Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!srcsip!milo!shankar
From: shankar@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Subash Shankar)
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: Re: Theory & practice at bachelor level (was Re: Qualified? or Dreaming?)
Message-ID: <83427@srcsip.UUCP>
Date: 27 Jul 90 19:03:51 GMT
Sender: news@src.honeywell.COM
Organization: Honeywell S&RC, Minneapolis, MN
Lines: 17


While a discussion on the proper mix of theory and practice has merit, I often
find people defining theory as anything they don't understand.  An ex-roommate
of mine once needed explanation of how to solve equations of the form ax=b (x is
scalar, a and b are numbers), and complained that he was good in applied math
but couldn't handle meaningless theoretical problems like this one (needless to
say, he wasn't a technical major).  I often see the same behaviour among
computer science majors, except for somewhat more advanced problems.  

IMHO, any argument on theory vs. practice needs to first define theory.  Are
data structures and algorithms theory?  How about models of computation (after
all anybody who really understands computer architecture must have an intuitive
understanding of the differences/similarities between program and data).  
---
Subash Shankar             Honeywell Systems & Research Center MN65-2100
voice: (612) 782 7558      US Snail: 3660 Technology Dr., Minneapolis, MN 55418
shankar@src.honeywell.com  srcsip!shankar