. Most of the people I know - the decent ones - have had no problem adjusting to different schedules etc.
I'm not defending the system either I'm just questioning the 81% claim, I have friends that teach at colleges and tell me all the dodgy things that go on. The money they get for passing people at every stage, entry requirements that go out the windows to fill up numbers, the fact that's it's basically impossible to fail or be kicked out until they can get no more money from you or the government.
secrets in symmetry
23-May-12, 22:45
Trust me, the academic side is just the same. Lazy entitled lecturers who can't be bothered and know less than the students, outdated courses and degree programmes, teaching that focuses too much on one vendor or method, etc. I'm the first to admit that education at all levels needs to change.It sounds to me as if you're extrapolating way too far from your own personal experience at one particular degree programme at one college or university. They're not all like that you know....
I'm not defending the system either I'm just questioning the 81% claim, I have friends that teach at colleges and tell me all the dodgy things that go on. The money they get for passing people at every stage, entry requirements that go out the windows to fill up numbers, the fact that's it's basically impossible to fail or be kicked out until they can get no more money from you or the government.That may (or may not) be representative of some sectors of some parts of the further/higher education sector, but it doesn't bear much resemblance to the bits I know. I'm going to get a well-deserved reputation as a hatchet man at the rate I'm going.... :cool:
secrets in symmetry
23-May-12, 23:20
A couple of (relevant?) stories from the BBC today:
Google funds computer teaching (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18182280)
Raspberry Pi's budget challengers (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18163419)
I like. :cool:
Totally agree with Sqidge... they youngsters lack com skills unless it's s8 txt tlk u no! There interactive skills are very poor...
Angel...
My problem is they seem to insinuate that these lazy people are the norm. Rather than those attracted or forced to apply to their particular apprenticeship scheme.
I wouldn't worry too much about it RecQuery.
In the bbc link, it is clear that he is speaking about applicants to his apprenticeship scheme, not about Scots in general.
And to be honest, I can understand where he is coming from.
He will, no doubt, receive scores of applications from the unemployable who have to apply to maintain their benefits. He will also receive applications from under achievers who have been told they are "not good enough" for college or uni - apply for a manual trade, that's all you're good for......................
The school system at the moment is biased towards "further education", colleges, skills centres etc. Very few rate real vocational training. Why, seriously, must we send a hairdresser to college for 1-2 years? What is wrong with an apprenticeship?
When I was at school I was actively discouraged from doing an apprenticeship. Make no bones about it, my guidance teacher saw tradesmen as the lowest of the low.
The sooner we move away from this philosophy of trade=underachiever and start to value skills, and learned skills, for what they are, the better.
Everybody moans about paying £50 to call out a plumber to fix their boiler..................................... if you don't like it, fix it yourself. (But you can't)
It sounds to me as if you're extrapolating way too far from your own personal experience at one particular degree programme at one college or university. They're not all like that you know....
That may (or may not) be representative of some sectors of some parts of the further/higher education sector, but it doesn't bear much resemblance to the bits I know. I'm going to get a well-deserved reputation as a hatchet man at the rate I'm going.... :cool:
That did occur to me, but I've heard similar claims from other friends, acquaintances and people at different institutions. Granted it's within the same sort of subject area.
A couple of (relevant?) stories from the BBC today:
Google funds computer teaching (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18182280)
Raspberry Pi's budget challengers (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18163419)
I like. :cool:
I do like this, but a problem I see is that they're replacing using office packages and websites with the mantra of programming, which is good but computing has many other facets. Graphics, audio, visual, web design, hardware, technical support, servers and networking stuff to name but a few. I do hope they don't think that programming is all that is required. This problem is actually faced by older universities they're still teaching computing like it's the 1970s it's too math and programming - with older languages - heavy.
Basic computing skills, touch typing and the use of office packages should still be taught also, just as a different subject.
I wouldn't worry too much about it RecQuery.
In the bbc link, it is clear that he is speaking about applicants to his apprenticeship scheme, not about Scots in general.
