Xref: utzoo comp.edu:2773 comp.software-eng:2645
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!motcid!murphyn
From: murphyn@cell.mot.COM (Neal P. Murphy)
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: CS education
Message-ID: <535@cherry5.UUCP>
Date: 8 Dec 89 16:17:48 GMT
References: <16315@duke.cs.duke.edu> <7296@hubcap.clemson.edu> <489@cherry5.UUCP> <81983@linus.UUCP>
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Heights, IL 60004
Lines: 76

mitchell@community-chest.uucp (George Mitchell) writes:

>In article <489@cherry5.UUCP> murphyn@cell.mot.COM (Neal P. Murphy) wrote:
               -inclusion deleted-
>What has happened  to our concept  of public schooling?   I thought that
>grades K  through 12 were supposed  to prepare us to  be citizens of our
>state, country,  and the world.   This  is  the  arena  in which  we are
>supposed to have our exposure to "as many different topics" as possible.
>If the public schools are  not succeeding, the  remedy  should NOT be to
>accept the situation and help the fortunate in college.

It almost got by you, but it got snagged in your sweater. The *concept*
of public schooling is fine. It is the practice that has suffered.

>In the college/university we are expected  to specialize.  Most students
>have major/minor fields of  study and learn as much  as they  can  about
>those fields.  However, within  this  narrower scope,  the tendency   IS
>towards education  (providing knowledge) rather than training (providing
>practice in performance).   It is  for these  reasons that many  schools
>have  developed extensive  cooperative programs to  supplement knowledge
>with  experience  and   professions have  provided   apprenticeships (MD
>interns).

However, within the narrower scope you mentioned, there is still *plenty*
of room to generalize. I specialized in computing science, not civil
engineering. But within CS, I generalized. I learned about compilers,
numerical methods, opsys's, human factors, etc. I also learned about
philosophy, Literature, welding, casting, tooling (grundge lab), and
other divers topics. I'm not saying that everyone should be so divers.
I am saying that there should be a minimal amount. This is backed up
by the sheer numbers of engineers, scientists, politicians, public
officials, managers and others who are *incapable* of presenting their
ideas and notions in any media (spoken, written, etc.) so that their
audiences can readily understand them. They can not spell; they can
not put together a clear sentence. The roots of this problem are found
in the primary and secondary education. The discussion of the roots
*does* belong in sci.edu, or elsewhere. But the discussion of the
education of our children in the field of computing sciences belongs
here, in this group (comp.edu). Curricula for the teaching of CS to
grammar and high school students need to be developed. A large amount
of the material that is taught in post-secondary schools *should* be
taught in grades K-12. Why, you ask? Because. Because computers are
an integral part of our world today. Because there are fewer and fewer
jobs available that do *not* involve the use of computers. Because
*so much* of one's time in college is spent learning the fundamentals
and basics of CS, one doesn't have the time to learn such advanced
concepts as software *engineering* and human factors (there's no reason
for any computer produced today to be even remotely "user hostile" :-).)
As an example of this back-shifting of education, the advanced algebra
I took as a freshman in high school was the same algebra my Dad took
as a sophomore or junior in college. 

>I   suggest   that the   followup to this  thread  move to sci.edu.  The
>discussion has  moved from what  background is necessary to  prepare the
>computer science/software engineering student for  life after college to
>what is the purpose of education after  high school.   In a country with

There were two arguments, initially, in this thread: teach operating
systems as a subject and as a place to use most of what one has learned
in CS, and don't require OS at all, because it is worthless. There was
also an argument that software engineering needs to be included there
somewhere. I'm saying that there isn't enough time available in four
years to teach all that is necessary to produce a young person who is
capable of producing advanced software while learning, on his own, new
and better techniques. Back-shift the teaching of appropriate topics.
This will empty up to 3 semesters of college, in which students will
be able to learn what they need: an appreciation of the finer arts, and
appreciation for detail, the facts to do a job well, and the knowledge
they need so that they will be able to stand up and say, "I designed,
developed, implemented and documented this software. I am proud of the
result. I believe that there are no dangerous errors in the code. If
any are found, I alone accept responsibility for those errors." How many
CS-types do you think would even understand what that statement means,
never mind be willing to make it? There aren't many, in my opinion.

NPN