Path: utzoo!utgpu!utcsri!qucis!dalamb
From: dalamb@qucis.UUCP (David Lamb)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: American Programmer (What's a Ph.D. worth?)
Message-ID: <65@qucis.UUCP>
Date: 7 Apr 88 18:00:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: qucis.65
Posted: Thu Apr  7 14:00:29 1988
References: <555@psu-cs.UUCP> <1434@ur-tut.UUCP> <3415@bunker.UUCP> <3326@zeus.TEK.COM> <461@vsi.UUCP> <5775@bunny.UUCP> <2218@ttidca.TTI.COM> <5388@utah-cs.UUCP> <2000@optilink.UUCP> <998@daisy.UUCP>
Reply-To: dalamb@qucis.UUCP (David Lamb)
Organization: Queen's University, Kingston Ontario
Lines: 34

This discussion has wandered into CompSci/SoftEng differences, and
theory versus practice at universities.  Last year I finished writing a
SoftEng textbook (apologies for implied commercial message), so had to
do some thinking about these issues.  All these "statements" are really
opinions.

1. Most undergraduate programs don't have a serious distinction between
   CS and SE;  if we reorganised the curricula to make a distinction, there'd
   be a lot fewer people in CS programs.
2. A University is supposed to put more emphasis on education than on training.
   Nobody can draw a sharp boundary between the two, but there are differences:
   training gives you more specific and thorough understanding of something
   particular and concrete, education gives you mental tools to understand,
   learn, and adapt.
3. The engineering disciplines teach you how to apply principles to solve
   problems, using existing technology mainly to have a means to talk about
   the principles.  That's what makes an engineer different from a technician;
   the technician typically learns only a particular technology, and needs
   retraining every few years.  A job interviewer that puts a lot of weight
   on to want experience with a particular collection of tools is asking for
   a technician, not a University grad.
4. There is nothing so practical as a good theory - one that gives you a
   framework for understanding and solving your problems.  The problem with
   too many "theoretical" courses isn't that they are theory, but that they
   don't connect the theory very well with practice.
5. A Ph.D. is only evidence of research ability in a specialised field.  From
   some institutions you are also made to learn a lot about a much broader
   field first, as part of the comprehensives.  A lot of "Advanced Development"
   jobs asking for Ph.D.'s probably only need the broad (but reasonably deep)
   background - which plenty of people without Ph.D's can develop on their own.

						David Alex Lamb
						Queen's University
						Kingston, Ont, K7L3N6