From chemistry-request@ccl.net Thu Jun 11 11:41:19 1992 Date: 11 Jun 1992 08:56:33 -0400 (EDT) From: DSOUTHA@uoft02.utoledo.edu Subject: Re: Languages To: chemistry@ccl.net Status: RO #include int main() { register int i; printf("I'd rather know C and be ignorant of French,\n"); printf("than speak French and have my VCR flashing\n"); for(i=0;i<10;i++) printf("12:00\n"); printf("all day.\n :-)\n"); } As the individual who initially seeded this debate, I should probably throw in my $0.02.... Dr. Smith's request for info on schools that allow the substitution of computer programming languages for "real" languages was made due to a question that arose during my graduate committee's review (and approval) of my Ph.D degree plan. I did NOT suggest the substitution of a computer language for a "real" language to circumvent an attempt by University to force a liberal arts education upon me. On the contrary, the one thing I have never been accused of is taking a vocational approach to learning. My University's requirement is currently "knowledge of a foreign language from the choices of French, German, or Russian", which is tested by the ability to translate relevant excerpts in the chosen language to English. This is obviously NOT a requirement designed to broaden my cognitive outlook (unless the University is so hopelessly Eurocentric as to think that useful scienctific approaches are the exclusive domain of English, French, German, and Russian speaking scientists and societies). The requirement no doubt arose due to the previous unavailability of translated journals. Of course as a Computational chemist, what will I be translating more often: French or Fortran? Most of the many objections to this substitution seem to be based around the erroneous idea that rudimentary knowledge of the linguistics of a given geographical area somehow magically imparts knowledge of its culture and perspective. That is not now and has never been the case. Studying a culture (and by extension, learning to empathize with it) is the domain of Sociology and Anthropology, not of linguistics. I studied 3 years of Spanish as a high school student. I do not remember more than a smattering of the language nor do I have a greater appreciation for, or understanding of, tacos. Knowledge of a language only begets knowledge of a culture when one uses the language to interact with the culture in question (notice that the olny posters who claim empathy with a culture have used their language ability to VISIT and INTERACT with the culture). On the other hand, I spent two semesters studying the Australian Aborigines in college (from perhaps the world's foremost expert). To this day I still look at the hours I spent on this 50,000 year-old society among the most intellectually, spiritually, and philosophically fulfilling of my entire life. So much so that I still study the culture when I have time and plan to visit the continent when I have $. >From a more practical standpoint, my research in college was based upon some literature available only in German. It took me about 4 hours to translate the required sections to English. I don't know German. I have never taken German. Is it really necessary to prove that I can read a translation dictionary? On the other hand, every day I do research I use a computer. I also know 8 different programming languages (and several system-dialects of each of those 8). I forwarded our list's Fortran/C discussion of a few months back to a programmerfriend of mine at Cray Research. They pinned it up on the board so that the whole department could get a laugh out of it (mainly due to the obvious lack of knowledge some of the posters demonstrated with regard to structured programming techniques). One of the Comp. Sci. professors whom I contact with questions from time to time described the programming in a popular and widely used semi-empirical package as "Braindead". Apparently the science of programming has escaped some of the Comp. Chem. population. In short, the philosophy behind this suggestion was one of "Since this is a VOCATIONAL ABILITY requirement, why not be tested in an ability that is relevant to my chosen field." It was not and is not a goal on my part to escape the benefits of a broad-base liberal arts education. I fully agree that everyone should know a 2nd language. For that matter I also think that everyone should also study Sociology and Anthropology and Historx0and Philosophy and Economics and Phys. Ed. and Music and.... For that matter, I think that everyone should also have both 1000 or more freefall skydives and should know the difference between Tequila and Mescal. These things were and are an enjoyable part of my education and SHOULD be part of a good education in ANY field. Again, the requirement in question was never designed to insure a well-rounded education. It was implemented when translating journals was a necessary skill and was designed to make sure that graduates were able to preform that task. To borrow J.M. Seminario's use of analogy: Jumping graduate students through linguistic hoops designed to test an outdated skill is no more likely to produce an Aristotle than slide rule requirements in engineering would be to produce a Frank Lloyd Wright. :-) My own opinions. You are welcome to yours as well. Dale Southard Dept. of Chem, U of T.