Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!dual!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020
From: mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller)
Newsgroups: net.cse
Subject: Re: Degrees, grades...
Message-ID: <55@gilbbs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 9-Mar-86 03:50:22 EST
Article-I.D.: gilbbs.55
Posted: Sun Mar  9 03:50:22 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Mar-86 01:42:20 EST
References: <4514@kestrel.ARPA> <3407@nsc.UUCP> <4588@kestrel.ARPA> <6987@duke.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Gil's Place, Santa Rosa CA
Lines: 70
Summary: clarification of terms desired...Computer Science as opposed to Programming

[FLAME ON]

   Damn it all to hell!   Let's get something straight:  if you are going to
talk about Computer Science programs, then you are talking about a course of
study designed to prepare one to be a Computer Scientist, a theoretician who
analyzes and does research.

   I find it fascinating and distressing that so many of you want to water this
down to meet the needs of people who wish to be (or think they wish to be)
PROGRAMMERS!

   There is nothing wrong with being a programmer (software engineer, whatever).
The world *NEEDS* many, many good programmers.  We should have traning programs
designed to prepare people to be good programmers.  This means keeping a close
tab on what is being doen in the "Real World".  This means graduating
programmers who actually know how to program.  WHo have been acquainted with t
the techniques and requirements of programming in industry.


   It also means providing for the different kinds of programming.  Additional
specialization so that DP oriented filk will get what they need, while 
the ones interested in scientific programming will be taught what *THEY* need.


   Computer Sciences, on the other hand, is a highly rigorous, mathematically
oriented field.  Science is perhaps not a completely accurate description, but
it's damned close.  These people don't *NEED* to know about the day-to-day
nitpicky crap that the programmers do.  Many computer scientists go hours, days,
weeks, even MONTHS without ever writing a line of code!  (*gasp*)


   But the insistence of schools to lump programmers and computer scientists 
together results in many problems.  The real issues here, it seems to me, are
not whether a CSci degree has any value, but whether *PROGRAMMERS* need one.
Whether we should try to combine the educational requirements for applied
engineering (programming) and theoretical physics (Computer Science).

   Would you consider a degree in theoretical physics to be terribly useful to
someone wishing to design bridges?  Of course not!


   Most of the really vocal people in this discussion are people who in other
newsgroups are incredibly nit-picky about terminology and accurate descriptions
of situations and facts.  Why is it that when they discuss the issues being
debated here, they completely ignore such details?

[FLAME OFF]

   *I* want, ultimately, to be a computer scientist.  I may never achieve that
goal, as I have some severe emotional problems vis-a-vis mathematics.  But I
will try, and I will work toward that goal.  In the meantime, I have a 
sufficient education and store of experience to do a good job as a software
engineer (programmer), and I will do so (given the opportunity...anyone know
where I can get a job in the Bay Area?).


   ~sigh~....after two weeks of watching the rhetoric and the mis-information
scroll by on my screen, I just *HAD* to spout.  Sorry, filk.


-- 

====================================

Disclaimer:  I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers.

tom keller
{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020

(* we may not be big, but we're small! *)