And to be honest, I can understand where he is coming from.
He will, no doubt, receive scores of applications from the unemployable who have to apply to maintain their benefits. He will also receive applications from under achievers who have been told they are "not good enough" for college or uni - apply for a manual trade, that's all you're good for......................
The school system at the moment is biased towards "further education", colleges, skills centres etc. Very few rate real vocational training. Why, seriously, must we send a hairdresser to college for 1-2 years? What is wrong with an apprenticeship?
When I was at school I was actively discouraged from doing an apprenticeship. Make no bones about it, my guidance teacher saw tradesmen as the lowest of the low.
The sooner we move away from this philosophy of trade=underachiever and start to value skills, and learned skills, for what they are, the better.
Everybody moans about paying £50 to call out a plumber to fix their boiler..................................... if you don't like it, fix it yourself. (But you can't)
I kind of realised this but as with many things it's the perception that young people in Scotland are useless that I have an issue with. As seen with the economy perception matters a lot more than fact.
Caithness seems to have a lot of hairdressers and chefs doing other things or nothing. There are some subjects taught by the local college that I've no idea how anyone will get a job afterwards, not that the point of education is to be employable it just seemed odd.
Another problem with sending everyone on to further education is that it negatively impacts the people that should be there with things like massive rent for bad property, lower funding, larger class sizes, slowing everything down, devaluing degrees, etc.
secrets in symmetry
24-May-12, 22:50
That did occur to me, but I've heard similar claims from other friends, acquaintances and people at different institutions. Granted it's within the same sort of subject area.I suspect it's more to do with the institutions than the subject areas, but that's not based on hard evidence.
I do like this, but a problem I see is that they're replacing using office packages and websites with the mantra of programming, which is good but computing has many other facets. Graphics, audio, visual, web design, hardware, technical support, servers and networking stuff to name but a few. I do hope they don't think that programming is all that is required. This problem is actually faced by older universities they're still teaching computing like it's the 1970s it's too math and programming - with older languages - heavy.Teaching programming is surely better than training in the use of Word and Powerpoint! I do agree that there is more to computing than programming, but these guys are particularly keen to produce more programmers - plus people who can think like programmers.
As a matter of interest, what would you classify as "older languages", and what languages would you teach?
I'm not sure you can teach too much math. :cool:
Basic computing skills, touch typing and the use of office packages should still be taught also, just as a different subject.Agreed.
They want free publicity for their apprenticeship programme.And the company in general, Michael O'Leary style.
Having been through quite an impressive ripoff by this company I dealt with many senior figures (both in age and position) including speaking with Sir Arnold himself.
I feel they are very dangerous ground trying to blame the education system when the 'leadership' within the company appears to be riddled with fly monkey chancers talking a good job but delivering nothing other than lies, cut corners, commission and profits while an abject failure and in my opinion, not fit for purpose of their sales, mechanical and bodyshop departments.
Sorry, they've just got their summer ad' programme for free.
secrets in symmetry
24-May-12, 23:14
I feel they are very dangerous ground trying to blame the education system when the 'leadership' within the company appears to be riddled with fly monkey chancers talking a good job but delivering nothing other than lies, cut corners, commission and profits while an abject failure and in my opinion, not fit for purpose of their sales, mechanical and bodyshop departments.So you'd recommend them then? :cool:
This blog post with some analysis of the Arnold Clark statement is quite interesting.
http://thelearningprofessor.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/kids-today-young-people-and-the-labour-market/
NEWSFLASH!! the top man of Arnold Clark couldn't be bothered to get out of bed today and attend a meeting! according to newspapers, the board of the meeting are taking a really dim view of the plonkers failure to attend, branding him lazy, uninterested, hopeless and unattentive....hmm, strikes a chord there methinks!
So you'd recommend them then? Absolutely. If you like doing battle with thieves and liars, great sport.
Teaching programming is surely better than training in the use of Word and Powerpoint! I do agree that there is more to computing than programming, but these guys are particularly keen to produce more programmers - plus people who can think like programmers.
