So are any of these questions getting answered?
Aleem Mawani
Travis Allen
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006, Aleem Mawani wrote:
> Or are we flying blind with this project?
>
I think its pretty safe to say that we are flying blind with this project.
Considering one of the answers posted was "It means exactly what it says
on the info sheet" (which was posted to a perfectly valid question about
an ambiguous part of the "info sheet") I have lost all hope of getting
non-sarcastic or helpful responses to questions posed. I for one am not
impressed with this type of attitude from the course staff. I mean, what
would happen if we were asked a question during the demo and replied with
"duh, did you even read our documents?"?
I think it is perfectly valid to ask questions about something which seems
ambiguous. It is possible for the document to be ambiguous in one
person's mind and not in another. So, it would be nice if some of these
questions were answered with something other than a sarcastic response and
without speaking down to the person.
Travis
SE3 Student
Given the lack of professionalism I have observed so far, I realize that I must make this statement in anonymity for fear of the likely repercussions to my own group.
SS
uw.ece.student
huge problem with the ECE department, in general. One might think that
there cant be worse organized than the one you're in right now, but
yes, they exist, and they exist in lower-year ECE courses.
The profs will not care. Most TAs will not care because the profs have
rubbed off on them. Lab instructors are either incompetent or are
unable to answer.
Having taken a course from CS, it can be seen that there is a better
way. But this better way is not going to be embraced by ECE in the near
future - this has been ingrained in the culture of the ECE department,
and there's nothing students can do but get used to it.
That being said, good luck to all of you in your project and demo. When
you're finished, breathe a sigh of relief. What you have experienced is
nowhere near the worst the ECE Dept has to offer.
> ------=_Part_12979_26689518.1143341024618
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Google-AttachSize: 2530
>
> I am very unimpressed with the quality of our TA staff (i.e. Sean Lau)
> for the last two installments of our capstone project. Equally
> abhorrent is the fact that the teaching staff is willing to overlook
> the poor moral character of an individual who derives great
> satisfaction from mistreating his students. Additionally, I do
> not consider ignorance to be valid excuse, as I have personally
> observed the demonstration of Sean's ego-inflating behavior in the
> presence of both our SE2 and SE3 profs.<br>
> <br>
> Given
> the lack of professionalism I have observed so far, I realize that I must make this statement
> in anonymity for fear of the likely repercussions to my own group.<br>
> <br>
> SS<br>
>
> <br>
>
> <div> </div>
>
>
> <div>"Travis Allen" <<a href="mailto:tra...@student.cs.uwaterloo.ca" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">tra...@student.cs.uwaterloo.ca</a>>
> wrote in message <a href="news:Pine.GSO.4.64.06...@cpu16.student.cs.uwaterloo.ca" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">news:Pine.GSO.4.64.06...@cpu16.student.cs.uwaterloo.ca
> </a>...</div>
>
> >
> <br>
>
> > <br>
>
> > On Sat, 25 Mar 2006, Aleem Mawani wrote:<br>
>
> > <br>
>
> >>
> Or are we flying blind with this project?<br>
>
> >><br>
>
> > <br>
>
> > I think
> its pretty safe to say that we are flying blind with this project. <br>
>
> >
> Considering one of the answers posted was "It means exactly what it says
> <br>
>
> > on the info sheet" (which was posted to a perfectly valid question
> about <br>
>
> > an ambiguous part of the "info sheet") I have lost all hope of
> getting <br>
>
> > non-sarcastic or helpful responses to questions posed. I for
> one am not <br>
>
> > impressed with this type of attitude from the course staff.
> I mean, what <br>
>
> > would happen if we were asked a question during the demo
> and replied with <br>
>
> > "duh, did you even read our documents?"?<br>
>
> >
> <br>
>
> > I think it is perfectly valid to ask questions about something which
> seems <br>
>
> > ambiguous. It is possible for the document to be ambiguous in
> one <br>
>
> > person's mind and not in another. So, it would be nice if some of
> these <br>
>
> > questions were answered with something other than a sarcastic
> response and <br>
>
> > without speaking down to the person.<br>
>
> > <br>
>
> >
> Travis
>
> ------=_Part_12979_26689518.1143341024618--
Aaron Gourley
http://www.dltk-holidays.com/thanksgiving/mkleen1.jpg
As frustrating as I also find the ambiguity in the specifications througout
these courses, it's nothing to cry about. Just wait till you deal with real
customers.
Anonymity is for the weak. Nice big words though.
"SE3 Student" <se3.student....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e04v5e$mvd$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
George Tam
C M N
Andrew Miklas
Aaron Gourley wrote:
<snip>
>
> As frustrating as I also find the ambiguity in the specifications
> througout
> these courses, it's nothing to cry about. Just wait till you deal with
> real customers.
Customers who provide ambiguous specifications and then don't answer
questions about the product they have requested can hardly be surprised
when they do not receive what they had in mind. I think we covered this in
SE 1 --- requirements gathering is very much a collaborative process
between the customer and the engineers.
>
> Anonymity is for the weak. Nice big words though.
Anonymity is perfectly acceptable if you honestly believe you will be
unjustly punished for giving the truth or your honest opinion. Consider
the course critiques, which are anonymous. In fact, in engineering, they
are destroyed if you in any way identify yourself on them (or so I've been
told).
-- Andrew
Aaron Gourley
infallible. How could I have forgotten this?
Professors don't see evaluations until after final marks are out.
Yield.
"Andrew Miklas" <agmiklas@*nospam*uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:e05am2$t6f$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
Philip Mitchell
here, so we should demand a certain quality of service, and b) most firms
(certainly any that I'd be leading) would refuse to bid on a project after
having such a bad experience with a customer. I mean, the only result of
this situation is that the customer does not get what he/she wants and the
engineer who did it looks bad. Sure the engineer gets paid, but at what
cost?
Also, anonymity is perfectly valid as long as there is a strong risk of
repercussions that affect more than just the individual. I would hope
that anyone involved is mature enough not to take action against a group
or an individual complainer, however. As a long as all statements made
are factually true so as not to be libelous, there should (in an ideal
world) be no problem with voicing one's issues in a public domain.
Phil
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Aaron Gourley wrote: