Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!harvard!bu-cs!bzs
From: bzs@bu-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.pascal,net.college
Subject: Re: pascal ass intro. language
Message-ID: <204@bu-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 23-Feb-86 18:19:20 EST
Article-I.D.: bu-cs.204
Posted: Sun Feb 23 18:19:20 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Feb-86 00:13:23 EST
Organization: Boston Univ Comp. Sci.
Lines: 66
Xref: watmath net.lang.pascal:472 net.college:1118


From: manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vince Manis)
>The average introductory student has no longterm commitment to computer
>science, so one ought to teach him/her a directly usable skill; that means
>teaching a language s/he has heard of.

This is the attitude I object to that leaves us nowhere in Computer Science
Education. I believe one has to abandon the job training mentality and just
teach their subject on the sole assumption that everyone in the room is there
to build a foundation for computer science. If that necessitates opening
a different course for 'programming', so be it.

It has been an unfortunate fallacy that has been pushed on Computer Science
Departments that one can simultaneously teach an introductory CS course and
a terminal, one-shot programming course and do both well. The result, as
can be predicted, is to end up with a bunch of bored to death non-CS people
and a bunch of CS students who end up believing that CS is a process of
getting the syntax errors out (shuffling the semi-colons as I like to call it.)

I am sympathetic, here at BU there is constant discussion between CS and
Engineering (the former is in the College of Liberal Arts, the latter is
a school unto itself) as to whether or not the intro CS courses' curriculum
is properly fulfilling general engineering requirements. Needless to say
it causes strange things to happen in the curriculum for CS and, I believe,
ultimate dissatisfaction for both parties.

It is my firm belief that:

	a) College is not job-training in such a direct manner
	as emphasizing programming right from the start implies.

	b) Computer Science is not programming, nor is it not not
	programming (double negative intentional.) Programming is
	simply a critical lab skill that may take more than one
	intro course to develop properly and should be nurtured
	within the context of the big picture, not as an end unto
	itself.

My opinions, I believe, make more sense when compared to other sciences.
One does not teach an intro course in glassware and centrifuging in a
chemistry department nor expect people after a year of intro chem to
be able to get a job at General Foods or the Public Health service doing
product testing. Intro physics is not confused with engineering, intro
Math with accounting or actuarial skills.

As absurd as these comparisons appear I am certain that these same
attitudes are held in regards to computer science, that we teach
programming because it is a fast road to a good job.

Unfortunately that is not true, even if a year of programming were
emphasized I believe a rational survey of the jobs it opens up would
reveal that although the starting salaries and job openings may seem
high, the advancement etc is comparable with that of many white collar
jobs which do not require any specific college skills, unless the
individual is unusually talented in which case all bets are off in
either case. A $25K job to start may seem like heaven to a new
graduate, but at 30 years old and having moved all the way to $35K
they will start to realize that the success was short-lived and
illusory, that they should have nurtured something in college beyond
such a specific talent as programming (again, I am talking averages
here which is much more likely to be a Cobol programmer in a big IBM
shop than a Steve Wozniak or Bill Joy that every kid who learns a
little programming thinks is their fate, it just aint so, and without
a broad education in the issues it is much harder to advance.)

	-Barry Shein, Boston University