technology

[Harrison Hill]

My poor wife was asked today what "technology" means and she blurted
out "wood work"; and now feels she has to go back and re-explain it to
the person she misinformed.

I'm not sure she does - a difficult word to pin down! Did "Domestic
Science" in the sixties become "Home Technology" AKA washing up and
ironing?

[Guy Barry]

"Harrison Hill" wrote in message
news:70da6983-67bd-408f...@r7g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...

I thought it was called "home economics", but I could be wrong.

I'm fairly sure that there is or was a subject in schools called "Craft,
Design and Technology" (CDT), which may include woodwork.

--
Guy Barry

[R H Draney]

Harrison Hill filted:

>
>My poor wife was asked today what "technology" means and she blurted
>out "wood work"; and now feels she has to go back and re-explain it to
>the person she misinformed.

"Oh, do come in and rest yourself!...I'll be along presently, just as soon as I
finish polishing the technology"....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[Peter Moylan]

I'm not sure; but I'm pretty certain that "cooking" became "food
technology", at least in this state.

Some years ago I had to help in teaching a drinking-from-a-firehose
short course to teachers of woodwork and metalwork; and, more to the
point, help design a syllabus for a new high school subject.

The thing that triggered this was that the teachers of these subjects
had trouble getting promotion, because for the most part they didn't
have the academic credentials required for teaching the more academic
subjects. There was therefore pressure to replace the subjects known as
woodwork and metalwork by a subject called, IIRC, "Engineering Technology".

The syllabus design was a failure, in my opinion. By the time I got to
see it, it looked exactly like the description of the second year of a
four-year mechanical engineering degree. By my calculation, it would
require covering one topic per five minutes. And what, anyway, were they
going to do about the fact that the people who were supposed to teach
this subject had no engineering qualification, insufficient background
in mathematics, etc?

This came back to bite us in later years. We found it very difficult to
get the message out that, if someone was planning to do a degree in
engineering, they MUST NOT take any high school subject with
"technology" or "engineering" in its name. Too many poor kids were
taking these subjects on the assumption that they would lead on to
engineering studies, and then discovering that they couldn't get into an
engineering degree because they hadn't done enough mathematics or physics.

The computer science people had a similar problem, by the way. They were
trying very hard to make the school "computer studies" subject an
anti-prerequisite for a computer science degree -- they wanted to
prevent anyone who had done that subject from entering the degree, on
the grounds that it was too difficult to make them unlearn lots of
misperceptions [1]. Unfortunately, there is something called "equality
of esteem" that makes it impossible to introduce any sort of
anti-prerequisite rule.

[1] Of course I meant to write "misconceptions", but after proof-reading
I've decided to keep the new word.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:17:43 +1100, Peter Moylan
<inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> on
>the grounds that it was too difficult to make them unlearn lots of
>misperceptions [1]. Unfortunately, there is something called "equality
>of esteem" that makes it impossible to introduce any sort of
>anti-prerequisite rule.
>
>[1] Of course I meant to write "misconceptions", but after proof-reading
>I've decided to keep the new word.

New-ish:

1722 W. Wollaston Relig. of Nature iii. 42 Wrong notions, and
misperceptions of things.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[bob]

When I started secondary school in the early 1990s, we had CDT, and it
was mostly woodwork, metalwork and a smattering of technical drawing.
By the time I left, the department had become simply "Technology", but
from what I could see the content was unchanged. These "secondary
modern" type subjects seem to have spent the period since the
introduction of comprehensives in an almost unending rebranding
exercise to try to trick people into thinking they have more academic
content than they actually do. In the last 10 or so years, I would add
the "how to use a computer" type course that is essentially typing for
the C21st to the list.

There is the old joke, if a subject has the word "studies" in its name,
it isn't worth studying. I would add to that if a subject was known by
a different name 5 years ago, it isn't worth studying.

Robin

[R H Draney]

bob filted:

>
>There is the old joke, if a subject has the word "studies" in its name,
>it isn't worth studying. I would add to that if a subject was known by
>a different name 5 years ago, it isn't worth studying.

So when DP ("data processing") became MIS ("management information systems") it
became worthless, and when it later transmogrified into IT ("information
technology") it became worthless a second time?...that's a great thing for the
CS ("computer science") people to know, since their designation hasn't changed
in at least 35 years, and they're the ones usually regarded as useless
academics....r

[Peter Brooks]

Psychology is something of an exception. It absorbed sociobiology,
renaming it 'evolutionary psychology' so as not to frighten the god-
botherers, and then dropped the 'evolutionary' bit. So it looks as if
it's had the same name for yonks, but has actually become a much more
soundly based and scientific subject in recent years.

[Joe Fineman]

What to Christian Science, creation science, social science, and
computer science have in common?
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net

||: There comes a time when many are thinking "What the hell are :||
||: we doing this for?" and someone dares to say it. :||

[Mike L]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 12:26:28 +0100, bob <rcp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2012-11-14 05:23:04 +0000, Guy Barry said:
>
>> "Harrison Hill" wrote in message
>> news:70da6983-67bd-408f...@r7g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> My poor wife was asked today what "technology" means and she blurted
>>> out "wood work"; and now feels she has to go back and re-explain it to
>>> the person she misinformed.
>>
>>> I'm not sure she does - a difficult word to pin down! Did "Domestic
>>> Science" in the sixties become "Home Technology" AKA washing up and
>>> ironing?
>>
>> I thought it was called "home economics", but I could be wrong.
>>
>> I'm fairly sure that there is or was a subject in schools called
>> "Craft, Design and Technology" (CDT), which may include woodwork.
>
>When I started secondary school in the early 1990s, we had CDT, and it
>was mostly woodwork, metalwork and a smattering of technical drawing.
>By the time I left, the department had become simply "Technology", but
>from what I could see the content was unchanged. These "secondary
>modern" type subjects seem to have spent the period since the
>introduction of comprehensives in an almost unending rebranding
>exercise to try to trick people into thinking they have more academic
>content than they actually do.

