[9rx]

> but isn't the ideal outcome that you actually know the language by the end?

Given that it is billed as a Python course that is reasonable.

But, to be fair, the intent of the course is almost certainly to provide background in the tools so that you can observe CS concepts learned later. Which is kind of like astronomy majors learning how to use a telescope so that they can observe its concepts. If Google image search provided the same imagery just as well as a telescope, the frustration in being compelled to teach rudimentary telescope operation is understandable. It is not like the sciences are studied for the tools.

[franga2000]

> It is not like the sciences are studied for the tools

The problem with this logic is that most university students don't go there to do science, they go there to, at best, become working experts in their field. Many employers now expect their javascript frontend developers to have a CS degree, which is simply absurd. Secondary vocational education is generally considered insufficient and tertiary vocational schools are "where you go if you can't get into university". This means universities get a huge number of applicants who want nothing to do with science or advanced theory, but just want to learn enough (and get the right paper!) to get a job in their preferred field.

This is now self-reinforcing. If you're a good programmer and want to work on business software, it would make sense for you to go to a tertiary vocational school (where I'm from that means 2 years, one semester of which is essentially an apprenticeship). But because "everyone goes to university", you'll be seen as a worse candidate for most jobs. At the same time, employers are pressuring universities to be "more practical" because "graduates come to the first day on the job useless". So universities lower the bar, taking more away from vocational, who then lower the bar in turn to stay afloat, devaluing themselves in the process.

[aleph_minus_one]

> The problem with this logic is that most university students don't go there to do science, they go there to, at best, become working experts in their field. Many employers now expect their javascript frontend developers to have a CS degree, which is simply absurd. Secondary vocational education is generally considered insufficient and tertiary vocational schools are "where you go if you can't get into university". This means universities get a huge number of applicants who want nothing to do with science or advanced theory, but just want to learn enough (and get the right paper!) to get a job in their preferred field.

This is why in Germany there exists a third form of tertiary education that is neither vocational nor universities: Fachhochschulen (often translated with "schools of applied science").

[jacooper]

You mean universities of applied science, not schools, they call themselves that in English, but even that has different meanings in other countries. It's basically a more practical and school like university with smaller classes and more practical material.

[9rx]

> Many employers now expect their javascript frontend developers to have a CS degree

They don't actually – but when faced with long lines they will have to apply a filtering mechanism to get the numbers down to something manageable, and a degree is most legally accepted way to do it. Filtering by gender, race, etc. is off limits.

But if there are still too many in the queue even after applying that filter, employers will have to move on to something else, like credit score. So more and more getting a degree to evade the filter is a bit of a fool's errand. It might be okay if you are one of the few with one, but it isn't 1950 anymore. At this point one is late to the party.

A better marketing strategy is your best bet if you truly still want to work in a field that is oversaturated. Metaphorically, you don't have to bundle Android to capture market attention if you can stand out like the iPhone. Life will be a lot easier if you move on to a career that needs more people rather than getting caught up in the intense competition, though.

> At the same time, employers are pressuring universities to be "more practical" because "graduates come to the first day on the job useless".

College has sold itself as the place to give people awareness of the world, which is what employers truly seek. Employers don't want robots to carry out rote tasks, they want people to be able to think through never-before-experienced situations and deliver the best outcome.

When someone shows up useless, college has failed them. Not because college didn't teach them how to use some specific tool, but in allowing them to graduate without being able recognize that one shouldn't show up to a job completely useless. Naturally, employers are going to be "WTF?"

The response to that shouldn't be to double down on teaching tools to hide the real failing and avoid putting in the work to actually deliver on what is promised, but as long as the students keep showing up I suppose there is no reason to care about doing better.