C
CBFalconer
Chris said:
I gather that 'red brick' refers to Oxford and Cambridge?
I gather that 'red brick' refers to Oxford and Cambridge?
Y
Yevgen Muntyan
CBFalconer said:
Similarly you could say "GPL but no source code", and it certainly
won't be under GPL even though the abbreviation "GPL" is there.
This legal business is way too tricky to apply common sense to it
Yevgen
R
Richard Bos
Malcolm McLean said:
That's a very stupid reason to do so. Do you also plan to pay your
lecturers in USA dollars, because Harvard do so?
It would be more worthwhile to try making it as good as Durham or York.
Richard
R
Richard Bos
Mark McIntyre said:
*Boggle* Never heard of MIT and Caltech? Stanford? UCB, even? Even the
most USA-clueless computer scientist must, if he is worth the name
computer scientist at all, have heard of UCB.
Richard
R
Richard Bos
Malcolm McLean said:
That's some that took place decades ago, some that are of dubious value
(COBOL!?), and the last one makes me shudder.
So, what are they doing _now_ that makes them such a remarkable example
of programming education?
*Muhahahaaaahahahaaahahahaha...*
Yah.
*Sniffle*
Sorry, but that was the best joke I've heard in weeks.
Richard
B
Bob Martin
in said:
Yep, when it has half the history and track record of Oxford & Cambridge
it can start to boast.
C
Chris Hills
Bob Martin said:
Or even start to match a whole load of them in the US...
So it does not appear to be in "the best circles" let alone the best in
the world by a long way!
A
arnuld
YES, Chris is right, i think OP (Enteng) needs to explain this first:
"Why he wants to learn a programming language?"
only then folks here can provide answers "customised" to his needs/
desires.
C
Chris Hills
However the answer is you MUST use MY favourite language which is
********* because it is THE BEST and all the others are an abomination
used by mindless sheep who follow the herd or don't really understand
the True Beauty of Gods Own Language.
M
Malcolm McLean
With the exception of Keble College and a few 20th century structures,CBFalconer said:
Oxford is built of stone.
The red bricks are places like Leeds. Leeds was founded in the late
nineteenth century as a branch of London University, and become independent
in the early 20th century. The red brick universities were designed to train
the growing professional, technical and managerial class. No one at Leeds
would pretend that the university is better than Oxford, except perhaps in
geography, which is a particular strength.
Further down the pecking order you get the modern universities built in the
great expansion of higher education during the 1960s. Then below them you
have the so-called new universities, which were formerly called
polytechnics.
Sadly, as Richard Bos pointed out, we are inferior to places like Durham
and York. Since Leeds is a reasonably sized city, this is source of much
disgrace, and our vice Chancellor has announced polices to raise us to one
of the top fifty universities worldwide.
C
Charlton Wilbur
MM> The red bricks are places like Leeds. Leeds was founded in the
MM> late nineteenth century as a branch of London University, and
MM> become independent in the early 20th century. The red brick
MM> universities were designed to train the growing professional,
MM> technical and managerial class. No one at Leeds would pretend
MM> that the university is better than Oxford, except perhaps in
MM> geography, which is a particular strength.
The situation is not so hierarchical in the US, and geography
complicates it considerably. There are a few really old colleges and
universities in the northeast US that were founded before 1800; most
of these have a liberal-arts focus, with the original curriculum
having been founded on an Oxbridge or German model, and many had an
outright religious affiliation or purpose. In terms of culture and
relative status, these are the American analogues of Oxford and
Cambridge; this includes the Ivy League, with one notable exception,
and a lot of the "little Ivies" such as Amherst, Williams, and
Bowdoin.
In the 19th century, a number of public land-grant universities were
established: the federal government gave land to the states in order
to found colleges, intended for education in agriculture and similar
practical things: the elite universities were focusing on classical
studies. There are also a number of universities, such as the
University of California at Berkeley and the University of Chicago,
that are not technically land-grant universities (because they were
not founded with a gift of federally-owned land) but which are
otherwise very similar to land grant universities. These are the
analogues of the red-brick universities.
And there are a number of schools founded later, as the midwestern US
and western US were settled. Stanford and Caltech were both founded
in 1891, for instance. The older universities have a lot of status in
some ways, but the quality of education and research is not nearly so
hierarchical as it seems to be in the UK based on your description.
It's also made rather more complex by geography: one may apply to
Harvard and get a degree from Harvard while taking mostly courses from
MIT, because they're a few train stops apart.
The concept of "no one at MIT would pretend that the university is
better than Harvard" is just bizarre; better at what? There are
things that MIT is better at than Harvard, and things that Harvard is
better at than MIT, and claiming that Harvard is better than MIT based
on age and status seems foolish: a reflection, perhaps, of the
differences between the US and UK notions of class.
Charlton
MM> late nineteenth century as a branch of London University, and
MM> become independent in the early 20th century. The red brick
MM> universities were designed to train the growing professional,
MM> technical and managerial class. No one at Leeds would pretend
MM> that the university is better than Oxford, except perhaps in
MM> geography, which is a particular strength.
The situation is not so hierarchical in the US, and geography
complicates it considerably. There are a few really old colleges and
universities in the northeast US that were founded before 1800; most
of these have a liberal-arts focus, with the original curriculum
having been founded on an Oxbridge or German model, and many had an
outright religious affiliation or purpose. In terms of culture and
relative status, these are the American analogues of Oxford and
Cambridge; this includes the Ivy League, with one notable exception,
and a lot of the "little Ivies" such as Amherst, Williams, and
Bowdoin.
In the 19th century, a number of public land-grant universities were
established: the federal government gave land to the states in order
to found colleges, intended for education in agriculture and similar
practical things: the elite universities were focusing on classical
studies. There are also a number of universities, such as the
University of California at Berkeley and the University of Chicago,
that are not technically land-grant universities (because they were
not founded with a gift of federally-owned land) but which are
otherwise very similar to land grant universities. These are the
analogues of the red-brick universities.
And there are a number of schools founded later, as the midwestern US
and western US were settled. Stanford and Caltech were both founded
in 1891, for instance. The older universities have a lot of status in
some ways, but the quality of education and research is not nearly so
hierarchical as it seems to be in the UK based on your description.
It's also made rather more complex by geography: one may apply to
Harvard and get a degree from Harvard while taking mostly courses from
MIT, because they're a few train stops apart.
The concept of "no one at MIT would pretend that the university is
better than Harvard" is just bizarre; better at what? There are
things that MIT is better at than Harvard, and things that Harvard is
better at than MIT, and claiming that Harvard is better than MIT based
on age and status seems foolish: a reflection, perhaps, of the
differences between the US and UK notions of class.
Charlton
C
Christopher Layne
Malcolm said:
Yeah, anyways..
No, instead they specialize in churning out management who will be
spearheading the new offshoring effort of the week to cultivate this. Haha.