Conference koolit::vms_curriculum

  First teach is in progress this week.  Only 3 of 11 have had Sys Net II.
  All others have had System Mgr I or equivalent skill, so all are nominally
  skilled for this course.  One of the "3" took SysNet I&II the past two
  weeks - a bit overkill for her, but I think she's hanging in.  Most of
  the other students read the Catalog description and decided to take the
  class anyway.  Most students on Monday morning said they were the most
  interested in the VAXcluster and DECnet topics.
  
  I am using Chapter one like an Appendix - During the DECnet module after
  about the first 2 pages I jumped over there and covered the concepts.
  Seemed to go well.  Schedule-wise I'm behind already, module 2 took over
  2 hours as did DECnet.  I find that I'm filling in a lot of details that
  they 1) don't have and 2) didn't get from previous courses.  
  
  $

  Well, first teach is finished and I have just squeaked by.  This was by
  far the most unorganized course I've taught in a while (well, maybe with 
  the exception of DECwindows Programming I), and my students told me so. 
  Luckily I had taught 80% of the material in other classes, because there
  were a lot of questions outside the scope of this course.  I had one of
  our local SysNet I & II instructors sitting in the class this past week
  and could ask her how much was and was not covered in the previous SYSNET
  courses.  So I knew what I had to 'back-fill', which was a LOT, to make
  the course make sense.

  To cover the lecture material adequately, to provide the background
  needed to *understand* the course and to make sure the students left the
  course trained in the topics presented in the course I had to supplement
  the material in many areas.  I've posted in the numerous SYSNET III notes
  my technical/teaching review.  There are numerous errors to correct, but
  most can be 'taught around' easily.  
  
  The biggest problem is -- TOO MUCH INFORMATION ON TOO MANY TOPICS COVERED
  IN TOO LITTLE DETAIL IN TOO LITTLE TIME TO SATISFY THE AVERAGE AUDIENCE
  MEMBER!  In other words, we have to remove a topic or two so we can
  fatten up the remaining topics to be technically acceptable without
  lecturing every day until 4 P.M.!  My lecture schedule this week was 9-5
  on Monday, Tuesday through Thursday 9-3:30 and Friday 9-12:45 and I
  *still* didn't cover 1/2 of the performance module and 1/2 of module 1!! 
  I told the students on Monday that I had no real idea of the timing of
  the course with it being a first-teach, so they were understanding, and
  somewhat kind on the SOFs.  Yes, we had time for labs since I told them
  to only work the topics they needed the help on, and to skip the topics
  that they already knew well.  I still didn't leave the classroom before 6
  P.M. all week until Friday!

  Like Kenny mentioned in a previous note, the problem seems to be the new
  course names.  Most expected more DECnet so I fattened it up a bit.  I
  added stuff on the databases, poor-man's-routing, hidden areas and the
  Security Gateway product -- about 30-45 minutes extra -- and well worth
  it.  *NONE* of the students mentioned on Monday that Performance and
  Security were major concerns for them, it was obviously DECnet was the
  major concern with VAXcluster and "more" System Mgt as close seconds.
  
  I know these courses are NOT exact duplicates of the previous course
  string, but basically we can say, "If you took U&C I, don't take SysNet
  1, if you took SysMan I, then don't take SysNet 2" ...and I think this
  would hold true with SysNet 3, but in a slighty different manner.  I'd
  say "If you've taken two of the following, don't take SysNet 3, rather
  take one of the other speciality courese" and I'd list SysMgr II, DECnet
  Mgt I, VAXcluster Mgt, VMS Security and VMS Performance.  Maybe we can
  get something like this on the 'script' for the registrars.  Or maybe we
  could even put it on the descriptions of the courses in the Digest and
  training catalogs!
  
  I *seldom* get a bad SOF, and I've never received comments like what I
  did on this course.  I received a comment on my SOF...
  
     "This course is not worth $2000.  I am considering writing a letter
      under separate cover to this effect"  
                          [not exact quote, but best I can remember, $]
  
  OUCH!  This type of comment REALLY hurts when you teach as long and as
  hard as I did this past week.  Obviously, considering I knew most of the
  material very well, this reflects poorly on the material and the
  "targeting" problems we are having with getting the right customers in
  the course.  Do what needs to be done to make the course technically
  balanced, but fix the three SYSNET course descriptions to say something
  like "SysNet I replaces VMS U&C I, if you have taken U&C I, don't take
  this class!" or something equally obvious in the Digest!!
  
  Still staggering following a drumming on the SOFs...
  
  $

    
    
    A couple of procedural questions:
    
    1.  Why is this conference set "replies only"?
    
    2.  I guess I still don't understand the timing of the "changes"
        that are rather obviously needed to this course.  These materials
        are on-line, right?  Many (but not all, admittedly) of the changes
        are little more than "edit's".  A new copy can then be
        made available to JIT.  It SEEMS like it should be that easy.
        I just don't think we should have to wait weeks (months) for these
        changes to be made -- all the while we, the instructors, are
        doing our site-specific tap dances.
    
    3.  Paul M.  You should have received a copy of the Chicago System
        Manager labs within a few days after you were here last fall.
        They were sent via "interoffice mail".  Have you cleaned your
        desk lately?  8-) (kind-of)
    
           Greg

    
    Hi Greg,
    
    Let's seeeeee....#1.
    
    The conference is set replies only because we were experiementing with
    creating a single conference for all VMS courses and the original
    intent was to group replies replies relating to a course together...to
    make it easier for instructors with limited time to locate notes
    on the course they were interested in. The replies only was to prevent
    notes about totally different subjects being interspersed in a course
    grouping.
    
    We are willing to post any reasonable note that you wish...just send
    it to Val or I who moderate the file.
    
    #2...
    
    It sounds so simple on the wire...[sigh] 
    
    The problem does not really lie with our ability to make the
    changes...not any more. Changes of the kind that you reference
    could be made in a matter of minutes. It then take a matter
    of hours to rebuild the course. That's the theoretical application.
    Now let's consider...practical application.
    
    Everytime we did this...would we rev the course? In short order you
    would have 45 revs...all out there in the world in customer's hands...
    all needing to be tracked by revenue...
    
    In short, the issue has nothing to do with development being able to 
    make the changes...it has to do with a business decision that
    development has nothing to do with about how often we will rev a
    course.
    
    Andy? Are you listening...this is yours.
    
    In addition, if you all scan the replies in here...there are some
    things that you all disagree on. If we reacted within seconds of
    a note being posted, we would end up changing changes...that never
    pays.
    
    I hear what you are saying...and I agree that some method of being
    more responsive needs addressing...but what I am pointing out is that
    we have done our share...we _can_ make changes very quickly...the issue
    is not with us. It is a business manufacturing decision...not a 
    development one.
    
    hugs
    
    Mel
    

    1.  Why is this conference set "replies only"?
    
    See notes 1.* for the rationale behind the organization of this
    conference.
    
    2.  I guess I still don't understand the timing of the "changes"
        that are rather obviously needed to this course.  These materials...
    
    The process for updating courses is an issue that goes beyond the VMS
    curriculum. Feel free to raise it in ESDP_INSTRUCTOR_NOTES. I'm not
    trying to squelch discussion of something that concerns all of us, but
    it'll be simpler for all participants in this conference if we can keep
    it focused on the new VMS courses.
                                     
    I pass on 3 :-)
    
    					Val
    

    
    Thanks Val and Mel.  I kind of had a feeling that your answers would be
    as they were.  As I suspected, it's out of "your hands".  Boy, do I
    wish there was an easier way to do things!
    
    	GJD

    See reply in SYSNET II 72.47...
    
    Kenny "B"
    

> 3.  Paul M.  You should have received a copy of the Chicago System
>        Manager labs within a few days after you were here last fall.
>        They were sent via "interoffice mail".  Have you cleaned your
>        desk lately?  8-) (kind-of)
    
           Greg,

	   What desk? I can't find it! You must have sent them U.S. mail and
	   they got confused again down on Congress St.. Oh well I expect them
	   any day now.

