ncmagel@ndsuvax.UUCP (ken magel) (07/04/88)
Recently, a draft proposal from an ACM group headed by Peter Denning
which is updating Curriculum '78 suggested that Computer Science programs adopt
the model of many other sciences ( Physics, Chemistry, etc.) which use courses
and laboratory sessions. The course meetings cover the theory and provide
motivation while the laboratory sessions handle how to do things of interest
to that science. In Computer Science, the introductory courses would cover
the theory including some automata theory, proofs of program correctness, etc.
while the laboratories would teach how to program.
One problem with this approach it seems to me is timing. Many Universities
are having to reduce funding these days or at least are not growing nearly as
quickly as in the late 1960's and 1970's. Computer Science is no longer the
darling area it was just a few years ago. Enrollments in CS have dropped by
at least a third nationally and much more in many programs. How can CS
programs convince their Central Administrations that substantial additional
expense for laboratory facilities is justified? Of course, the top fifty
schools or so in the country already have nice lab facilities, but what of the
rest which are primarily depending on a central mainframe computer and perhaps
a few clusters of micro's? Chemistry, Physics, Biology and the other lab-based
science education programs are finding it extremely difficult and often
impossible to maintain upto date labs for their students and they already have
been using labs for generations. SOme science programs are going to computer
simulations instead of actual labs.
Are we in real danger of having "true" Computer Science taught only at
the top fifty schools with the rest having due to economic factors to teach
MIS or data processing? Would this be good for American CS education?gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu (07/05/88)
I disagree with the base note writer. Think back a mere 15 years -- how was computer science taught at the major schools? People submitted card decks to computer operators and picked up their printouts 1/2 an hour later. If you were a grad student at an exceptional department, you could interact with the front panel of a PDP-11. These schools still produced good programmers. The basics necessary for teaching computer science have never been cheaper. Computer hardware DOES NOT obey the economic principals that cause nightmares for Chemistry and Physics departments. Even small schools should have little difficulty affording the equipment to teach compiler techniques, optimization, operating systems, AI, or numerical analysis. However, it may take some curriculum (software) development by an expert professor and some graduate students. Advanced (not Beginning) Computer graphics may be the only area where you'll have problems. Ideally, every student might need a PIXAR machine, or at least a Iris workstation. VLSI and PAL design is another story. These technologies are expensive and state-of-the-art equipment is not getting much cheaper. Maybe we can call this part of the curriculum EE, and dispense with the problem? I think ALS7400 TTL technology is still sufficient to learn the rudimentary basics, much as card-deck programming was close enough "to the real thing" in the 1970's.
chari@killer.UUCP (Chris Whatley) (07/06/88)
In article <82400008@p.cs.uiuc.edu>, gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > > Advanced (not Beginning) Computer graphics may be the only area where > you'll have problems. Ideally, every student might need a PIXAR > machine, or at least a Iris workstation. Maybe the new chearper workstations like the NeXT which costs a fraction of what a Pixar or Iris costs will solve some of these problems. I am an intermediate level CS student and I plan to use it. I understand that some people form the Pixar group (Michael Hawley) are implementing similar technology at NeXT. Chris -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Henry, have you and Mary had sexual intercourse?" -Mrs. X chari@killer.UUCP CI$:71370,1654
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (07/06/88)
In article <82400008@p.cs.uiuc.edu>, gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > > I disagree with the base note writer. Think back a mere 15 years -- > how was computer science taught at the major schools? People > submitted card decks to computer operators and picked up their > printouts 1/2 an hour later. If you were a grad student at an > exceptional department, you could interact with the front panel of a > PDP-11. These schools still produced good programmers. Yes, they did. I never touched a crt as an undergraduate. When many years later I started teaching I was not impressed with the PC trend. But I must say that it does accomplish one important advancement. That is the availability factor. How many runs did the average student get on the card reader-input/line printer-output system in a good day? And God forbid the machine crashed. Undergrads do not need to be working with the leading edge technology. They just need available computing resources to meet their needs. -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation ..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LF-207 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 NOTE: codas<--->pdn will be gone soon Largo, FL 34649-2826
dickey@ssc-vax.UUCP (Frederick J Dickey) (07/06/88)
In article <82400008@p.cs.uiuc.edu>, gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > > Think back a mere 15 years -- > how was computer science taught at the major schools? People > submitted card decks to computer operators and picked up their > printouts 1/2 an hour later. Wow! I wish I went to your school! The turnaround where I went was more like the rest of the day.
