To: Cecelia Musselman

From: Carter Rose

Subject: Mike Zeleznik Project 1 Peer Review
Date: 9/17/2019

1. Summary
In his paper, the author compares his experience learning about software and hardware in
his electrical and computer engineering classes. He begins by showing the similarities between
the two, in that they both were taught through lectures with hands on components. He then goes
to show the divergence between them.
In his software experience, he was taught object oriented programming which can be
universally applied, and the author shares a personal revelation where he realized that video
games such as Mario Kart could be programmed using the OOP he learned in class. He shows
that the concepts he was learning in class can be directly applied to a variety of fields, including
teaching a computer to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, a problem which he did not
know how to solve before learning OOP.
He contrasts his software experience with his hardware experience. In his hardware
classes, the author contends that the concepts he learned do not keep up with modern times. The
text references Moore’s law which states that computers become twice as powerful every 1.5-2
years. Despite this prediction, the author shares his experience creating a computer in class
which he contends is technology from 70 years ago. The author closes with the assertion that
students are left confused after hardware classes over how they can apply these old concepts to
their co-op experiences at companies like Samsung.
The author’s thesis is that unlike software classes, where students are taught modern
programming languages, in hardware classes students are taught antiquated concepts. He
suggests that it is not a matter of teaching style, as both classes use lecture with hands on
elements to teach it, but rather an adherence to pioneers in the field’s theories. Whereas software
classes are taught according to Daniel Ingalls assertion that good programming language can be
universally applied, hardware classes do not keep up with Moore’s law, and lag behind industry.

2. Major points
A. Argument
It would be interesting to see the author’s opinion on why hardware classes lag behind
industry. He suggests one reason could be that software and hardware classes are both taught the
same way, starting with the foundational blocks and building up, but does not build this thought
out as fully as possible. Is there a different way the two classes could be taught? Did Moore have
any suggestions on how computer hardware should be taught given his prediction about the rapid
pace of growth in computing power?
 Also interesting is how companies like Samsung keep up with the rapid pace of hardware
growth. Did the author do a co-op at a hardware company? How do companies educate their
employees? Offering suggestions for improvement may get the reader more involved in
evaluating those solutions, rather than just listening and understanding the issues that the author
raises.
I was confused about how the first two paragraphs fit in with the rest of the argument. I
understand that the author is trying to show that the classes were taught in similar styles, but the
lecture style of teaching is not the fundamental part of his argument. Instead, it may be better to
draw the comparison that both classes “take the same approach to teaching key concepts” and
show how the building block approach works for software classes, but is not as effective for
hardware classes. This could then lead into a discussion of why they differ, and offer a
suggestion for how hardware classes might be taught more effectively.

B. Organization
I might start with the essay with the story about teaching the computer to make a peanut
butter and jelly sandwich. It is a personal story which draws the reader in, and is the first
paragraph in the argument for teaching OOP with the building block approach. The author could
then lead into the section about hardware by showing that both use the building block approach,
but that it is less effective for hardware.

C. Style
The author does a good job of keeping the essay personal and light. Sentences like “Sure,
I had learned the…” sounds conversational which keeps the reader involved. It would be nice to
hear some more of the author’s frustration with the way that hardware classes are taught. How
has it impacted his learning and readiness for co-op? Were there gaps in his education when he
arrived in industry?

3. Minor points
In the paragraph starting with “Even at the time, before researching…” the author says “I
certainly feel like I knew as much about the modern CPU as I should have.” Did he mean “I
certainly ​did not​ feel like I knew as much about the modern CPU as I should have?”

The author should include a word count in his header as required by the prompt.