	   Seriously, I never received them.  I asked John to mention it to you.
	   If I had, and they're good as you say, you would've seen them in 
	   SYSNET.

	   Take care.					
						Paul M.
						ZKO1-1/D42

I survived my first SYSNET III teach last week (at least that's what the 
numbers say; I'm not so sure that the verbal bullet holes have healed though).

Registration issues were NOT a problem.  Communication has improved on this one.
I had students who didn't belong there, but they knew it and decided to come
anyway.  I never will figure out what to do in those cases other than welcome
them and hope they won't be too bored.

The course is downright exhausting for both the instructor and the students.
We cover so little DECnet information in the first two classes that I literally
found myself trying to cram as much of Network Mgr I into Monday that I could.
Anyone who can type can enter $ @SYS$MANAGER:NETCONFIG and take the defaults, 
but will they end up with a useful network node?  System managers have to know 
what they are doing and why. Trying to explain it is a real trial given the 
lack of depth in this material.  The students have to work twice as hard to
understand an instructor when they have nothing concrete in front of them to 
act as a guide/summary.  I'm going to have to create lots of handouts for the 
next time.  I had enough hardware to let them run NETCONFIG as a lab exercise; 
they couldn't do it.  They didn't know where to start.

Tuesday was even worse, an attempt to cram VAXcluster Mgr into the second
day.  They were reeling from the pain of it all by Wednesday.  Again, anyone
can type in $ @SYS$MANAGER:CLUSTER_CONFIG, but is that a VAXcluster you'd like
to use for production?  My students managed to mangle allocation classes, 
the load files for the satellites, and the root for one of the satellites.  I'm
not sure what else they killed, but I had a badly trashed system that required a
restore from backup to fix!!  I've never had a VAXcluster class trash the system
like that.  My conclusion:  this group was already running on overload and the 
week wasn't half over.

Wednesday was a loss; too much generalizing.  Thursday was another overload day
with Security.  Friday I had to cover Monitor and Performance.  RIGHT!?!?!  
This class has to be the toughest of the three since we try to cover too many 
major topics at once.  SYSNET I & II together roughly cover U & C I and SM I
topics with very superficial coverage of NCP thrown in.  On the other hand,
SYSNET III attempts to cover a system build from the VMS installation to 
DECnet to VAXcluster to security to memory management.  It really attempts to
squish three one week classes into one week (sort of like the stepsisters 
trying to fit into Cindrella's glass slipper -- OUCH!)

I know this issue has been raised before.  It won't stop me from raising it
again either.  We've lost the meat by trying to trim the fat out of our old
curriculum.  The implementation of the mastery series is a disservice to our
customers (and the smart ones already have figured that out).  From the 
student's point of view a cookbook isn't enough.  When I configure my network
node and I don't understand DECnet access control then how can I decide 
whether I need a default DECNET account (or FAL$SERVER, etc.)?  If I don't 
know what a task is then how do I know whether I want the object disabled?  
If I don't know what an object is then....  None of this is a problem in a 
five-day specialty class; we have time to teach them.  How do I adequately 
cover it all in a day?  Talk faster than I ever have before!

From the instructor's point of view: if I didn't already teach Network Mgr I, 
VAXcluster System Mgr and Sys Mgr II, I would have gone up in flames!  As it 
is, I'm fairly certain that all I did was overwhelm them.

We really need to go back to the drawing board with these classes and we need
a "funded" review cycle out in the field.  As has been noted before, most of us
are either on the block or out of town or steeped in another project when the
modules go up for review.  There's never enough time....

				Susan

  Your comments about answering the obvious questions that come up
  regarding NETCONFIG and CLUSTER_CONFIG are right on the money!  You
  *must* teach *much* more than is in the book to get these topics covered
  properly.
  
  Please, can we consider trimming out an ENTIRE module somewhere?!?!?!
  
  $

>  Please, can we consider trimming out an ENTIRE module somewhere?!?!?!

How about the one where the students fill out the SOFs?

