Skip to main content

I decided to change the way I teach Big Data.

 

Original Post in LinkedIn


Hello all, I have been reflecting a lot while preparing the next semester.
AI skills are rising fast among students. But deep hands-on data engineering skills are decreasing. And that worries me.

So I decided to change the way I teach Big Data.

This year I will teach:
• One program in English (39 students)
• One program in Spanish (17 students)

Same approach but evolving the structure significantly. As I mentioned before there is a clear trend: Students are becoming increasingly AI-proficient… but less hands-on in core data engineering and platform fundamentals.

So I redesigned the course.

The structure now includes:
• 18 hours of theory
• 14 hours of guided hands-on lab
• 8 hours of stand-ups (individual Big Data topics + group final use case presentation)

But the real shift is deeper. The lab is no longer tool-driven. It is architecture-driven.

Students will learn by doing:
– Agile SAFe methodology
– GitHub & GitHub Organizations
– Terraform (Infrastructure as Code)
– AWS fundamentals (Not so agnostic but key to learn ;) )
– Spark & Spark Cluster (Master/Workers)
– Batch & Streaming ELT with Spark
– Data Lakehouse modeling (Medallion naming convention architecture)
– Governance conventions & naming discipline
– LLM + RAG + Agents over the data they built

All deployed in a controlled cloud-simulated environment using Docker. Vendor-agnostic. Enterprise-grade. Architecture-first.

The goal is simple, prepare professionals capable of becoming:
• Data Platform Architects
• Data Engineers
• Cloud Data DevOps Engineers
• AI Engineers grounded in data discipline

AI without data architecture is fragile.
Data engineering without governance does not scale.

Education must evolve with the industry.

This semester, we go deeper.
— Manuel

Labels:
Location: Barcelona, Provincia de Barcelona, España

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Análisis de la película “K19” desde la perspectiva de Braybrooke y Lindblom

Introducción En las siguientes páginas se analizará una película dirigida y producida por Kathryn Bigelow llamada “K19 – The Widowmaker” estrenada en el año 2002, basada en hechos reales que fueron ocultados durante 30 años en la extinta Unión Soviética. Para dicho análisis se utilizará como base teórica el capítulo 5, “The Strategy of  Disjointed Incrementalism”, del libro Strategy of Decisión de David Braybrooke y Charles E. Lindblom. El motivo de dicho análisis es intentar relacionar la teoría del pensamiento estratégico en la toma de decisiones según la perspectiva de la lectura. 
Post a Comment
Read more

Análisis de la película “Thirteen Days” desde la perspectiva de Weber y Graham T. Allison

Introducción En las siguientes páginas se analizará una película dirigida por Roger Donaldson llamada “Thirteen Days” estrenada en el año 2000, basada en hechos reales que fueron vividos a nivel mundial donde se vieron involucrados tres países, Cuba como el foco central de la discordia entre los Estados Unidos y la Unión Soviética. Para dicho análisis se utilizará como base teórica los puntos 1 y 2 del Tomo I del libro Economía y Sociedad de Max Weber. Adicionalmente se tomará el Capítulo 1: “Model I: The Racional Actor” del libro Essence of Decision. Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis de Graham T. Allison. El motivo de dicho análisis es intentar relacionar la teoría de la dominación y de los modelos conceptuales para la toma de decisiones según las perspectivas de las lecturas.
1 comment
Read more

The apocalyptic AI narratives era

 The AI industry may be entering a strange phase where narrative engineering advances faster than the underlying engineering itself. That does not mean frontier AI is fake. It is not. The progress is real. Models are improving quickly in coding, search, reasoning assistance, content generation, and cybersecurity analysis. Anyone working seriously in enterprise technology can already see the productivity impact. AI is becoming operationally useful. But something else is happening in parallel. Every few months, another company announces that its newest model is so powerful, so dangerous, or so transformative that humanity must proceed carefully. The language changes slightly each cycle, but the structure remains almost identical: existential concern, dramatic warnings, selective access, media amplification, institutional reaction, investor excitement, and another jump in valuation. At some point, it becomes reasonable to ask whether we are witnessing purely a technological revolution...
2 comments
Read more