ddb@ns.ns.com (David Dyer-Bennet) (07/08/88)
In article <82400008@p.cs.uiuc.edu>, gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > > I disagree with the base note writer. Think back a mere 15 years -- > how was computer science taught at the major schools? People > submitted card decks to computer operators and picked up their > printouts 1/2 an hour later. If you were a grad student at an > exceptional department, you could interact with the front panel of a > PDP-11. Well, I wasn't at a major school, but when I was in college starting in '72, students had access to an interactive timesharing system and several "workstations", as well as a standalone "batch" system and remote batch on a big (cdc 6600) system. Most of the work was, of course, done on the timesharing system and the workstations. I also got to hack hardware on several pdp 8's. This was as an undergraduate, at a school with no gradute program or computer science department (specifically, Carleton College in Northfield, MN). I'm editing out the additional opportunities available to me from working for the computer lab sometimes, since they didn't apply to everybody. If the "major schools" were as bad as you say, I guess I have one more reason to be thankful for having been to a minor one. (I'd never recommend to anybody that they go to a big school for undergraduate education.)
henry@garp.mit.edu (Henry Mensch) (07/08/88)
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) wrote:
->Undergrads do not need to be working with the leading
->edge technology. They just need available computing resources to meet their
->needs.
Think about this, though: what are their needs, and what are they
being taught? Are you teaching students about current and future
technology and methods with abacuses?
# Henry Mensch / <henry@garp.mit.edu> / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA
# {ames,cca,decvax,harvard,lotus,mit-eddie,rochester,soft21}!garp!henryreggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (07/08/88)
In article <2726@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU>, henry@garp.mit.edu (Henry Mensch) writes: > reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) wrote: > ->Undergrads do not need to be working with the leading > ->edge technology. They just need available computing resources to meet their > ->needs. > > Think about this, though: what are their needs, and what are they > being taught? Are you teaching students about current and future > technology and methods with abacuses? Sorry, let me clarify that statement. Non-CS students and CS students early on in their studies do not require leading edge technologies. For them PCs will suffice their needs. In the junior and senior level courses the CS students will require better equipment or a better school :-) -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation ..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LF-207 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 NOTE: codas<--->pdn will be gone soon Largo, FL 34649-2826
wes@engr.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) (07/08/88)
In article <2726@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU>, henry@garp.mit.edu (Henry Mensch) writes: > reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) wrote: > ->Undergrads do not need to be working with the leading > ->edge technology. They just need available computing resources to meet their > ->needs. > > Think about this, though: what are their needs, and what are they > being taught? Are you teaching students about current and future > technology and methods with abacuses? > Bravo, Henry! If today's undergrads are going to be making tomorrow's advances, they need access to the best their university can offer them. <Gosh, that sounded like a telethon!> As it stands now, most undergrads are thrown into the workplace with very little knowledge of the "state of the art". Most schools still teach tired old PL/1 and COBOL, despite the emergence of 4GL's and especially Ada. System Architecture is still taught using the IBM System/370 architecture at UKentucky....*sigh* What about courses in parallel processing? It's not easy to jump into programming for parallel processors, yet very little attention is given to the topic in most university curriculums. How about artificial intel- ligence? expert systems? Undergraduate studies need to be moved into the 1980's. So many universi- ties are still teaching the 1960's basics.....and that's a shame. Wes [IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.] Morgan -- wes@engr.uky.edu OR wes%ukecc.uucp@ukma OR ...{rutgers, uunet}!ukma!ukecc!wes Lint is merely the system's means of dampening the programmer's ego.