Xref: utzoo comp.edu:2613 comp.software-eng:2326
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!Jerome_V_Vollborn
From: Jerome_V_Vollborn@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: CS education
Message-ID: <23871@cup.portal.com>
Date: 10 Nov 89 04:55:57 GMT
References: <11064@cbnews.ATT.COM> <6961@hubcap.clemson.edu>
  <16028@duke.cs.duke.edu>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 22


Much of the discussion in this thread centers on how computer science 
courses should produce software engineers.  I my view (perhaphs somewhat 
naive) computer science should teach students about the theory underlying 
the correct construction of software (undergraduate level) and how to 
extend those theories (graduate level).  Neither of these directly 
concerns the production of software:  that is the job of software engineers.
Whether we want to go through another round of title inflation to 
computer scientists or retitle the courses being given at most colleges, 
we should be more careful about terms or explain what is meant when a 
term is used.

As an aside, a couple of weeks ago I interviewed a person about to 
graduate from the University of California at Berkley with a PhD in 
computer science.  He has been doing research in machine control.  
When I asked him what design approach he had been using, he said that 
since he was doing research no explicit (my word, not his; he didn't 
know what a formal design method is) design method could be used.  
Further questioning showed that he could not name or describe any 
explicit design method!  As a California tax payer I am very unhappy.  
Not only has my tax money to support this person's education been 
misspent, but much of this person's time has been wasted.