Xref: utzoo comp.edu:2633 comp.software-eng:2361
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!rice!uw-beaver!Teknowledge.COM!unix!hplabs!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrcae!hubcap!billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu
From: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 )
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: CS education
Message-ID: <7024@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 13 Nov 89 21:53:42 GMT
References: <16028@duke.cs.duke.edu>
Sender: news@hubcap.clemson.edu
Reply-To: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu
Lines: 23

From crm@romeo.cs.duke.edu (Charlie Martin):
> [argues in favor of an OS requirement]
> I'm saying this as a person who came to grad school as an experienced
> software engineer and a firm believer in just the position that Bill
> Wolfe proposes.  [i.e., replacing it with software engineering work]

    Well, as a person who came to grad school as an experienced
    software engineer and is about to leave grad school even more
    strongly convinced that the requirement should be for software
    engineering and not OS, I'd like to see you or anyone else
    actually address the specific point I raised: that a strengthened 
    software engineering requirement would be a more productive use of
    student time than an OS requirement, for those students who are not 
    to become OS professionals. 

    Not "why is an OS course better than nothing", not "was the OS course
    you took useful", but "why an OS requirement is better than the 
    alternative of a strengthened software engineering requirement".  

    I'm still waiting to see someone actually address this issue...


    Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu