Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!princeton!allegra!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!rruxa!gwl
From: gwl@rruxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: Re: Cheating (Is it clearly definable?)
Message-ID: <258@rruxa.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 20-Apr-87 08:56:48 EST
Article-I.D.: rruxa.258
Posted: Mon Apr 20 08:56:48 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 21-Apr-87 05:48:06 EST
References: <1368@uwmacc.UUCP> <6487@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <1374@uwmacc.UUCP> <3910@utai.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research
Lines: 45
Summary: Declining reputation of CS Programs due to overcrowding

>In article <3910@utai.UUCP> gh@utai.UUCP (Graeme Hirst) writes:
>In article <6567@bu-cs.BU.EDU> bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes:
>>Put it this way: If you didn't learn anything, but got the grade, you
>>probably cheated, yourself (hey, but thanks for the tuition money.)
>
>Nice, but too simple.  Every time one of these bozos goes out, proudly wearing
>their "approved" stamp from my university but screwing up their job because
>they aren't really qualified, the ones who suffer are my university's
>reputation and next year's graduates.  When I punish someone for cheating,
>the ones who benefit are all those who didn't cheat.

      Isn't that the truth!  And this can carry over to yet another hot
topic in the CS world these days.......... the tremendous demand for a
CS education and the various responses to that demand by the universities 
who offer a CS degree.  

      I started with a small program (under 100 students, both undergrad
and graduate) and graduated with 18 others my senior year.  I waited a
few years before heading back for an MS.  Talk about how quickly things
change!  My first year or so back with the CS department I didn't really
notice what was going on.  Then I discovered that I had come back to 
find that the CS program was the largest on campus, with somewhere near 
a total enrollment of 1500!!!  And the size of the faculty had not grown
anywhere near that rate.  Needless to say it became quite obvious to me 
that they had opened the doors wide open in an attempt to obtain as much
money as possible from this recent popularity of the field.

      Everyone is well aware of the lack of PhD's in CS to start with,
but combined with the explosive demand for a CS education this leaves
a university with one of two choices.  Either the enrollment of the
program must be limited (MIT, Berkeley, and others), or the faculty
must be supplemented with Adjuncts and Teaching Assistants.  The problem
with the later approach is (in my opinion) a watered down program.  While
on the other hand the first approach must have some very well thought out
criteria for acceptance into the program.  Otherwise a potentially brilliant
Computer Scientist may be nipped in the bud.

      Who can blame the smaller institutions from trying to cash in on
the CS madness.  Sure the MITs, Stanfords, CMUs, Cal Berkeleys, etc...
of this world can well afford to limit enrollment, but for many a small
institution this is a tremendous opportunity.  Yet, there is something
wrong here.  How is it possible to let anyone enter the program who 
meets the minimum criteria, stretch the limited resources of a CS
department, and still expect to turn out quality graduates?