ncmagel@ndsuvax.UUCP (10/31/87)
Computer Science is sometimes viewed as a branch of engineering and sometimes as a branch of mathematics, and sometimes as a type of science. Why not view computer science as a performing art such as painting or music which has two main parts: performance ( e.g., software engineering), and theory ( study of the phenomena underlying software engineering - why they work and how they can be improved). Perhaps Computer Science programs should be placed within Collges of Art. That would certainly assist with such issues as tenure, or what a B.S. student in the discipline should know. For tenure, we could then have ample precedents for crediting development of new software ( composition).
fpst@hubcap.UUCP (Steve Stevenson) (11/02/87)
in article <469@ndsuvax.UUCP>, ncmagel@ndsuvax.UUCP (ken magel) says: > Why not view computer science as a performing art such as painting or music > which has two main parts: performance ( e.g., software engineering), and > theory ( study of the phenomena underlying software engineering - why they > work and how they can be improved). Perhaps Computer Science programs should > be placed within Collges of Art. I second this view. Just like mechanics has several disciplines which are interested in various aspects, so too should computer science. The study is "computing" and it covers many fields. Why do so many folks keep thinking about absolute control of a discipline. Maybe y'all need a B.A. - and learn a little about philosophy of science and some history -- Steve Stevenson fpst@hubcap.clemson.edu (aka D. E. Stevenson), fpst@clemson.csnet Department of Computer Science, comp.hypercube Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-1906 (803)656-5880.mabell
jona@clyde.UUCP (11/03/87)
In article <469@ndsuvax.UUCP> ncmagel@ndsuvax.UUCP (ken magel) writes: > > Computer Science is sometimes viewed as a branch of engineering and >sometimes as a branch of mathematics, and sometimes as a type of science. >Why not view computer science as a performing art such as painting or music >which has two main parts: performance ( e.g., software engineering), and >theory ( study of the phenomena underlying software engineering - why they >work and how they can be improved). Perhaps Computer Science programs should >be placed within Collges of Art. That would certainly assist with such issues >as tenure, or what a B.S. student in the discipline should know. > For tenure, we could then have ample precedents for crediting development >of new software ( composition). Certainly in interesting idea, by the same reasoning you could also put it into the department of English (or maybe foreign languages) since the ability to write readable/understandable programs is clearly important. This holds true for many other programs too, take architecture for example, it is art-related but often in it's own school. For that matter I think EE would fit into the art mold. The interesting question is: If CS can be mapped to art than what is the CS equivalent of a person who draws "modern" art pictures (such as a 25'x30' blue background with a red and green stripe through it)? Jon M. Allingham (201)386-3637 AT&T Bell Laboratories (Whippany,NJ) {ihnp4,clyde}!moss!jona WH 1A-114 "To those of us with real understanding, dancing is the only pure art form" -Snoopy
dickey@ssc-vax.UUCP (Frederick J Dickey) (11/04/87)
> in article <469@ndsuvax.UUCP>, ncmagel@ndsuvax.UUCP (ken magel) says: >> Why not view computer science as a performing art such as painting or music >> which has two main parts: performance ( e.g., software engineering), and >> theory ( study of the phenomena underlying software engineering - why they >> work and how they can be improved). Perhaps Computer Science programs should >> be placed within Collges of Art. There is a serious problem with this proposal. There exist engineering firms that in the past had certain curious hiring practices (and may still have them). If a recent CS grad (from a school where the CS department is in the Engineering College) applied for a job, the firm would say, "Hey! This guy is cool, he's an engineer, let's hire him as a well-paid engineer." If a grad from a school where the CS department is in the arts college applied for a job, the firm would say, "Hey! This guy is not cool, he's not an engineer, let's hire him as a poorly-paid technical aide." This is irrespective of the merits of either the grad or the school. This is not a fairy tale, this is how it really happens.
