First of all, there seems to be a varying level of computer experience among the students in this class, and in the MCTE program in general. I, for one, was very well aware of Nova's expectations that incoming students were required to  have computer experience of some kind. 

The requirements for submitting a professional portfolio were clear, and an excellent opportunity for presenting a scope of experience that the GRE avenue of acceptance into a University just does not offer. 

It seems to me that what was not explicit, and why there are complaints, is that many of the expectations rely heavily on the UNIX capabilities at Nova. That simply isn't reasonable, considering this CS degree is not a STANDARD computer science degree, but one configured for a special set of students who are in a relatively new arena. 

I maintain that we are NOT programmers, and that is not the thrust of this program. The SQL language -- although an excellent language to know (and yes, there are growing career opportunities for the skills) -- just is not terribly applicable to those in Education ...

If this were NOT a non-traditional CS degree program, then all of our courses would more closely resemble the MCIS, CISC, or MMIS programs available at Nova. Then, we are into redundancy, as one could as easily take one of the other programs.  

The point I am making is that since MCTE is a very unique program, with very few educators being called upon to use the SQL language, aren't there dozens of other study areas that are EXTREMELY more applicable to this program, which are also quite technical, have a medium to difficult learning curve, and will more properly prepare THIS set of students for the particular career area they are in -- namely, Education? We have courses in Multimedia, Authoring, Delivery Systems, HCI, Internet, etc. What do these all have in common? They all call for a need to keep abreast in the software technologies that are driving this technology. For US in Education, this means the applications as they relate to DISTANCE LEARNING. 

Many of us have quite well developed computer skills. That's probably the main reason many of us are in Nova's MCTE program. There are, however, many corners in the computing world. My ten heavy years of computing, other than similar email access during undergrad work, never led me into the UNIX world. As I mentioned before, my mastery is in authoring, digital art, publishing, Web DESIGN, and more recently, some Web DEVELOPMENT. 

There are some very pertinent learning opportunities that would come out of these areas, that would be a finer complement in this degree. Learning the languages of Asymetrix Toolbook or Macromedia Director are more difficult tasks than SQL -- and ever more applicable to the authoring many of us will be doing, with our MCTE degree. Learning basic -- and correctly coded -- HTML is on a par with what I've seen of SQL. Yet, HTML will be the medium many of us will use in distance delivery; and it's not even taught here. Wouldn't it make more sense, if we are speaking of programming languages that are sweeping the technical world, and which also would be better suited to the world of education -- to talk about Visual Basic? Then we are talking utilizing what amounts to BASIC, as well as its functionalities for multimedia, animation, video, DATABASES, and everything else we are talking about when we talk about interactive, collaborative distance learning in a sophisticated online world. 

With SQL and Oracle, unless you are thinking of changing directions in career, this is the end of the story for most of us. The 12-week period could never hope to give anything more than this brief intro. With something like Visual Basic, 12 weeks is long enough to really learn to produce something. Which, as with any success, is enough to instigate further exploration and use of a reasonably priced software.  

I, too, came into Nova looking for challenges. SQL has been a challenge. My computer background allowed me, I'm sure, some advantage in this class. There have been areas that stumped me, but not for too long. Reading the Forums shows that others are struggling. I disagree, Russ, about the textbooks. There really are too many errors in these books. Quite a few of the questions didn't have real good examples to follow. The online SQL help file is directed at those who already have some familiarity with the language and the UNIX environment. And, just because people do not have a UNIX background, does NOT mean they don't have a computer background. That is the same even in the programmers' world -- and why you see so many ads for so many different languages. Someone who is a UNIX guru may not have an inkling of what is required out of a COBOL genius. There are hundreds of specialties. 

As for the cost of each Nova course? This class costs less than a certification course in Microsoft VB, or PageMaker, or etc.etc.etc. Less than certification in Asymetrix Toolbook or Macromedia Director or Authorware. Less than MS PowerPoint or Office '97. Yet, each of those will open more GENERAL doors than a basic intro to SQL -- and certainly will open specific doors in the arena of education. 

