Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdcc6!sdcc12!st122
From: st122@sdcc12.UUCP (st122)
Newsgroups: net.cse
Subject: Re: EE, CE, and CS curriculums
Message-ID: <605@sdcc12.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Sep-86 13:49:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcc12.605
Posted: Thu Sep 25 13:49:53 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Sep-86 03:23:51 EDT
References: <616@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center
Lines: 76
Summary: Robert's discussion was accurate and to the point. I am in total accord with the ideas expressed-  Frank Bellucci

In article <616@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP>, mcderm@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP (Robert M. McDermott) writes:
> 
>      I have been reading with interest the recent debate regarding
> EE courses in a CS curriculum, and offer my opinion:
> 
> [my "credentials": B.E.E., M.S. in Systems Analysis, M.S. in Computer
> Science, 16 years experience, half EE, half CS. I've taught math & CS at a
> local technical college, and VLSI design and CAD in company courses. I've
> written a book on Computer Aided Logic Design.]
> 
> First, I have to admit I'm biased -- all of my experience has been
> in the Technical Field (i.e. not Banking, DBMS, etc.), so my perspective
> is in light of CS skills required to succeed in Engineering.  Second, I
> have to define my definition of CS vs. CE -- My naive definition of a CE
> is a person who designs computer hardware and 'kernal'-type software, while
> a CS is one who designs application-type software.  ("Design" herein is
> used in the most general sense, e.g. a CE-researcher researches ways of
> designing hardware better, a CE-salesperson sells the design, etc...)
> 
> I believe that a CE should have all the rigorous Engineering training
> other Engineering disciplines have (e.g. we all took the same math,
> physics, etc. courses, then I had to take Mechanical, Civil, and Power
> Engineering courses, they had to take EE, etc.).  I would have the CEs 
> take the basic EE courses, then take CE courses in lieu of the high-
> powered EE courses like Communications theory, Field theory, etc.
> (CE courses would be Computer architecture, Data Structures, etc.)
> 
> The CS field, though, should have the majority of CS courses deal with
> Software-specific issues and knowledge-processing principles ("Programming"
> and "Information-processing" have too many connotations, hence the terms
> used).  Too often, non-CS people get involved in writing code or developing
> algorithms and the results are disastrous by all CS standards;  a CS
> discipline is necessary and warrented, but I don't believe it should be
> in a vacuum of software-only.  I would structure the CS curriculum to have
> a smattering of many application disciplines, more akin to a Liberal-Arts
> type curriculum, but with a focus on attempting to solve the problems in 
> those disciplines using their CS knowledge.  In their 'Business' electives,
> for example, they would take a Finance course and along with that course 
> discuss how a General Ledger Program or system would be formulated, or 
> discuss the deficiencies of existing General Ledger Programs.  The 
> logical argument against such an approach is that it's significantly
> more work than a Finance course, and there's only a limited number
> of hours per day, ...  True enough, except that you don't need to 
> cover all the details of Finance, just enough to get the feel for the
> problem domain and learn a few of the underlying principles and concepts.
> Similarly, math or engineering courses could introduce the principles, 
> with a portion of the class devoted to discussing algorithms and techniques
> used to address the field (Sparse matrix, Gauss elimination, etc.).
> 
> [Some would argue that such a curriculum is too job-oriented; but in my
> experience many "pure" CS programs leave B.S. level graduates with no real
> concept as to how to apply the education they've received, and convey the
> impression that CS is a worthwhile endeavor in and of itself, independent
> of applications. It is my belief that theory and research are within the
> purview of MS and PHD level programs, but BS programs should concentrate on
> developing learning and problem-solving abilities. ... but such is the 
> opening to a whole other debate on this net...  ]
>  
> Back to the basic topic, EE in a CS curriculum,  I think it must be
> recognized that there is a special relationship between electronics and
> computer science, much as exists between mathematics and engineering,
> psychology and education, accounting and management, etc.  Certainly one
> can be a good manager without knowing accounting fundamentals, a good
> teacher without formal training in psychology, etc. but few people would
> argue that a persons ability and potential are strengthened by a basic
> understanding of the principles behind the tools they use.  I would not
> propose using true "EE" courses, but rather introductory courses in digital
> logic, computer architecture, and communications  -- my basic guideline
> would be to cover those areas which the "average person" would consider
> that a "Computer-person" would know  (then translate "average person" to
> "average employer").
> 
> end of comment ------------------------------------
> 
> Robert M. McDermott
>