paul@spock.UUCP (Paul Parry) (11/09/87)
In article <16118@clyde.ATT.COM> jona@moss.UUCP (Jon M. Allingham) writes: > >This holds true for many other programs too, take architecture for >example, it is art-related but often in it's own school. > Maybe Computer Science should be in its own school as well. It bears a similarity to architecture as being in between art and science, using both artistic creativity and scientific principles. Now that I think about it, isn't that what engineering is? Now we're back where we started. -Paul ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ #include <std/disclaimer.h> /* The notorious rule 5b */ UUCP: {decvax,seismo,cmc12}!yale!spock!paul USPS: Paul Parry Choate Rosemary Hall PO Box 788 Wallingford, CT 06492 SNET,9x: (203) 284-5470 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
kludge@pyr.gatech.EDU (Scott Dorsey) (11/10/87)
In article <180@spock.UUCP> paul@spock.UUCP (Paul Parry) writes: >Maybe Computer Science should be in its own school as well. It bears a >similarity to architecture as being in between art and science, using >both artistic creativity and scientific principles. > >Now that I think about it, isn't that what engineering is? Now we're back >where we started. Yes, this is what engineering is, but it's not what is taught at engineering schools. It is very hard to instill an aesthetic sense in a person. Engineering schools (this one included), tend to teach the science and expect one to pick up the technique and the art automatically. This doesn't always happen. We graduate MSEE's who don't know how to solder, and who wouldn't recognize a good amplifier design from a bad one. It is hard to explain elegance; all that one can do is show lots of examples and hope that one picks it up. Computer science programs for undergraduates are pretty heavy on technique when compared with EE programs. An attempt is made to point out what programming style is. This doesn't guarantee that it will make good programmers, or good scientists, and the emphasis on programming or science is a choice that must me made by the school. In a similar way, English programs can concentrate on the techniques of writing, or on knowledge of the existing body of literature. It should be pointed out that knowing literature makes one a better writer, and being able to write permits one to understand the writing of others. S. Dorsey (A former English major, now ICS major, who can solder) -- Scott Dorsey Kaptain_Kludge SnailMail: ICS Programming Lab, Georgia Tech, Box 36681, Atlanta, Georgia 30332 Internet: kludge@pyr.gatech.edu uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,rutgers,seismo}!gatech!gitpyr!kludge
lamaster@pioneer.arpa (Hugh LaMaster) (11/10/87)
In article <4422@pyr.gatech.EDU> kludge@pyr.UUCP (Scott Dorsey) writes: > Computer science programs for undergraduates are pretty heavy on >technique when compared with EE programs. An attempt is made to point >out what programming style is. This doesn't guarantee that it will >make good programmers, or good scientists, and the emphasis on programming >or science is a choice that must me made by the school. In a similar I have to agree with the previous posters who said that: 1) Computer Science and Software Engineering are not the same subject and deserve separate programs, and 2) Anyone who claims to be either a Scientist or an Engineer should have a knowledge of mathematics at least through "Advanced Calculus" (the second year after Freshman calculus), PLUS, whatever tools of Applied Mathematics are necessary for their particular discipline, e.g. Probability, Statistics, and Stochastic Processes, and/or Differential Equations, etc. A Computer Science curriculum should focus on Algorithms, Languages, Compilers, Numerical Analysis, and so on. A Software Engineering curriculum should focus on software development, management of large projects, software maintenance, operating systems, networks, etc. Programming is an integral part of either curriculum, but not the only part of either. Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9, UUCP {topaz,lll-crg,ucbvax}! NASA Ames Research Center ames!pioneer!lamaster Moffett Field, CA 94035 ARPA lamaster@ames-pioneer.arpa Phone: (415)694-6117 ARPA lamaster@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Disclaimer: "All opinions solely the author's responsibility")
g-rh@cca.CCA.COM (Richard Harter) (11/10/87)
Here is thought for what it's worth. I have always felt that one of the failings of the software field is that people don't spend much time studying large existing programs. There are two points here. One is having a bank of pre-existing program plans to draw on. Doesn't this make sense? Architects don't sit down and design bridges and buildings as though no one had ever built a bridge or a building before. Suppose you have to design a system. Wouldn't it be sensible if, for each requirement, you could go to the design catalog and get a list of system features that would be needed. Wouldn't it be sensible if you had a suite of major architectures to select from instead of designing one de novo? The other point is that SE people should spend some time studying large programs. What is the principal decomposition? It's all very well to be able to write small programs that implement neat algorithms, but a lot of people are going to have to work with large systems. Shouldn't an SE graduate have some experience in finding her way around a large system? -- In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die. Richard Harter, SMDS Inc.
ccplumb@watmath.UUCP (11/11/87)
In article <21402@cca.CCA.COM> g-rh@CCA.CCA.COM.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes: >[SE's should spend more time learning from other programs. Two points:] > >One is having a bank of pre-existing program plans to draw on. Doesn't this >make sense? Architects don't sit down and design bridges and buildings as >though no one had ever built a bridge or a building before. Suppose you have >to design a system. Wouldn't it be sensible if, for each requirement, you >could go to the design catalog and get a list of system features that would >be needed. Wouldn't it be sensible if you had a suite of major architectures >to select from instead of designing one de novo? Yes, it would. But where do you get it? Richard Stallman has flamed many times about the needless duplication of effort engendered by the common impossibility or illegality of using another program's source as the basis for some product. The GNU project should improve the situation considerably. >The other point is that SE people should spend some time studying large >programs. What is the principal decomposition? It's all very well to be >able to write small programs that implement neat algorithms, but a lot of >people are going to have to work with large systems. Shouldn't an SE graduate >have some experience in finding her way around a large system? Again, most large systems are developed by people who wish to make money licencing their use. They would tend to object to having several hundred SE students per year investigate the innards of their proprietary code. There are, of course, notable exceptions. GNU Emacs, the netnews software, TeX, and X-windows come to mind. Testing several hundred bug-ridden modified versions of the news handling software would require the investment of considerable effort in the construction of a realistic playpen if live testing, and the resultant chaos, is to be avoided. The others, however, would work nicely. The only problem would be providing the resources to handle a copy of the sources per student, and many, many compiles per student. Of course, one could aim a little lower with Mush or MH, or Nethack (sure to receive extremely thorough testing). If anyone has a course based on something similar to this, I'm sure the net would be interested. -- -Colin (watmath!ccplumb) Take *everything* with a grain of salt dept.: "America could gain much from Russia's long experience with Mars." - The Economist, Oct. 3.
