Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!pyrnj!mirror!cca!g-rh
From: g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: net.cse
Subject: Re: Role of computer science
Message-ID: <10692@cca.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 25-Oct-86 14:42:59 EST
Article-I.D.: cca.10692
Posted: Sat Oct 25 14:42:59 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 27-Oct-86 01:20:50 EST
Reply-To: g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Computer Corp. of America, Cambridge
Lines: 68

In article <> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Thomas J Keller) writes:
>
>   This argument has gotten utterly ridiculous.  We have heard from San Diego
>that there is no need for people to study the theory of computing, we have
>heard from various other sectors that industry doesn't need or want Computer
>Scientists, and we have heard from still other sectors that the educational
>systems are defrauding students, by permitting them to study Computer Science
>when what they *REALLY* wanted was Professional Programming.
>
>   What a bunch of horse puckey.
>
>   I think the only way we could please most of these provincials is to simply
>to henceforth ban the teaching of theoretical computer science completely.
>After all, according to them, industry neither needs nor wants computer
>scientists, so obviously there is *NO* value in teaching it.  (might as well
>ban the teaching of theoretical physics, mathematics, etc., while we're at it)
>

	Thomas, me boy, have you ever considered taking a course in
remedial reading?  Do.  People simply aren't saying the things that you
are reading into them.  

	'San Diego' presumably refers to Laura's article.  I don't have
it at hand, but I don't recall anything about "there is no need for people
to study the theory of computing" either there or anywhere else.

>   Any student who can get all the way through a 4 year program in *ANYTHING*
>and not realize that this program was *NOT* preparing them for what they 
>wished to be prepared has no sympathy from me!  If they'd take a look at the
>real world outside their classroom, do a little research, they would have a
>pretty damned good idea what the curriculum they're being offered was aimed
>at, and could effectively evaluate its worth in light of their goals.  If they
>*DON'T* do so, they're lazy, stupid slobs who haven't any business in an
>institution of higher education in the first place.  **YOU** are responsible
>for your education, the management of that education, and the quality of the
>education you receive.  No one else.
>
	My, overflowing with the milk of human kindness, aren't we.
I doubt that many college graduates want your sympathy -- most of them
prefer jobs.  Considering the current job market in programming, they'll
get them too.  However, I will say that your entire proposition is silly.

>   The proposition is really quite simple:
>
>   Computer Science, Software Engineering, and Programming are very different
>professions.  They overlap in some areas, and certainly the FUNDAMENTAL skills
>required for all three are similar, if not identical.  This, however, does NOT
>mean that we should destroy the theoretical orientation of the Computer Science
>department, in order to train Software Engineers or Programmers.  These people
>need their *OWN*, independent departments, optomized to provide them with the
>best training available for their chosen professions.
>
>   It is utterly ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
>
	Strangely enough, your conclusion is quite correct in every respect.
Interestingly enough, the people you have been so upset with are saying
exactly that.  Now, how many institututions offer degrees (or courses of
curricula) in software engineering versus computer science?  I can think
of four offering degrees in software engineeering offhand; no doubt there
are more, but there aren't many.  How many offer degrees in computer science?
Large numbers.  How many of the graduates of these programs will go on and
work as software engineers and how many will become researchers in computer
science?  Can it be that there is some slight imbalance in these numbers?

-- 

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