Xref: utzoo comp.edu:2615 comp.software-eng:2328
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!ico!vail!rcd
From: rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: CS education
Summary: A wrench makes a lousy hammer!
Message-ID: <1989Nov10.210835.3884@ico.isc.com>
Date: 10 Nov 89 21:08:35 GMT
References: <34705@regenmeister.uucp> <6995@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Organization: Interactive Systems Corporation
Lines: 69

Bill Wolfe said:
>  ...however, we must recognize
>  that, as pointed out by the ACM Task Force on the Core of Computer
>  Science, "Many computing graduates wind up in business data processing,
>  a domain in which most computing curricula do not seek to develop
>  competence."...

I won't dispute that "computing graduates" (a broad term, probably
intended so) end up in BDP.  I certainly hope that CS curricula, in
particular, *don't* try to train people for it.  That is entirely as
it should be!

With the exception of perhaps the most theoretical < 1% of work in data
base theory and a few other niches, you don't need a CS degree for BDP.
It's foolish to pretend that you do.

The problem lies in having people get a degree in field X, then get a job
in field Y--and complaining that their X training isn't any good for Y.

Computer Science departments are NOT at fault for failing to train people
for non-computer-science jobs!  Computer Science is a science, not a high-
tech trade-school profession.

What we need to do is to identify and separate the engineering and vo-tech
curricula from the science; then we can stop this foolishness of making
people think you get a CS degreee to become a programmer!

I think we need three fields:
	Computer Science
	Software Engineering
	Programming
Put the Programming into trade schools and junior colleges.  And, at the
risk of offending lots of junior-college types, let's stop pretending that
Computer Science is what's being taught there.  Software engineering might
be taught at either JC or 4-yr, but as usual the levels would be quite
different.

You could mix CS and SE programs--that's plausible, and it's done in other
fields.  (For example, my undergrad degree is "Engineering Physics", which
was a mixture of the stock engineering courses--applied math, thermo,
diffeq, num anal, p chem,...--with both experimental and theoretical
physics courses.)  But if you do that, people go into the CS half of it
knowing that they've bought into a half-theoretical discipline; they don't
have a basis for complaining that the CS isn't directly useful in the short
term.

Bill also said:
>    ...But until
>    such time as software engineering gets its own department, perhaps
>    within the school of engineering (vs. science), CS departments need to 
>    recognize the need to accomodate future engineers as well.

I can buy that.  But we'd better (1) realize that we've got a marginal
match of degree to eventual job, and (2) get busy with the engineering
curriculum.

Actually, some CS departments ARE in engineering colleges.  That, I think,
is an unhappy marriage-of-convenience...but as long as it stands, it does
obligate the CS departments to pay more than lip service to the need for
practical courses.

The other side of it, though, is the series of complaints in this newsgroup
about CS course material not being relevant to software industry jobs.
That's a problem with student attitudes, I think.  If you don't want to
hear about queuing theory, automata theory, finite math, graph theory, and
all the rest, STAY OUT OF CS!
-- 
Dick Dunn     rcd@ico.isc.com    uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd     (303)449-2870
   ...Keep your day job 'til your night job pays.