Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!pyrnj!mirror!cca!g-rh
From: g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: net.cse
Subject: Re: Role of computer science
Message-ID: <10410@cca.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-Oct-86 03:46:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: cca.10410
Posted: Mon Oct  6 03:46:16 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 9-Oct-86 00:28:39 EDT
References: <10331@cca.UUCP>
Reply-To: g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Computer Corp. of America, Cambridge
Lines: 64

I (Richard Harter) wrote:
RH: In fact, academia tends to do the student a disservice, by teaching
RH: the values of academia as the only relevant values.  In fact,
RH: academia has strange notions about what is important for programmers.
RH: Most programmers need not know anything about writing compilers, for
RH: example.  On the other hand, they do need to know how to be a quick
RH: study -- how to learn enough about a specialized topic so that they
RH: can work with experts in the topic.

And Terry Coatta replied:

TC: An academics job is to teach the ideals of academia -- they are not doing 
TC: the student a disservice by any means.  If a student wants to be a 
TC: professional programmer, then a professional school is the appropriate
TC: institution of post secondary education for them.  Those students attending
TC: universities should be well aware that the training offered there is
TC: academic, not professional.

	Sorry Terry, I can't agree with you for several reasons.  First of
all note that I did say "the values of academia as the only relevant values"
and not the "ideals of academia".  Let us agree that academia should teach,
by precept at least, respect for intellectual honesty and other such
virtues.  I find the concept that the "An academic's job is to teach the
ideals of academia" rather disquieting; if I want to be taught ideals
I will attend a seminary or sit at the feet of a guru.  No doubt I am
reading more into your statement than you meant.

	Let me expand a bit on what I meant.  Someone who holds an
academic position has definite ideas on what is important and what is
not which are conditioned by the fact of his or her employment as an
academic.  In particular, those areas which are live areas of research
(or at least suitable for writing papers about) are important.  To an
academic, the utility outside of academia of knowledge is only of
modest importance.

	Now I am not complaining about this state of affairs.  And if
all students were all to go on and become professors then there would
be no problem.  But if they are (implicitly) told that, in effect,
"research is the only thing worth doing", and "working in industry
is selling out", and "the only things worth studying are those areas
of interest in academia", and "creating a production quality product
is irrelevant", and "intellectual curiosity is the pre-eminent value
and is more important than the needs of your employer", then I suggest
that the average student -- who is not going to become an academic --
is being done a disservice.  And make no mistake; all too many people
do come out of the universities with just those ideas.

	I also have reservations about the following: "If a student
wants to be a professional programmer, then a professional school is
the appropriate institution of post secondary education for them.
Those students attending universities should be well aware that the
training offered there is academic, not professional."  What do you
mean by "a professional school"?  Are you suggesting that someone
who wants to become an Electrical Engineer should not attend a
university?  Would you like to go on record as saying that "The
training offered at Stanford is academic, not professional"?
I hope not.  Perhaps you feel programming is a trade similar
to automobile repair and ought to be taught and regarded in the
same way.  Again, I hope not.

-- 

Richard Harter, SMDS Inc. [Disclaimers not permitted by company policy.]
	For Cheryl :-)