Any of them would be more applicable and more useful to us in MCTE -- and still be "CS" in nature. I'm not saying that I regret the chance to learn SQL. BUT. In my particular career, learning PERL and CGI and Java and JavaScript and Visual Basic and C++ and HTML 4.0 (inside-out) and ... need I go on? These would be ever so more applicable and important to me. The one very good thing that has come from this course, and I anticipated this, is a great reduction of "fear" I've had of learning a "real" programming language. 

The very first thing that I noticed is that SQL does not have the grace and flow of, say, JavaScript or Asymetrix OpenScript. Yet, look what these applications and languages can do -- in a relatively short time. In Toolbook II alone, you learn to deal with Java, online interactivity, animation, and a very sophisticated programming language. I've had exactly two semesters (undergrad) in Asymetrix software -- the learning curve was tough, but what I did on my own with it, made it tougher -- and more satisfying. The software I created in Toolbook has been used by my undergrad college as demonstrations at other universities and in the Denver Film Festival. I cannot see the applicabilities of SQL being equal to that, nor the desire to take it any further unless some day, it should become a job requirement. For most of us, that will never happen. 

Perhaps the answer is that Nova should adopt a requirement for one or more programming languages in order to complete the program. This is how the CS degrees are run at the University of Denver and Regis University (both have excellent multimedia computer science programs). The choice of the languages rests with the student. Oh, and BTW -- SQL isn't listed with either university. Because it's just not as applicable as other languages. 

As for FileMaker? I worked with environmental issues with Rocky Flats here in Denver for over two years. For all the mess that they are, and they've created in nuclear mini-disasters, the one wise thing they did was to choose FileMaker Pro to database 30 years of glow-in-the-dark mistakes. FileMaker isn't "easy," as much as it is user-friendly. The Flats chose FileMaker because of its extreme ease of use AS WELL AS its technical capacities. 

There are some terrific database capabilities within FileMaker. Some are not so easy to learn and implement. It is an excellent tool for taking huge amounts of info and inserting into a database form that is usable to most people. That certainly doesn't make it a 'lesser' software. In my Media Director position with Denver Public Schools, I created a FileMaker database of over 25,000 items. It not only was usable by computer-illiterate teachers (yes, there were lots of them in the early 90s, still) BUT, it eventually was usable by CARL (Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries) in transporting huge amounts of info into their UNIX-based system. Which, by the way, is listed here at Nova as one major online academic resource. 

It was not any hard-core programmer's ability (SQL or otherwise) that made that possible, but my ability to create a very sophisticated, information-packed Dbase in FileMaker. Also, this proves that FileMaker and others of its ilk, are not limited to minicomputer settings, but may be geared toward larger systems, and cross-platform. I don't see that as being "low-brow" computing. I DO see it as more useful in the education setting. 

Finally! (whew, they say) 

None of this was the point I was initially trying to make, anyway! 

I reiterate:  These books needed to be assessed before being implemented in the class. The errors should have been identified. As an intro class, it is too much to not only have to learn something new like the SQL language, but also to have to determine if that which is going wrong is BOOK error, or one's own shortcomings. There needs to be more of a teaching situation; weekly or bi-weekly ECR sessions would have helped greatly in learning or at least discussing basic structure of SQL. Feedback is essential. My main frustration is that when the only feedback from the professor is the graded material -- how can one know how one is doing, if that feedback isn't forthcoming? 

In courses where the assignments are written, as in short reports or long papers, we are all able to somewhat have a feeling for how successful our effort has been. This course in SQL is quite different. Without getting graded results, each of us could be building a false knowledge of this, as we will continue to script wrongly until set right.  Already, I've discovered that you can code something wrongly, and still get a positive "view created." It didn't upset SQL, as it didn't break any SQL rules -- but it was the wrong answer for the particular question.  It's much easier to learn the right way as we go, rather than to try and unlearn something we have been "self-training" for several weeks. 

We need feedback. 

The one thing we were NOT told about Nova by the Nova people was that this is a correspondence course. Yet, this class feels like a correspondence course.