reggie@pdnbah.UUCP (George Leach) (11/11/87)
In article <180@spock.UUCP> paul@spock.UUCP (Paul Parry) writes: >Maybe Computer Science should be in its own school as well. It bears a >similarity to architecture as being in between art and science, using >both artistic creativity and scientific principles. Perhaps my perceptions from my undergraduate days are a bit clouded by the fact that the CS department was in the Engineering School, while the Architecture School was a seperate entity. I was always under the impression that architecture was purely a design function, while civil engineering dealt with structure, materials, etc...... In other words, architecture was the art and engineering was the science. George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation {gatech,codas,ucf-cs}!usfvax2!pdn!reggie Mail stop LF-207 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL 34649-2826
lawitzke@eecae.UUCP (John Lawitzke) (11/11/87)
>> Computer science programs for undergraduates are pretty heavy on >>technique when compared with EE programs. An attempt is made to point > 2) Anyone who claims to be either a Scientist or an Engineer should have > a knowledge of mathematics at least through "Advanced Calculus" (the second > year after Freshman calculus), PLUS, whatever tools of Applied Mathematics > are necessary for their particular discipline, e.g. Probability, > Statistics, and Stochastic Processes, and/or Differential Equations, etc. This is quite true. When I went thorugh my EE program, the math required was 4 terms of basic calculus (we were on trimesters), 1 term of basic differential equations, and then 1 term of something else, usually basic linear algebra or intro to statistics. This was quite a joke of mathematical background. I had a heavy interest in math and took several things past this including advanced calculus, a term of algebra, and some differentiual geometry at the graduate level. This assisted me greatly in my engineering classes. Sometimes, especially in electromagnetics, I had no feel for what the problem meant physically but I had the mathematical skills to solve the problem and get a proper answer while the others in the class couldn't do them because of a lack of math skills. Any body feel like commenting on the causes of the lack of math skills of incoming freshman? Primarily those who get to college and can't do trig or basic analytical geometry? -- j UUCP: ...ihnp4!msudoc!eecae!lawitzke "And it's just a box of rain..." ARPA: lawitzke@eecae.ee.msu.edu (35.8.8.151)
steve@hubcap.UUCP (11/12/87)
>Maybe Computer Science should be in its own school as well.
I feel this would be a catastophic error. It would add a level of
useless bureauracy at best. In my opinion, it would more likely
remove the feedback mechanism which is extant in engineering / sciences.
While we would all like to believe that our particular discipline
is the "only true" one, it just ain't so.
Despite the constant bickering between sciences and engineering, the
reality is that they feed problems/solutions back and forth. The
history of technology shows us that these interactions are necessary
and there is a necessary ebb and flow from "pure" to "applied" and
back.
The first problem - one that we have not yet come to grips with -
is the definition of the various products [ there are many classes
of folks ]. If we keep saying "computer is someone who is a carbon
copy of 'me'", then we'll be in trouble as a discipline forever.
