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!qantel!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020
From: mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller)
Newsgroups: net.cse
Subject: Re: Degrees, grades...
Message-ID: <84@gilbbs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 16-Mar-86 17:17:21 EST
Article-I.D.: gilbbs.84
Posted: Sun Mar 16 17:17:21 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Mar-86 07:22:24 EST
References: <4514@kestrel.ARPA> <3407@nsc.UUCP> <4588@kestrel.ARPA> <7010@duke.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Gil's Place, Santa Rosa CA
Lines: 72

In article <7010@duke.UUCP>, crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) writes:
> Would you expect a chemist not to understand how to put together a lab
> setup?  A biologist not to understand statistical experiment design?  A
> philosopher not to know how to write an argument?  Then why do you
> expect that a Computer Scientist need know nothing about the practical
> aspects of his (or her) field?
> 
> I admit it is often true -- but I'm an idealist.

   Unfortunately, I got carried away in my comments.  Yes, it is true that
the Computer Scientist needs to be able to write good programs.  An example
of what happens when they can't is Niklaus Wirth.  He may (or may not) be
a well respected computer scientist, but the code that he writes (at least
the code *I* have seen) is lousy.  

   On the other hand, the computer scientist (I refer here to the theoretical
computer scientist, drawing a parallel with the theoretical physicist) is
more concerned with theory and research.  Granted, most people will not
become theoretical scientists...we still need some, and they need traning.

> 
> Furthermore, many or most graduates from computer science programs will
> take their BS or BA and leave, go out into the real world and make a
> living
> 
> >   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!
> NO, but it sure helps someone who is interested in VLSI.  Tools of the
> trade ands all, you know.
> -- 
> 			(...mcnc!duke!crm)
   Yes.  The problem is that the computer scientists are being forced to 
take the same courses as the many students who have no real interest in
computing, and are there solely because it is a way to make more money.
These students, being less motivated, slow down the progress of the course
work.  This is because they frequently have difficulty comprehending the
concepts being presented.  Most of them do not have the necessary mindset
or interest to be in computer sciences.  This screws the serious computer
sciences student over.

   I still maintain that separate courses of study are appropriate.  Not 
that programmers shouldn't be taught theory, and not that computer
scientists oughtn't to be taught to program.  

   I also maintain that the computer scientist will require more mathematical
background than the programmer.   There *IS* a difference between these
professions, and anyone who refuses to recognize it is too busy worrying
about not being perceived as an elitist, and not enough about dealing 
with the realities of life.

cheated and frustrated by the curricula and the failure to segregate
serious students from opportunists (no, not all who wish to become 
programmers are opportunists...nor are all who opt for true computer
sciences serious students...but there do appear to be some generalizable
trends in these directions).

-- 

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

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! *)