[coreyp_1]

I was a professor. I would have given you a zero.

From the instructor's perspective, it sounds like you didn't even try to do the intentional assignment (which the fault/crashdump/find info in the crashdump was the most important part), and either did your own thing or sent in someone else's assignment because you didn't look closely enough at what it was. Yes, this is a big accusation, but it happens every semester.

The professor just wanted you to learn what you were supposed to from the assignment, so that you could build off it.

Your cynical take on it now shows that you still don't understand how to teach or the importance of that fundamental skill.

Is there a place for fun, exploratory projects? Of course, and I always incorporated them into my syllabus. But there's also a place for structure. If you want to explore along the way, then that is even better! But you still have to meet the incremental checkpoints along the way, otherwise you have not demonstrated that you have met the core competencies of the subject, as reflected by your grade.

There's a lot of shortcomings in modern university education, but I loved teaching, and would still be doing it today if it paid reasonably. My biggest headaches were the cheaters and the know-it-alls, mostly because neither of them knew enough to respect the subject matter and its importance. The students that made me the most proud, though, were those that trusted the roadmap, and in the end were able to do bigger and better things than they thought that they were capable of.

It's not about extra work. We did plenty of it, btw. We just didn't always tell you about it. The University system referrs to it as "service", and you, the student, are the beneficiary of it, either directly or indirectly.

"Teachers don't want extra work." I'm sorry, but this sounds like a toddler stomping their foot and saying "Mommy and Daddy don't love me because they went to work today instead of staying home to play with me."

I'm glad that you wrote the RPN calculator. That's cool! I'm disappointed that you use this as an opportunity to bash the educator who agreed to take a low salary so that they could help you learn important things that are fundamental to your craft and chosen field of study.

[ngcc_hk]

It is very sad that you kind of people exist as professor. Yes he is wrong. But you can appreciate that and knowing effectively he is cursing you about your assignment. Take it open mind. Call him in. Explain your view. And if he cannot do it, fail him. But if he can. Move on.

IT need innovation. As you are not just building systems or maintaining one, you need to people think beyond what is assigned. As most likely it is this innovation drive us.

Not rule followers. Obviously we need those as well. But a few rule breaker does not kill you.

Unless he goes all the way to say to the whole class not to be rule followers. That is revolution. ... I may still with him but I would understand then you fail him. But if just one ... why not accept computer or IT guys has exception. After all are we in hacker news. Do you have all those rule followers are reading these!

[coreyp_1]

I didn't go into my entire syllabus, but it is sufficient to note that I did drop the lowest grade, and I only failed a few students out of hundreds, and that is a reflection of their work, not mine.

Yes, it is sad that people of my "kind" "exist as professor." I helped students start a business. I started a makerspace for them so they could explore the world of 3d printing, arduinos, etc. I guided them build projects that were worthy of showing off on their resume (which resulted in some getting jobs). I was proud of the cool things that they did, and I worked with those who had difficulty. I was just so horrible!

Actually, my students quite liked me, and I was often forgiving if a student came and talked to me... after all, that's part of their learning process. Either the student cared or they didn't. I made it clear from the beginning that I cared about them, even when I had a class of 165 in the middle of Covid.

Do you actually understand what a diploma represents? It is a certification of knowledge (binary in nature... you either have one or you don't, so it is by definition a very coarse measure). A grade (or GPA) is a one-dimensional measurement of that certification. That is what your tuition is paying for. It is paying for someone who is qualified to teach you something and then evaluate you on the standard to which everyone else from that institution is also held. It is also a ranking against their peers (which is a reason that I had no patience for cheaters, which I found some every semester). As an aside, this is why a course transferred from one institution to another will often not be included in the GPA of the later institution, because it is not the same standard.

In education, you need both structure as well as innovation. I taught both. You seem stuck on the "rule follower" and "rule breaker" mentality, but that is completely orthogonal to what I am saying. I taught mastery. Whether you follow or don't follow the rules (however you define "rules") you must still master your craft, and the university exists to certify that mastery. That is the point of the university. Certification of mastery.

If you don't want certification, then don't go to a university. You aren't required to get a degree. You can learn everything that you need to from books and other places. But if you want certification of your knowledge, then you have to actually go through the steps that verifies your knowledge and ability, as determined by other people from a variety of backgrounds who have each had their knowledge and ability certified by even more people from a variety.... you get the idea. That is what a university is.

Consider the similarity with the martial arts world. You can buy a black belt online, but do you have mastery? Someone would ask how you got it. Who considered you worthy of posessing the black belt? You might say "it doesn't matter... I can fight and win!" You might be right. But the black belt isn't about fighting. It's about self-discipline, philosophy, experience, and yes, mastery, as learned from and evaluated by someone else who has an applicable certification.

I have a Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of Notre Dame, an R1 research university, as conferred by a panel of experts from a variety of universities (meaning faculty from other universities, not just Notre Dame itself) based on my academic achievement in the field of Computer Science, peer-reviewed conference and journal publications in the field of Computer Science, as well as my creation of a peer-reviewed, published, and publicly-defended dissertation over graph grammars (blending formal language grammars and graph theory). That is my certification. Every grade that I gave derived its credibility from that certification, and was my communication to the world of my assessment of the mastery of that student to the expectations of the university, me, and their relation to their peer group (you've heard of a grade curve, right?). That's the way it works.

You are not requrired to take part in it, but just don't treat it like sour grapes (from Aesop's Fables, it might be an obscure reference).

[rramadass]

Well put! A thoughtful, balanced and nuanced explanation. I wish more Teachers/Professors/Seniors put forth their pov like you. The problem with "today's kids" is that because of their access to the Internet they think they "know" everything whereas without the structure given by the educational system (in spite of its shortcomings) all is mere data and they can form no proper mental model of the "entire thing". Education is holistic and tries to give one most of the knowledge and tools needed to deal with the Modern World.

[JoeAltmaier]

I didn't bash anybody - that's words in my mouth.

I understand that it's a sensitive subject, students that stray from the boundaries of the lesson plan, so often to no good effect. Making work for an overworked teacher, I have complete sympathy.

But understand that there's also room for the teacher that doesn't stomp their own foot and petulantly demand every student stay in the herd like good little scholars.

Maybe even encourage exceptional students, maybe suggest something more appropriate for them, another class perhaps. But no, that certainly didn't happen, just the deliberate ignoring of the effort spent, because it didn't serve their tiny objective.

Just that one weary, autocratic bland statement, telegraphing as sure as a digital signal "I am the teacher, and you will not do anything I don't sanction, like learning way more than I demand for today's lesson"

[rramadass]

I am not the person you replied to, but you are wrong about this;

> "I am the teacher, and you will not do anything I don't sanction, like learning way more than I demand for today's lesson"

The person explicitly made it clear that while you can be encouraged on your own initiatives you still need to be graded/ranked on a common scale with your peers and hence the need for some sort of standardization.

For example, in a recent HN discussion on "Software Developer Productivity" lots of folks were arguing on how you can have no common scale/metrics and so you can make no comparisons at all between developers which is plainly wrong.

Education is about giving everybody a minimum standard of knowledge/tools needed for the Modern World and that is what a Teacher/Professor focuses on. Every Society needs to revere/honour (and pay well !) their Teachers/Professors because they are the ones who build the next generation.