--
Steve (really "D. E.") Stevenson steve@hubcap.clemson.edu
Department of Computer Science, (803)656-5880.mabell
Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-1906
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (11/12/87)
In article <21402@cca.CCA.COM> g-rh@CCA.CCA.COM.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes: >Here is thought for what it's worth. I have always felt that one of the >failings of the software field is that people don't spend much time studying >large existing programs. There are two points here. Quite true! Most CS graduates don't get such exposure until they obtain a job in industry. Perhaps what is needed is some kind of case study approach like many business schools will take. I can easily envision this taking an entire course. >One is having a bank of pre-existing program plans to draw on. Doesn't this >make sense? Architects don't sit down and design bridges and buildings as >though no one had ever built a bridge or a building before. I don't know about that! Have you ever seen some of the stuff that architecture students turn in as designs :-) BTW: I may be wrong on this point, but I don't believe that architects design bridges. There just are not many architectural issues involved. Most designs are dictated by the structural requirements. >Suppose you have >to design a system. Wouldn't it be sensible if, for each requirement, you >could go to the design catalog and get a list of system features that would >be needed. Wouldn't it be sensible if you had a suite of major architectures >to select from instead of designing one de novo? One of the worst aspects of comparing software to anything else, like building bridges or cars is that each and every bridge that has ever been build will serve the same function. The same is true of cars, televisions, etc..... Not true of software!!! Nor will the set of possible applications that software will serve remain static. We are constantly throwing new problem domains at software. Sure, for someone writing Yet Another Payroll Program ( although they would probably buy it!) this approach may be quite useful, but for many other problem domains there is litte benefit. -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation {gatech,codas,ucf-cs}!usfvax2!pdn!reggie Mail stop LF-207 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL 34649-2826
beth@hubcap.UUCP (11/12/87)
Richard Harter says: > The other point is that SE people should spend some time studying large > programs. What is the principal decomposition? It's all very well to be > able to write small programs that implement neat algorithms, but a lot of > people are going to have to work with large systems. Shouldn't an SE graduate > have some experience in finding her way around a large system? As someone else mentioned, finding good large programs is difficult because companies generally do not want to share. And you'd really want them to share not only the source code but the requirements, designs (and any designs that were discarded along with the reasons why they were discarded), test suites, and bugs found after delivery. What we need are case studies of large projects. These could be used in many ways in a software engineering course. The Software Engineering Institute was looking at finding and using such case studies. Maybe someone there could comment. I know that my students learned quite a bit changing other people's programs. Beth Katz ...!gatech!hubcap!beth beth@hubcap.clemson.edu ...!uunet!brillig!beth beth@brillig.umd.edu
spf@clyde.UUCP (11/13/87)
In article <1752@pdn.UUCP> reggie@pdnbah.UUCP (George Leach) writes: >In article <180@spock.UUCP> paul@spock.UUCP (Paul Parry) writes: > > Perhaps my perceptions from my undergraduate days are a bit clouded >by the fact that the CS department was in the Engineering School, while >the Architecture School was a seperate entity. I was always under the >impression that architecture was purely a design function, while civil >engineering dealt with structure, materials, etc...... In other words, >architecture was the art and engineering was the science. No, when you consider that an architect is often THE responsible party for a structure, this approach would never do. Most architecture programs I've looked at (maybe it'll be my NEXT career, or the one after that...) include substantial courses from the civil engineering domain (strength of materials, statics and dynamics, structural characteristics of concrete (as if tasteful people would build with concrete!)), in addition to the "artistic" courses in visual design, living space human factors, &c. Most architecture undergrad programs are 5 year programs (vice 4 for civil engineering), and while you can get an MS in architectural studies in the usual 30 credits or so, the "practitioner's" graduate degree is a Master of Architecture, which is more like a Master of Engineering degree and requires on the order of 50 credits beyond the Bachelors. If there are any practicing architects listening, I'd appreciate any corrections, as well as comments about the relationship between architecture and engineering. Steve "Tear it down? Hell no, RESTORE IT!" Frysinger
ccplumb@watmath.UUCP (11/13/87)
In article <16526@clyde.ATT.COM> spf@moss.UUCP (Steve Frysinger) writes: >In article <1752@pdn.UUCP> reggie@pdnbah.UUCP (George Leach) writes: >> >>[Perhaps I'm ignorant, but...] I was always under the >>impression that architecture was purely a design function, while civil >>engineering dealt with structure, materials, etc...... In other words, >>architecture was the art and engineering was the science. Note: I'm not an architect (I was told to stay away; architects don't make any money!), but with 4 out of 5 parents (people-related-to- biological-parents-by-marriage-at-some-time-or-another) and sundry other family members in the field, I hope I have *some* idea of what I'm talking about. >No, when you consider that an architect is often THE responsible party >for a structure, this approach would never do. Indeed. I know of a case where the architect got sued because the brick supplier delivered substandard materials. They went out of business before the facing in question began falling apart, thus the architect got nailed. Imagine something