The Values of the Myths of Postgraduate Studies in Computer Science

The notion of a myth has several distinct meanings. On the one hand it is a “Legendary narrative, usually of gods and heroes, or a theme that expresses the ideology of a culture” [1], where the word or should be read inclusively. The word ideology often has a negative connotation which is not necessarily true for myths in this sense; what is intended is that the myths convey some truths to the society where it is accepted — irrespective of whether the actual myth is considered as true or not. On the other hand, when a belief is declared as a myth, it means that the belief is declared to be false. In this sense, not any falsehood is a myth. To be considered a myth the falsehood has to be accepted as truth — or to convey some truths — by some, to be declared a myth in the first place. Both notions of myth not only share the characteristic that they embody some truth; they also share the property that those truths are considered important. In the earlier sense, a myth has typically survived centuries — something it would not have done if its truths were not important. In the latter sense, the ‘truth’ of the myth is considered so harmful that someone considers it worth devoting time to demonstrate that the myth is indeed false. The actual truth is considered to have such value that the myth should not persist to undermine it. This essay forms part of a Festschrift honouring Derrick Kourie on his 60th birthday. When he was a mere 41, he welcomed the attendees of an annual postgraduate conference with a talk entitled “Post-graduate Studies: Myths and Motivations” [2]. In it he identified ten myths (in the falsehood sense) about postgraduate studies. He indicated how those myths may provide inappropriate reasons for doing postgraduate studies; a student who starts studying for the wrong reasons will be demotivated once the truth is established. However, he also pointed out that there is indeed a hint of truth at the base of each myth, and indicated how those (obscured) truths, may serve as motivators. We will refer to the converse of these ten myths as Kourie’s contra-myths. Kourie does not provide evidence that his contra-myths are correct. Presumably the correctness stems from his personal observations over many years. In this paper we contend that such empirical evidence might not form the appropriate proof of correctness. To illustrate, consider the mediocrity-isacceptable myth that he identifies and disputes. Suppose that, at some point in the future, empirical evidence suggests that mediocrity has become acceptable. Does one then conclude that this is no longer a myth in the falsehood sense? Has it become a myth in the mythological sense — one that conveys some eternal truth? Clearly this cannot be the case. Kourie suggests the key to address this dilemma in many other contexts (including [3]): The fundamental element that outlasts changes in technology, tools and other facets of Information Technology is the notion of values. Therefore good teaching consists of conveying appropriate values to students [3]. We may therefore conclude that Kourie’s contra-myths are correct (and are worth teaching to students) if they convey appropriate values. For the purposes of this essay, we assume that such values have been encoded in myths (in the mythological sense) that have survived the onslaught of centuries. Hence, if we can demonstrate that the contra-myth corresponds to ,a mythological myth in terms of the values both convey, we have demonstrated the correctness of Kourie’s contra-myths. The remainder of the paper proceeds as follows. Each of the myths Kourie identified is introduced. Each of the introductions is followed by a brief description of a mythological myth. In each case it is posited (often tacitly) that the corresponding contra-myth and the mythological myths convey the same values. At the end of the process it is concluded that the correctness of Kourie’s contra-myths has indeed been demonstrated. For the purposes of this essay, myths from the Greek Mythology has been used. It is assumed, but not demonstrated, that other mythologies will contain the same values. In the remainder of this essay we use the terms classical mythology, mythological sense and Greek mythology to all refer to the same notion. Individual references are not given for each of the Greek myths considered below. Various encyclopædias [4], [5], [6], [7] have been used to verify the claims made about the mythological events. Of course, not all versions of these myths are similar. Where sources differ — or even where the same source offers different versions — the facts were chosen to best agree with the argument in this essay.