Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!peregrine!elroy!ames!amdahl!pacbell!pbhya!whh From: whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions Subject: Re: Unix editors Message-ID: <17245@pbhya.PacBell.COM> Date: 29 Jul 88 05:47:50 GMT References: <272@jackson.UUCP> <810021@hpsemc.HP.COM> <1932@stpstn.UUCP> Organization: Pacific * Bell, Oakland, CA Lines: 33 In article <1932@stpstn.UUCP>, aad@stpstn.UUCP (Anthony A. Datri) writes: > > > The CMU CS department does not offer a CS undergraduate degree. The reason > publicly given is that they don't feel you can learn enough about "Computer > Science" in 4 years to warrant a degree. So I, just like everyone else, > got my degree in "Applied Math/CS track". My experience there was that > the whole education, and indeed "Computer Science" as I perceive it, has > little or nothing to do with computers anymore. You spend your time Please strike the "anymore." The problem you have described was common in the late sixties as well--and I assume the intervening years also. At many institutions "CS" amounted to a math major with a few computer- related courses thrown in. Useless, unless you're going to be a "Computer Scientist" (presumably with a Ph.D. teaching at a university). The unusual place was UC Berkeley--where there were 2 "CS" majors. One was as you've described in the math dept. The other was in EE and had a lot more emphasis on computers. This amounted to a fair amount of programming, some theory, and a good dose of hardware. As a working programmer, I've found over the years that having a feel for hardware has been a real help. The root cause of the problems associated with CS is probably American universities aversion to anything truly useful. --Hal ========================================================================= Hal Heydt | "Hafnium plus Holmium is Analyst, Pacific*Bell | one-point-five, I think." 415-645-7708 | --Dr. Jane Robinson {att,bellcore,sun,ames,pyramid}!pacbell!pbhya!whh