wrong with the *design*. (The architect wasn't crazy about the supplier, but this was a government job, and had to accept the lowest bidder.) > Most architecture >programs I've looked at (maybe it'll be my NEXT career, or the one >after that...) include substantial courses from the civil engineering >domain (strength of materials, statics and dynamics, structural >characteristics of concrete (as if tasteful people would build with >concrete!)), in addition to the "artistic" courses in visual design, >living space human factors, &c. It is true, though, that architects never use calculus. While they need a feel for structural concerns, most problems are well understood and can be solved with standard rules of thumb. (Most of the structure in a house is to make sure it's rigid enough - so it doesn't flex, producing cracks in the walls - rather than to make sure it's strong enough. The only place structural strength comes to mind is handling snow loads on roofs.) For anything tricky, you call a structural engineer - to cover your ass, if nothing else. BTW, tasteful people *do* use concrete. It just takes a bit of finesse. My current father once had a boss who told him never to use concrete. As soon as he had the chance (his own firm), he designed a mostly-concrete building. He related this story in a speech where he also told architects in Phoenix, Arizona to stop using stucco, so it backfired to a degree, but the building was a success. Also, it's very hard to draw the line between human factors and structure. You have to put mechanical equipment where it doesn't obstruct anyone's view and it doesn't bother anyone with the noise, as well as worrying about routing air ducts and whatnot to it. My parents were once asked, in a renovation of a section of apartment, to draw attention away from the fact that the columns were much too thick and closely spaced. It was an early job, and the architect had been timid. All that structure could have been oppressive. Another example, it's certainly the architect's job to pick where the windows will go, and what their configuration will be. It's also the architect's job to calculate sun angles and ensure that the windows won't leak. This isn't completely trivial - they're having problems with the seals in the glass roof of Harbour Place in Baltimore, Maryland. There are simply so many things that can go wrong. > Most architecture undergrad programs >are 5 year programs (vice 4 for civil engineering), and while you >can get an MS in architectural studies in the usual 30 credits or so, >the "practitioner's" graduate degree is a Master of Architecture, >which is more like a Master of Engineering degree and requires on the >order of 50 credits beyond the Bachelors. Still, reports I've heard say that architecture graduates don't pay nearly enough attention to human factors and practicality. They're all into grand concepts and motifs and axes for everything. Generally, they don't seem to care about arranging to water greenery (or even specifying which kind of plants they want), providing service access, working out heating systems (it's always tricky to have big windows without cold downdraughts or condensation - generally the approach is to place heating grilles below them, but that dries out any plants in the window something fierce), providing the right number of electrical outlets in the right places, or arranging for good circulation (of people, that is). One great example - the U.S. Vietnam memorial. It was designed by a first-year architecture student, and while it's good, its origins show. People like to touch the names they've found, and it's much too tall to do this in the middle. It was originally supposed to have grass all around, but grass just can't take the traffic. (They've now added a walkway past the face, and a railing to keep people on the walkway. Horrible! You can't step back and look at the thing.) The idea behind the grass was that the memorial would merge into the landscape, but all the trees were cleared out of the area. Also, while I don't mind so, I've heard people who wish the stone panels bearing the names were much thicker. As it is, they don't feel solid enough. It's harmless, who really *cares* that the wings of the memorial are aligned with the Lincoln (hideously ugly) and Washington (I think) memorials? You have to pick some arrangement, but there's no great need to put everything on an axis. >If there are any practicing architects listening, I'd appreciate >any corrections, as well as comments about the relationship between >architecture and engineering. Generally, an architect tells an engineer where her/his end of the business is going to go ("this is your mechanical room"), and the engineer makes it work. Well, it's a bit more complicated than that, but the engineer works for the architect, who has to be thoroughly cognizant of engineering requirements. >Steve "Tear it down? Hell no, RESTORE IT!" Frysinger -- -Colin (watmath!ccplumb) Zippy says: I want to dress you up as TALLULAH BANKHEAD and cover you with VASELINE and WHEAT THINS..
rick@svedberg.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) (11/14/87)
In article <1759@pdn.UUCP>, reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: > >Here is thought for what it's worth. I have always felt that one of the > >failings of the software field is that people don't spend much time studying > >large existing programs. There are two points here. Quit true. One of the worst failings I have found with recent CS graduates it their total lack of exposure to maintenance of large systems. They have never really seen a large system. (Such is usually found on most mainframe systems.) They really don't seem to grasp the concepts required to maintain this type of system as well as understanding the requirements for modifying software projects. They also have never really been exposed to a variety of different software systems. This seems to be especially true of CS departments which teach ONLY Unix. CS should try to expose graduates to a variety of systems and styles. (Much of the time, we have to spend some months to teach them that UNIX does not always provide the best way of solving a system software problem.) > One of the worst aspects of comparing software to anything else, like > building bridges or cars is that each and every bridge that has ever been > build will serve the same function. One minor point here, bridge building (or design actually) has usually been a very individualistic approach. Although the function is the same, (enable traffic to cross an obstacle), the design is VERY individual (what type of bridge, environment of the bridge, etc.) It is similar to our problem in that we have to provide a functional system but the exact environment will vary. Thus bridge design is actually a fairly good analogy to software engineering, but has several decades of development beyond Sy d