Even teaching just programming would be a big step up and programming is obviously integral to any IT teaching. I just don't want government and the media too bogged down with just it. India has a lot of programmers but most of them have no initiative or critical thinking ability.
As a matter of interest, what would you classify as "older languages", and what languages would you teach?
I've nothing against teaching older languages after becoming familiar with programming as it's possible someone will have to work on a legacy system. I'd probably class COBOL, BASIC, FORTRAN and pre-.NET VB as the most commonly used older teaching languages at High School and some universities.
I'd teach - that is teach someone who had no previous programming experience - with Python or Ruby, perhaps C# (C Sharp). There's an argument to be made for using scripting languages for teaching, or introducing students to both types.
None of which is very relevant to the thread. I wonder if these apparent knuckle dragging unemployables attempting to communicate gis a job to AC realise that at some point they will need to invest at least £10,000 in a decent starter tool kit and over a career as a machanic, probably invest £50 to 100k. That is the kind of commitment needed so I think AC are probably wise to do a bit of weeding to save a lot of time and heartache later.
None of which is very relevant to the thread. I wonder if these apparent knuckle dragging unemployables attempting to communicate gis a job to AC realise that at some point they will need to invest at least £10,000 in a decent starter tool kit and over a career as a machanic, probably invest £50 to 100k. That is the kind of commitment needed so I think AC are probably wise to do a bit of weeding to save a lot of time and heartache later.
But this is an issue for any employer looking to take on apprentices, and an issue with the current Me Me Me society.
Having worked in the building game there was problems with getting and retaining apprentices, and keeping them on post apprenticeship. All the while there was a cost to their training. And there will be in any industry sector.
My experience of AC is cowboys in the workshop, so how can they take the moral high ground about education when under their apprenticeship they will led by con merchants botching repairs.
secrets in symmetry
25-May-12, 10:10
Even teaching just programming would be a big step up and programming is obviously integral to any IT teaching. I just don't want government and the media too bogged down with just it. India has a lot of programmers but most of them have no initiative or critical thinking ability.I know a few people who claim you don't really understand something until you can teach (i.e. program) a computer to do it. I'm not sure I'd go that far, but I do agree with the sentiment.
I've nothing against teaching older languages after becoming familiar with programming as it's possible someone will have to work on a legacy system. I'd probably class COBOL, BASIC, FORTRAN and pre-.NET VB as the most commonly used older teaching languages at High School and some universities.
I'd teach - that is teach someone who had no previous programming experience - with Python or Ruby, perhaps C# (C Sharp). There's an argument to be made for using scripting languages for teaching, or introducing students to both types.Do schools, colleges or universities still teach any of those languages in a first course on programming?
You're right about legacy systems though. There are some major scientific codes that are in Fortran for historic reasons. There are also people who use (and like) "modern" dialects of Fortran.
Given your stated preference for standards and open source, I'm surprised you suggested C# as a teaching language. I know we're all biased by the environment(s) we work in, but I would probably be laughed out of court by most of my colleagues for suggesting C# - partly because it's Microsoft, and partly because we don't use it. Most of our research code bases are in C++ (although there are still some legacy Fortran codes around), so that would be my natural choice. It might be my preferred choice too....
I have no strong feelings about teaching in (say) C# (or C++) versus scripting languages such as Python. I'd be happy with either.
I realise we're a long way off topic, but that is the way of forums, and the way of me too....
Given your stated preference for standards and open source, I'm surprised you suggested C# as a teaching language. I know we're all biased by the environment(s) we work in, but I would probably be laughed out of court by most of my colleagues for suggesting C# - partly because it's Microsoft, and partly because we don't use it. Most of our research code bases are in C++ (although there are still some legacy Fortran codes around), so that would be my natural choice. It might be my preferred choice too....
I have no strong feelings about teaching in (say) C# (or C++) versus scripting languages such as Python. I'd be happy with either.
I realise we're a long way off topic, but that is the way of forums, and the way of me too....
