Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site duke.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decvax!mcnc!duke!crm From: crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) Newsgroups: net.cse Subject: Re: The purpose of Universities Message-ID: <6431@duke.UUCP> Date: Tue, 8-Oct-85 08:57:06 EDT Article-I.D.: duke.6431 Posted: Tue Oct 8 08:57:06 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 15:30:08 EDT References: <699@bu-cs.UUCP> Reply-To: crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) Organization: Duke University Lines: 129 Neato, flaming in net.cse.... In article <699@bu-cs.UUCP> root@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes: > >>At least Bill's Business College sells what they purport to sell. >>-- >> >> Charlie Martin >> (...mcnc!duke!crm) > >Excuse me, as a person involved in a University, exactly what did we >'purport to sell'? Massive numbers of cheap programmers all talented and all >interested and well trained in your particular applications, just add water? >I doubt we promised you that or anything like that. As a person involved in a university for the express purpose of getting a Ph.D. as working for low(er) pay teaching these subjects, I'll tell you: 1) We are giving these kids educations in ``Computer Science'' without giving them (in most cases) the least idea of what they will be doing with the degree. 100-line pascal programs are not repeat not what a working software engineer writes (a working software engineer writes English, mostly.) 2) We are not teaching them the technical tools they will need to become capable in quality programming. These tools include: - logic. Almost all of programming is based on formal logic. In most cases, the major exposure to formal logic that an undergrad gets is in a switching theory course. If the kid doesn't take a EE course, he/she is out of luck. - analysis of algorithms, and analysis of performance of programs. - file systems. I don't argue that someone should necessarily know all the vagaries of, say, IBM VSAM, but they should know what an ISAM file is, and what a relative-record (direct) file is. I learned to program at a technical college while most Universities didn't even *have* computer science departments, and I learned that. But file systems are intrinsic parts of computer systems, and are especially important in things like production compilers where the intermediate stages cannot be kept in memory. Also in data bases. - Optimization. We don't tell them a thing about how to make choices to better fulfill a specification (like when is it worth the hazard of using global data.) - Specifcation. Most of these kids will be writing specs in 0-2 years from the date they are hired. Most of them will not have as idea how to attack the problem, nor will they have had any experience derived from a class in many cases. >Your entire attitude >that the purpose of a University is to serve whatever current trends in >industry's labor needs are fashionable/profitable I find offensive. Gee, that's too bad. >Sorry >sir, grow up. Are we arguing my points or my age? I've 16 years in the field. Let's watch the personal references, shall we? >Yes, we make 'em literate No we don't: that;s my point. > *you* do the job training, and when >that ceases to be, we all lose badly, if you don't believe that, try to look >beyond your spreadsheet and short term employment needs. Maybe you have to >spend a few $$ teaching a new hiree what to think about, but who do you >think taught him/her/you that thinking was an important activity and how to >go about it? So far as I've seen, with rare exceptions, no-one. >And if you believe that is tacit, just talk to people who are >poorly educated and see what *they* think about, try to get a person with a >poor education to read a book or solve an abstract idea at all, they'll >laugh at you and go on living Nonsense. I'm not going to respond point-for-point to the remaining flame. However, I am going to respond to the general gist as I undertand it: First of all, let's get our facts striaght, shall we? I am in graduate school getting a Ph.D.(please Ghod) for the express purpose of teaching Computer Science in a University. So whatever my motives, they are clearly not profit-related. Note the mailing address: I am at Duke. Secondly, (and this is not cogent to the main argument, but strikes co9les enough to home that I feel I should respond) I think that the elitist attitude you take is quite repulsive. Are you truly under the impression that only those who attend a University learn to think? My impression has certainly been rather the opposite: that many people come out of a university with a 4-year degree and no interest in thinking whatsoever. They -- for example -- take on faith the idea that one can only learn to think in a university, and that those who don't do so lead lives > ...in ... sadly limited little worlds. Thirdly: I said that they are getting what they are paying for. I still maintain that they are not. However, I am not maintaining that the *only* thing they are paying for is to learn to program. They need the theoretical background, but *they also need to be able to do programming*. They need programming because that is what computer science is about. Even the most abstract results in theory of computation are based on programming; and even Dijkstra (who brags that he has not written a line of code for execution in years) first did real programming. In fact, I maintain that the main value of Dijkstra's work lies in theffact that it is applicable to real programming. And last: you complain about low salaries etc. If you think computer science salaries are low, go check your English department. Freshman English is also essential to a working software engineer. If you are opposed to industry support of computer science (as part of your message suggests) then tell me: did the system you are using come from industry, or not? Was it purchased at full list? -- or at an academic discount? What was the source of the funds? And if it was purchased at full list, with tax funds, where did those funds come from? I'll answer that for you: they were extracted by force from people like my grandmother (who survived on income from stock purchased in her earlier years) to support people that think she lived a miserable little squalid existance since she had no University stamp of approval on her thoughts. >Yes, that's how silly you sound, you are just >blinded by some myopic thinking. Another personal attack? If you think my views silly, you are welcome to ignore them: if you think you have some refutation, I will be interested in your reasoned discussion. -- Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)