Xref: utzoo misc.jobs.contract:380 comp.edu:3409
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!pacbell.com!decwrl!shelby!med!hanauma!rick
From: rick@hanauma.stanford.edu (Richard Ottolini)
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.contract,comp.edu
Subject: Re: Qualified? or Dreaming?
Message-ID: <1826@med.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 24 Jul 90 22:53:46 GMT
References: <1990Jul8.063302.4076@xavax.com> <2616@igloo.scum.com> <1990Jul11.233006.17884@nmt.edu> <1990Jul23.060010.20406@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us> <37714@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <1990Jul24.140502.17990@cec1.wustl.edu> <37743@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: news@med (USENET News System)
Followup-To: misc.jobs.contract
Organization: Stanford University, Department of Geophysics
Lines: 15

In article <37743@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> matloff@heather.ucdavis.edu (Norm Matloff) writes:
>BTW, why have a CS major at all?  I'm not being snide here.  If you
>really feel that universities should not be "technology schools"
>(which I agree), why not go all the way, and not have a CS major at
>all?  Let the companies themselves provide training courses.

Stanford and MIT agree with that.  MIT only added a CS major in the 1980s
and Stanford still doesn't have an undergraduate degree.  Programming was
considered a vocational skill better learned before college.  Both universities
do offer graduate degrees on the more theoretical side.

( CS does not have a monopoly on lopsidedness.  I've met "electrical engineers"
who've never soldered together a circuit and geophysicists who could tell the
difference between limestone and sandstone.  Excess emphasis on theory
and specialization. )