Ideally I'd teach in Python as it kind of bridges both the scripting and traditional language areas, has lots of high quality resources available, is free, easy to learn, you can produce useful programs and I just like it better than Ruby. I mentioned C# so as not to seem too dogmatic, because it's got the VB advantage of being able to design an interface via drag and drop and because moving away from Microsoft - I actually still use Windows for games or removing DRM from some digital products - is a step too far for some.
I'd definitely teach C at some point not so sure about C++ but I'd touch on it.
secrets in symmetry
26-May-12, 12:38
Ideally I'd teach in Python as it kind of bridges both the scripting and traditional language areas, has lots of high quality resources available, is free, easy to learn, you can produce useful programs and I just like it better than Ruby. I mentioned C# so as not to seem too dogmatic, because it's got the VB advantage of being able to design an interface via drag and drop and because moving away from Microsoft - I actually still use Windows for games or removing DRM from some digital products - is a step too far for some.Your Python comment is useful. I know people who teach programming to undergraduate physical scientists, and they are considering switching to Python (from Java). They will stick to Linux as OS, so C# is perhaps not a good choice.
I'd definitely teach C at some point not so sure about C++ but I'd touch on it.Why C rather than C++?
I suggested C++ as a first scientific programming language to my friend, but he mumbled stuff about it being too complicated. So I suggested C, but apparently they used to teach in C, which resulted in too many disasters with pointers....
Your Python comment is useful. I know people who teach programming to undergraduate physical scientists, and they are considering switching to Python (from Java). They will stick to Linux as OS, so C# is perhaps not a good choice.
There is Mono on Linux, though it doesn't implement the Windows only APIs and there is still some concern about submarine patents. C# isn't really my first or second choice, just mentioned it is an option.
In addition to the O'Reilly stuff (http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596158071.do). There's Head First Programming (http://www.headfirstlabs.com/books/hfprog/) and Head First Python (http://www.headfirstlabs.com/books/hfpython/) but I suppose that could be classed as O'Reilly also. There are a couple of good books for Python: Python for Software Design: How to Think Like a Computer Scientist (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Python-Software-Design-Computer-Scientist/dp/0521725968) and Python Programming: An Introduction to Computer Science (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Python-Programming-Introduction-Computer-Science/dp/1590282418/). Any of these could be used as a textbook.
The Google Python video course (http://code.google.com/edu/languages/google-python-class/index.html) and the MIT Opencourseware Python Course (http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-00-introduction-to-computer-science-and-programming-fall-2008/video-lectures/) are worth a look also.
Why C rather than C++?
I suggested C++ as a first scientific programming language to my friend, but he mumbled stuff about it being too complicated. So I suggested C, but apparently they used to teach in C, which resulted in too many disasters with pointers....
Both are really fine. There's just a larger C codebase so people could become more involved and feel that it's more real world. I probably wouldn't teach either as a first language. Ignoring the NUMA argument or the C++ as a superset of C and the fact that most people don't teach C++ properly anyway.
I just returned to this thread and it had suddenly started being discussed in a foreign language!
I just returned to this thread and it had suddenly started being discussed in a foreign language!
Yes, it's turned into a load of C++ Squidge.
C3.............:roll:;)
secrets in symmetry
27-May-12, 02:09
There is Mono on Linux, though it doesn't implement the Windows only APIs and there is still some concern about submarine patents. C# isn't really my first or second choice, just mentioned it is an option.
In addition to the O'Reilly stuff (http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596158071.do). There's Head First Programming (http://www.headfirstlabs.com/books/hfprog/) and Head First Python (http://www.headfirstlabs.com/books/hfpython/) but I suppose that could be classed as O'Reilly also. There are a couple of good books for Python: Python for Software Design: How to Think Like a Computer Scientist (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Python-Software-Design-Computer-Scientist/dp/0521725968) and Python Programming: An Introduction to Computer Science (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Python-Programming-Introduction-Computer-Science/dp/1590282418/). Any of these could be used as a textbook.
