Re: <OT> The naive test for equality

"mAsterdam" <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote
> Jonathan Leffler wrote:
> > mAsterdam wrote:
> >> VC wrote:
> >>> It's, like, introduction to modelling 101.
> >> What is 101?
> >
> > In the USA, the first course in a given subject seems to be 'Subject
> > 101'; subsequent courses in the same subject get larger numbers (102,
> > 201, dunno what the sequence normally is, and it likely varies between
> > institutions anyway). I'm not clear whether this applies in regular
> > schools (K-12 - meaning kindergarten to grade 12, or ages 5-18) or
> > whether it really only applies to university courses. (And, just to add
> > to the confusion, when they ask you where you went to school, Americans
> > most often mean where did you go to university. Isn't it fun sharing a
> > common language!)
> >
> > So 'Modelling 101' is a basic course in 'Modelling'.
>
<OT continued>

In my neck of the woods the first digit prescribed the undergraduate year number and the remaining digits where used to identify sub-courses. We rarely used '01' - but any zeros usually correlated with more stature/difficulty. For instance Chem 100 was followed by Chem 200 and finally Chem 300 if pursuing a major in Chem for a B.Sc. Chem 210 (Organic) and 220 (Inorganic) were implied by enrolling for Chem 200. Often courses numbers like Biometrics 221 and 222 were single semester/term subjects on a narrow topic.

So Modelling 101 (IMO) barely qualifies you to do anything - in fact it prolly increases project risk significantly if a so called practitioner gets into the workforce on the strength of it! ;-) Cheers Frank. Received on Tue Aug 16 2005 - 03:47:23 CEST