rcw@qetzal.UUCP (Robert C. White) (11/14/87)
In article <15517@watmath.waterloo.edu>, ccplumb@watmath.waterloo.edu (Colin Plumb) writes: > Still, reports I've heard say that architecture graduates don't pay > nearly enough attention to human factors and practicality. They're all >[...] > working out heating systems Right now it's a toasty 98 degrees here in my office. Maybe I'll go sit in the corner. WHat corner? There isn't a 90 degree angle to be had in the entire building. That would be fine if I had funky shaped bookcases or a triangular desk I guess. Excuse me for being a human and wanting to use this building. Actually, if you can believe this, I ran into the building architect about a year ago, and I tactfully told him his building had some design defects. He agreed with me and blamed it on the builder! Maybe he ought to read the _Fountainhead_ and take appropriate action. > >If there are any practicing architects listening... Well, at least the "Artiste" can chuck his "practice" canvas or clay projects. What do you do with a multi-million dollar building? MY LIST OF THE MOST QUESTIONABLE BUILDINGS IN THE US (Followups to alt.flame - edit the newsgroup line) 1. Denver, Co - Boettcher Center for Performing Arts Convenient parking gives you access to a real eyesore! They've painted the plumbing a pale yellow and even added some large "non functional" pipes. Looks like an elementary school. Acoustics are wretched too! 2. Hanover, NH - Bradley Mathematics Center, Dartmouth College Designed and built in the 1960s, this thing closely resembles a shower stall, blue and white tiles and all. Fortunately, larger colonial style buildings do an impressive job of hiding it. 3. Hanover, NH - Kiewit Computation Center Large concrete squatty off white building. Rumored to have an ICBM control room in the basement, and at least 9 levels of basement for storing top secret NSA gov't stuff. Supposedly the entire building can submerge in the event of a nuclear attack. Incredibly, there is a copy of this building in Carson City, Nevada (the public library). Wish it would submerge soon. Appropriately located right next to Bradley. 4. Springfield, Il - Lincoln's Tomb The atmosphere of dignity is destroyed by the lite music which is piped through the vaults. Hopefully this has been stopped! Obviously not the architects fault here. 5. Hancock Building - Boston, Ma OK if you like your office windows to pop out in gusty winds. Hopefully this has been fixed in the next release :-) 6. Most of the Buildings - Emory University, Atlanta Ga Nothing wrong with the buildings except they are totally inappropriate for dirt-poor college students :-). Opulence must be seen to be believed. 7. State Capitol Building - Lincoln, Nebraska OK, so Nebraska had to be different. But a tower? c'mon. Fits in with a unicameral legislature I guess.
sdejarne@polyslo.UUCP (Steve DeJarnett) (11/14/87)
In article <16526@clyde.ATT.COM> spf@moss.UUCP (Steve Frysinger) writes: >after that...) include substantial courses from the civil engineering >domain (strength of materials, statics and dynamics, structural >characteristics of concrete (as if tasteful people would build with >concrete!)), in addition to the "artistic" courses in visual design, >living space human factors, &c. Most architecture undergrad programs >are 5 year programs ^ Here at Cal Poly (which certainly isn't indicative of the rest of the world), there are 2 architecture degrees. One is just plain Architecture (you know, draw the buildings, come up with great ideas, etc.). They take 1 year of calculus, 2 quarters of Physics, and that's about it. The other degree is Architectural Engineering (still under the Architecture school, though). They are a 5 year program, and take all of the Strength of Materials, statics & dynamics, structural engineering, etc. type of classes. A friend of mine is studying to be an architect also at Washington Univ. (St. Louis), and their architecture program is a 4 year also. Therefore, not all architects are structural engineers. I don't know how all of this pertains to CSc in general, but I'm sure someone out there does :-). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Steve DeJarnett | ...!ihnp4!csun!polyslo!sdejarne | | Computer Systems Lab | ...!{csustan,csun,sdsu}!polyslo!sdejarne | | Cal Poly State Univ | ...!ucbvax!voder!polyslo!sdejarne | | San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #include <std_disclaimer.h>
jwb@CIVE.RI.CMU.EDU (John Baugh) (11/16/87)
In article <16526@clyde.ATT.COM> spf@moss.UUCP (Steve Frysinger) writes: > >No, when you consider that an architect is often THE responsible party >for a structure, this approach would never do. What gives you this impression? Certification of structural integrity is required by a registered professional ENGINEER -- although you can take liability if you want :-). > Most architecture >programs ... include substantial courses from the civil engineering >domain (strength of materials, statics and dynamics, structural >characteristics of concrete ... You call this substantial? I call it introductory (sophomore level) -- you'll never be able to design structures with that background, even if someone actually let you. The purpose of these courses in an architectural curriculum is to improve the architect/engineer interface. > ... Most architecture undergrad programs >are 5 year programs (vice 4 for civil engineering), ... The "who's curriculum is harder" syndrome ... pointless. >If there are any practicing architects listening, ... John Baugh (a once practicing, now academic, engineer) Carnegie Mellon University