The Google Python video course (http://code.google.com/edu/languages/google-python-class/index.html) and the MIT Opencourseware Python Course (http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-00-introduction-to-computer-science-and-programming-fall-2008/video-lectures/) are worth a look also.I wouldn't trust Microsoft regarding possible patents, and I can't see any convincing reason for using C# under Linux, but I appreciate your point.
Thanks for the Python bibliography. I think I might start using Python, so it could come in useful. :cool:
Both are really fine. There's just a larger C codebase so people could become more involved and feel that it's more real world. I probably wouldn't teach either as a first language. Ignoring the NUMA argument or the C++ as a superset of C and the fact that most people don't teach C++ properly anyway.Ok - understood.
Almost everyone in my research field uses C++ for number crunching nowadays. Scripting is still mostly bash, but some use Python.
Almost everyone in my research field uses C++ for number crunching nowadays. Scripting is still mostly bash, but some use Python.
I actually tend to use Bash for scripting myself, I'll occasionally use Perl, Python or PHP depending on the task. If I'm on a Windows system Powershell is actually pretty good. No where near Bash but better than batch files or VBScript. I've tried Cygwin but it's just not the same.
secrets in symmetry
27-May-12, 21:18
I actually tend to use Bash for scripting myself, I'll occasionally use Perl, Python or PHP depending on the task. If I'm on a Windows system Powershell is actually pretty good. No where near Bash but better than batch files or VBScript. I've tried Cygwin but it's just not the same.I know bash is powerful, but I don't really like it - mainly because I find (many people's) bash scripts unreadable. At least Python is human readable!
I love bash, instant and understandable. Unlike Python........
I know bash is powerful, but I don't really like it - mainly because I find (many people's) bash scripts unreadable. At least Python is human readable!
It depends on the programmer, though I suppose that by their nature some languages are inherently more readable regardless of the author. I find Bash easier for OS stuff, I can only find three example scripts off hand but here's the sort of things I use it for:
Firewall script (http://pastebin.com/tbkTHd2a).
(http://pastebin.com/nyD62kXF)
Backup script (http://pastebin.com/nyD62kXF).
Alarm clock script (http://pastebin.com/4Rbd1Dau).
I do notice that some Perl people seem to take a perverse pleasure in obfuscating their stuff.
I love bash, instant and understandable. Unlike Python........
I do like both, though depending on the task Bash can be quicker.
secrets in symmetry
28-May-12, 09:17
It depends on the programmer, though I suppose that by their nature some languages are inherently more readable regardless of the author. I find Bash easier for OS stuff, I can only find three example scripts off hand but here's the sort of things I use it for:
Firewall script (http://pastebin.com/tbkTHd2a).
(http://pastebin.com/nyD62kXF)
Backup script (http://pastebin.com/nyD62kXF).
Alarm clock script (http://pastebin.com/4Rbd1Dau).
I do notice that some Perl people seem to take a perverse pleasure in obfuscating their stuff.Those scripts are pretty clear - much clearer than most!
Perl always looks obfuscated to me - although I don't know its syntax, so that's not surprising!
There's a long tradition of obfuscated C, including an annual contest (http://www.ioccc.org/). These dudes can make short codes unreadable, see e.g. borsanyi.c (http://www.ioccc.org/2011/borsanyi/borsanyi.c), which was one of last year's winners.
I've used f2c (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F2c) to machine-translate legacy Fortran codes, and the results can be pretty obfuscated - and pretty long!
Dog-eared
28-May-12, 09:41
What's this got to do with Arnold Clark ???:lol:
secrets in symmetry
28-May-12, 09:43
What's this got to do with Arnold Clark ???:lol:Not much - it's an extreme example of thread drift!
Not much - it's an extreme example of thread drift!
I wonder if this is the most unsubscribed thread in the history of the org?
secrets in symmetry
28-May-12, 10:44
I wonder if this is the most unsubscribed thread in the history of the org?Never! It has people clinging to the edges of their seats! :cool:
Do you not find it seductively intriguing?
