Xref: utzoo comp.edu:2636 comp.software-eng:2367
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!ogccse!blake!milton!uw-beaver!uw-june!peterd
From: peterd@cs.washington.edu (Peter C. Damron)
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: CS education
Summary: what software engineering?
Message-ID: <9808@june.cs.washington.edu>
Date: 14 Nov 89 19:02:28 GMT
References: <16028@duke.cs.duke.edu> <7024@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Reply-To: peterd@june.cs.washington.edu.cs.washington.edu (Peter C. Damron)
Organization: University of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle
Lines: 25

In article <7024@hubcap.clemson.edu> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu writes:
>    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...

Well, I have a pretty good idea of what you mean by an "OS course",
but I'm not sure I know what you mean by a "strengthened software
engineering requirement".  Do you have some curriculum in mind?

Perhaps the reason people answered in support/opposition to the OS
course is that they understood that part of the question.

Just trying to nail down those requirements,
Peter.

---------------
Peter C. Damron
Dept. of Computer Science, FR-35
University of Washington
Seattle, WA  98195

peterd@cs.washington.edu
{ucbvax,decvax,etc.}!uw-beaver!uw-june!peterd