steve@hubcap.UUCP ("Steve" Stevenson) (11/16/87)
> In article <21402@cca.CCA.COM> g-rh@CCA.CCA.COM.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes: >>Here is thought for what it's worth. I have always felt that one of the >>failings of the software field is that people don't spend much time studying >>large existing programs. There are two points here. When I had the priviledge of working with John Hopfield (BTL - 1979 ) we had a long talk about "computer science" and the other sciences. He made two telling points - they're as true today as in 1979: 1. CS spends all its time trying to pretend there's no machine there. 2. There is no literature in CS in the same sense as the other sciences. The discussion allued to in the referenced ariticle falls in the latter critism. -- Steve (really "D. E.") Stevenson steve@hubcap.clemson.edu Department of Computer Science, (803)656-5880.mabell Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-1906
retrac@titan.rice.edu (John Carter) (11/17/87)
In article <695@polyslo.UUCP> sdejarne@polyslo.UUCP (Steve DeJarnett) writes: >In article <16526@clyde.ATT.COM> spf@moss.UUCP (Steve Frysinger) writes: >>after that...) include substantial courses from the civil engineering >>domain (strength of materials, statics and dynamics, structural >>characteristics of concrete (as if tasteful people would build with >>concrete!)), in addition to the "artistic" courses in visual design, >>living space human factors, &c. Most architecture undergrad programs >>are 5 year programs > ^ >Here at Cal Poly (which certainly isn't indicative of the rest of the world), >there are 2 architecture degrees. One is just plain Architecture (you know, >draw the buildings, come up with great ideas, etc.). They take 1 year of >calculus, 2 quarters of Physics, and that's about it. The other degree is >Architectural Engineering (still under the Architecture school, though). They >are a 5 year program, and take all of the Strength of Materials, statics & >dynamics, structural engineering, etc. type of classes. A friend of mine is >studying to be an architect also at Washington Univ. (St. Louis), and their >architecture program is a 4 year also. Therefore, not all architects are >structural engineers. To add my $0.02, here at Rice there are basically two Architecture degrees. One is a BA in Architectural Studies, which according to my undergrad roomate (an architect student) is basically useless. The main degree is a BArch which takes *6* years (its a real-man's degree :-). The fifth year is a year of preceptorship with a major firm (he worked for KPF (?) in New York, others work for people like Bofill in Spain, etc.). The Architectural Studies degree is generally given to the students that are not selected to be preceptors or decide they can't handle 6 years of really hard work. They have a lot of structural design classes (a good half dozen or so) and he took quite a few Computer Aided Design and Analysis classes. Architecture is probably the most work of any degree here. It is in a separate school, but they work with several other schools closely (esp. Engineering and Fine Arts). The dropout/cut rate is VERY high and the workload in very intense. I can remember quite a few occasions when I got back to the room at about 6am after a long night of hackin' and we met each other at the door (both just getting in). He has a good friend at CalPoly (Victor Garcia) who he's always kind of envied for getting a degree in *only* 5 years. I always thought 6 years for a bachelors degree was a bit ridiculous... John Carter Rice University =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* * UUCP: {Backbone or Internet site}!rice!retrac oo = = ARPA: retrac@rice.edu < * * CSNET: retrac@rice.edu U - Bleh. = =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
davel@whuts.UUCP (LOEWENSTERN) (11/17/87)
I don't know what this is doing in comp.edu, but ... I would like to add to your list of "bad architecture" -- Erdman Hall, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr,PA. Designed to be a modern concrete version of a Scottish castle. It succeeds -- it is dark, draughty, and damp. The entrance hall has a terrible echo. People living in the basement complain that they are in "the dungeon". But it IS fortified against attack by sword-wielding tribesmen!!! -- David Loewenstern {rutgers...}!moss!whuts!davel The above opinions are my own. Although ATT-BL has had an influence upon them, so has my third-grade gym teacher. I don't hold them responsible and neither should you.
spf@clyde.UUCP (11/17/87)
In article <353@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> jwb@CIVE.RI.CMU.EDU John Baugh took offense at my comments about architecture and engineering: >What gives you this impression? Certification of structural integrity >is required by a registered professional ENGINEER ... ... >you'll never be able to design structures with that background, even >if someone actually let you. ... >The "who's curriculum is harder" syndrome ... pointless. ... >John Baugh (a once practicing, now academic, engineer) Didn't mean to ruffle any feathers, John. But you're obviously thinking about "public" structures (arenas, hotels, etc), and I'm thinking about houses and barns. I've never known anyone who employed an engineer to design a house. In fact, most people I know don't even employ architects; they design them themselves. I've just finished designing a two-story addition to our house, and a two-story post-and-beam barn which is going up in the spring. Anyone who understands Newtonian mechanics and can read references on material characteristics can do this (it helps to be able to draw well, too). Many professions rely on mystification to protect their practicioners; I don't claim that architecture and civil engineering fall into this category, but they DO run dangerously close to the edge. Perhaps for office buildings and housing projects the governments involved show preference for engineering or architectural licenses. Steve Frysinger, SFIT (Sheep Farmer In Training) (financed by doing computer engineering and psychology)
cd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Clarence K. Din) (11/19/87)