This is pretty depressing actually:
http://i.imgur.com/oZjU1.png
http://i.imgur.com/oZjU1.png
Apprentice receptionist? Is this an excuse to hire a receptionist but not have to pay him/her minimum wage? I can understand if you left school with no qualifications but surely you don't need to train for 12 months to become a receptionist? What actual skills are you learning?
EDIT: Actually the next one is worse. Here is an apprenticeship as a so called 'Web Designer'. No mention of learning about typography, photography, HTML, CSS, Javascript, or even PHP, however applicants 'must be competent with Microsoft Office Excel, Word, Access, Powerpoint, Outlook.'
http://i.imgur.com/G1OJF.png
http://i.imgur.com/G1OJF.png
This is pretty depressing actually:....
Once again the Government makes rules for everybody else & then fails to follow them themselves...
Pay below minimum wage & age discrimination.
secrets in symmetry
01-Jun-12, 14:02
EDIT: Actually the next one is worse. Here is an apprenticeship as a so called 'Web Designer'. No mention of learning about typography, photography, HTML, CSS, Javascript, or even PHP, however applicants 'must be competent with Microsoft Office Excel, Word, Access, Powerpoint, Outlook.'
http://i.imgur.com/G1OJF.pngAgreed. They appear to want someone to write content, not a web designer, in which case the job title is a misnomer.
secrets in symmetry
01-Jun-12, 14:07
Once again the Government makes rules for everybody else & then fails to follow them themselves...
Pay below minimum wage & age discrimination.I suppose they would argue that the successful candidates are receiving training from the company, which will enhance their future job prospects.
As a matter of interest, would you swallow your indignation and accept such a badly-renumerated position as a first step on the back-to-work ladder?
As a matter of interest, would you swallow your indignation and accept such a badly-renumerated position as a first step on the back-to-work ladder?
If I had good reason to believe that it was going to lead on to a full-time, properly paid position then I would certainly give it due consideration. However I am very cynical of such things, no doubt they will be slung out when their time is up & some other cheap labour brought in. I've lost count of the number of Government training schemes I've been on over the years with no prospect of a job at the end of it, but at a huge expense to the tax payer. If they really want to save on the welfare bill then why not scrap all these expensive schemes that are on the whole just a waste of time & money, hold there hands up, admit that unemployment is a past of the modern capitalist way of life & just let the unemployed get on with life the best they can.
secrets in symmetry
01-Jun-12, 15:27
You might be right about them being flung out when their time is up. I'm sure you know better than I do.
Just giving the money they'd save to the unemployed might indeed be a better plan. I recall you suggesting this before, and I thought you were bonkers. Then I thought about it for a bit.... You might actually be right - it really could stimulate the economy in the way you suggested. :cool:
God knows how George Osborne would justify it to his party lol!
God knows how George Osborne would justify it to his party lol!
He could try being honest & straight with them, but then again, he's a career politician, that would be an alien concept to him that he just couldn't get his head round.
Love it. Give piles of cash to the unemployed for nothing, no strings. That'll get unemployment down for sure! [lol]
Love it. Give piles of cash to the unemployed for nothing, no strings. That'll get unemployment down for sure! [lol]
No... It won't get unemployment down, only creating more jobs will do that, it will just make the unemployed a bit better off & inject more money into the economy than tax cuts for the rich...
Which I might add could help create more jobs. So yes, giving cash to the unemployed could help bring unemployment down.
secrets in symmetry
02-Jun-12, 13:21
I think you could be right about it creating employment - in the short term. It's obviously not sustainable, but it isn't meant to be.
Curiously, it would be an example of the State feeding the free market with capital - the latter making it acceptable to (some) Tories. :cool:
I think you could be right about it creating employment - in the short term. It's obviously not sustainable, but it isn't meant to be.
Curiously, it would be an example of the State feeding the free market with capital - the latter making it acceptable to (some) Tories. :cool:
It's better than quantitative easing I suppose. Ideally all that money used by the banks to buy more dodgy debt would go to working people so they can actually stimulate the economy.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.