There were financial factors, too. At one stage schools could get
extra money for CDT centres (fka "workshops"), so it was important to
keep up with the terminology the politicians were bullshitting about
in any given year.

>In the last 10 or so years, I would add
>the "how to use a computer" type course that is essentially typing for
>the C21st to the list.
>
>There is the old joke, if a subject has the word "studies" in its name,
>it isn't worth studying. I would add to that if a subject was known by
>a different name 5 years ago, it isn't worth studying.
>

--
MIke.

[R H Draney]

Joe Fineman filted:

>
>R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> writes:
>
>> bob filted:
>>>
>>>There is the old joke, if a subject has the word "studies" in its
>>>name, it isn't worth studying. I would add to that if a subject was
>>>known by a different name 5 years ago, it isn't worth studying.
>>
>> So when DP ("data processing") became MIS ("management information
>> systems") it became worthless, and when it later transmogrified into
>> IT ("information technology") it became worthless a second
>> time?...that's a great thing for the CS ("computer science") people
>> to know, since their designation hasn't changed in at least 35
>> years, and they're the ones usually regarded as useless
>> academics....r
>
>What to Christian Science, creation science, social science, and
>computer science have in common?

They all violate the second part of "i before e except after c"....r

[bob]

On 2012-11-17 17:23:34 +0000, R H Draney said:

> bob filted:
>>
>> There is the old joke, if a subject has the word "studies" in its name,
>> it isn't worth studying. I would add to that if a subject was known by
>> a different name 5 years ago, it isn't worth studying.
>
> So when DP ("data processing") became MIS ("management information systems") it
> became worthless, and when it later transmogrified into IT ("information
> technology") it became worthless a second time?

I was specifically thinking of school and university (undergraduate)
subjects. I have never heard of a school teaching DP or MIS, but the
version of "IT" I was taught at school was definitely not worthwhile.

> ...that's a great thing for the
> CS ("computer science") people to know, since their designation hasn't changed
> in at least 35 years, and they're the ones usually regarded as useless
> academics....r

Computer Science is a long standing and worthwhile branch of
mathematics. As an academic subject it is very much worthwhile, but at
secondary school level, care must be taken that the subject calling
itself "computer science" actually is.

On a matter of subjects changing their names, at some point in the last
50 years the subject of botany appears to have been renamed plant
science. I have heard biologist types also refering to a range of
other subjects that I suspect may have once had more "classical" names,
but I can't bring them to mind (I expect zoology has been renamed, but
I can't bring a successor to mind).

Robin

[R H Draney]

bob filted:

>
>On 2012-11-17 17:23:34 +0000, R H Draney said:
>
>> bob filted:
>>>
>>> There is the old joke, if a subject has the word "studies" in its name,
>>> it isn't worth studying. I would add to that if a subject was known by
>>> a different name 5 years ago, it isn't worth studying.
>>
>>So when DP ("data processing") became MIS ("management information systems") it
>> became worthless, and when it later transmogrified into IT ("information
>> technology") it became worthless a second time?
>
>I was specifically thinking of school and university (undergraduate)
>subjects. I have never heard of a school teaching DP or MIS, but the
>version of "IT" I was taught at school was definitely not worthwhile.

It was DP when I took it in college (late 1970s); there was no IT then....r

[the Omrud]

My degree is in Computer Science - Manchester 1979. I think the course
started in 1972. We knew of "EDP" (Electronic Data Processing) but this
was a description of what commercial organisations did with data. It
was not a course of any sort.

--
David

[Lanarcam]

Le 18/11/2012 19:06, the Omrud a �crit :

Why don't you all use the appropriate term: informatics?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informatics

I don't dare think that it is because it was coined across
the Channel ;)

[the Omrud]

Not a problem for me, but it's not the name of any course I've ever
taken. My French neighbours in the Limousin consider me to be Ing�nieur
Informatique.

--
David

[Guy Barry]

"Lanarcam" wrote in message news:50a924b0$0$6485$426a...@news.free.fr...

> Why don't you all use the appropriate term: informatics?

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informatics

> I don't dare think that it is because it was coined across
> the Channel ;)

Edinburgh University has a Division of Informatics:

http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/informatics/

It encompasses the former departments of Computer Science, Artificial
Intelligence and Cognitive Science (where I did my PhD). I tend to think of
"informatics" as employed there as a broader term than "computer science",
but I don't know how widely the term is used elsewhere.

--
Guy Barry

[Dr Nick]

bob <rcp...@gmail.com> writes:

> On a matter of subjects changing their names, at some point in the
> last 50 years the subject of botany appears to have been renamed plant
> science. I have heard biologist types also refering to a range of
> other subjects that I suspect may have once had more "classical"
> names, but I can't bring them to mind (I expect zoology has been
> renamed, but I can't bring a successor to mind).

If botany has become "plant science" in the last 50 years, it went
through "plant biology" at the mid-point.

[Lanarcam]

Le 18/11/2012 19:15, the Omrud a écrit :
> On 18/11/2012 18:10, Lanarcam wrote:

> taken. My French neighbours in the Limousin consider me to be Ingénieur
> Informatique.
>
Ingénieur en informatique or ingénieur informaticien.
As for me, I write on my CV: ingénieur en informatique industrielle.

I have been told it pays less than informatique de gestion,
but I find it more interesting or at least that's what I can do.