:^)

Perry

>  Please, can we consider trimming out an ENTIRE module somewhere?!?!?!
>
> How about the one where the students fill out the SOFs?
>
> :^)

HaHaHaHaHAHaHa!!!!!

So, does that mean we haven't entirely lost our sense of humor or have we gone
completely over the edge?!?!?!?

On the serious side, what is going to happen to the VAXcluster Mgr. class?  It
was not on the latest hit list of dates for final teaches of the old curriculum.
If we are going to keep that class around, we should seriously consider 
dropping the VAXcluster module from SN 3 and beefing up the network stuff.  
Also, we should drop the first half of module 1.  Like Buck, I never did get 
around to it.  

In fact, half of my class didn't stick around for the last hour of Perf.
I let them fill out the SOFs just before the 11:30 break so that the ones 
who had flights could leave.  Apparently, the others just couldn't handle any
more fun!?!?!?!?


				Susan

>So, does that mean we haven't entirely lost our sense of humor or have we gone
>completely over the edge?!?!?!?

Well, I *am* a VMS course developer...draw your own conclusions, Susan.

:^P

Perry

    speaking as the next victem, ahem, lamb, oops, i mean instructor to
    come up on this here in Santa Clara (or maybe i should let Susan teach
    all of em!!!.....????)  i would seriously look at the expectation a
    customer (read that to be not just the student but their managers also)
    has when we title a series "System & Network Management...", and let
    that guide cutting excess (and superficial) material that is still
    covered in a full forum (like VAXcluster Management) and leave us a
    little more time to try and teach what we are implying...
    
    my 2 cents.
    
    (see SYSnet ii for why i say this....)
    

    If you've found typos, spellos, inconsistencies, etc. in the final
    materials for Sys/Net III, please post them as replies to this note by
    Monday, June 1. If you've already posted comments, you can post a
    pointer to your previous note(s).
    
    We also recognize the need to cut back on the material in this course
    (more so than with I or II) and expect to do so in this rev. Details
    are forthcoming. 
    
    					Val

Val,

I'm assuming your request for cross-posting refers to comments that are
already posted in a Notesfile other than VMS_CURRICULUM (and not those found
in the various chapter topics).

				Susan

Buck Trayser sent these:
    
10-10a, 3rd sentence --
     "...and if you're in agreement CORRECT the tuning..." probably needs to
     be "...COMPLETE the..."

10-29, 1st bullet --                  
     Change "$ R image_name".  1) get rid of "R" and replace with "RUN"

10-34, 3rd & 4th bullets --
     Why is INTERACTIVE in bold?  Batch, Network, etc. all use WSQUOTA and
     WSDEFAULT.

10-56, 1st bullet --
     What is the significance of "/BASE_PRIORITY=n" having 1 "n" and all the
     other qualifiers having 2 "n"'s?

5-21 --
     Format problem near bullet #2

5-25a, 3rd bullet, 2nd line --
     typo - "Read ATt Version..."

4-27, Top line --
     Same word-wrap problem as the VAXcluster Mgr course.  Will this line not
     fit?

3-12, 20th line --
       "DEFINE OBJECT PHONE..." is not preceeded by "$ RUN SYS$SYSTEM:NCP".
       I suspect it was deleted during editing, because the commands as
       they are listed will not define the Phone object correctly. 
  
2-25, display at bottom
    Minor typo, the headings for the last 1/2 of the display at the bottom
    of the page is off -- "S/N  base".

>I'm assuming your request for cross-posting refers to comments that are
>already posted in a Notesfile other than VMS_CURRICULUM (and not those found
>in the various chapter topics).
    
    Well, actually, Howard asked me to ask people to post pointers to notes
    in this conference, on the grounds that someone unfamiliar with the
    conference would be extracting the relevant notes. 
    
    I have since told him I thought that request was a little unfair.
    Pointers here will increase the certainty that we'll find all the
    applicable notes, but at the same time we will be going back through
    all the notes that apply to the on-the-shelf versions, and we'll do 
    our best to capture all the things we haven't fixed yet.
    
    					Val