In article <3807@eecae.UUCP> lawitzke@eecae.UUCP (John Lawitzke) writes: > >Any body feel like commenting on the causes of the lack of math skills >of incoming freshman? Primarily those who get to college and can't do >trig or basic analytical geometry? > I know of several individuals in the computer science and engineering programs in Boston University who have never taken trigonometry in high school. These same individuals cannot grasp even the basic fundamentals of abstract math theory, including induction and fixed-point calculation. There is a remedial course here specifically for those individuals: MA 118 Algebra and Trigonometry. Since I was well above that level upon entering the university, I have no concrete proof of the difficulty of the course. However, I can tell you of the many complaints I have heard from people successfully completing the course as to its difficulty. These individuals have graduated from primarily liberal arts high schools (ie. private institutions). Some teach only the basics of certain subjects; others really pound the material into your skull. I know this because I have two younger brothers who were in private schools. I'm sure you've heard of Brooklyn Technical High School in New York. I received a good education there; my schedule usually included approxi- mately 7 subjects a day every day distributed over 8 periods of 45 minutes each. Among my courses were mathematics, three "pre-engineering," social science (such as economics or history), english, and an elective (which was usually forced upon the student). At Boston University, I found the level of mathematics above average to superb depending on the instructor you chose to take the course with. I'm in a combined BA/MA program in BU. My undergraduate requirements include a year of calculus, a year of discrete mathematics (combinatorics, probability, boolean algebra, functions, graphs, optimization... the works), one course in linear algebra (which included applications to differential equations and least squares fit), a structured programming language course (PASCAL), a data structures course (taught by an MIT PhD), systems programming, a core requirement of three theory courses, and four upper-level courses, which includes the possibility of graduate-level courses. At one time, BU gave me the option of taking multivariate calculus in place of either discrete math or linear algebra. For my graduate requirements, I am to complete 8 courses in computer science, including 5 in a specified core. I am also required to write a thesis. I am currently working on the graduate portion of my BA/MA. Could anyone disclose some undergrad or grad requirements to me from your respective school? Thanks. xxxx xxx xxx xxxxxx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xxxx xx xx Send responses to... xx xx xx xx xx xx xxxx xxx xxx xxxxxx cd@bu-cs.buacca.bu.edu ---- -- -- ------ -- - - -- - -- - - -- - ----- -- -- -----
cd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Clarence K. Din) (11/20/87)
In article <421@uni2.bcm.tmc.edu> rick@svedberg.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) writes: >Quit true. One of the worst failings I have found with recent CS graduates >it their total lack of exposure to maintenance of large systems. They have >never really seen a large system. (Such is usually found on most mainframe >systems.) They really don't seem to grasp the concepts required to maintain >this type of system as well as understanding the requirements for modifying >software projects. They also have never really been exposed to a variety of >different software systems. This seems to be especially true of CS departments >which teach ONLY Unix. We, at Boston University have two software engineering courses that DO have exposure to large systems. A current project in CS 511, our Software Engineering course, using UNIX, is an implementation of Hypertext. As its instructor describes, "this is really a course on management, and for many of you, this may be your first exposure to management skills." So there ARE CS programs which expose CS people to large systems. Anyone out there with similar thoughts? Clarence K. Din cd@bu-cs.buacca.bu.edu
elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (11/28/87)
In article <16216@bu-cs.BU.EDU> cd@bu-cs.UUCP (Clarence K. Din) writes: >In article <3807@eecae.UUCP> lawitzke@eecae.UUCP (John Lawitzke) writes: >>Any body feel like commenting on the causes of the lack of math skills >>of incoming freshman? Primarily those who get to college and can't do >>trig or basic analytical geometry? > I know of several individuals in the computer science and engineering >programs in Boston University who have never taken trigonometry in high >school. These same individuals cannot grasp even the basic fundamentals >of abstract math theory, including induction and fixed-point calculation. Most probably because their math teachers in elementary and high schools could barely count their toes on their feet, and certainly would not have been able to explain oddities like the fact that digits are not numbers, etc. etc. etc... if one has never before encountered the abstract, facing the abstract becomes quite a challenge. All in all, most experts agree that math education for the average U.S. child is abysimal (see various studies contrasting U.S. students against e.g. European students). > I'm sure you've heard of Brooklyn Technical High School in New York. >I received a good education there; my schedule usually included approxi- >mately 7 subjects a day every day distributed over 8 periods of 45 minutes >each. Among my courses were mathematics, three "pre-engineering," social >science (such as economics or history), english, and an elective (which >was usually forced upon the student). Unfortunately, only 2% of the U.S. lives within hour's distance of Brooklyn, and there are no such schools in the 2% of the U.S. that I live in (Louisiana). Trigonometry is offered here, but that's the highest that it goes. As for "pre-engineering", etc., HAH! Teachers here are hard pressed to teach their students how to read and write and add 2+2, except in the elite schools in the suburbs which get all the money because rich politician's children go to school there (thankfully, 60% of La. school funding is state-provided under a strict per-student formula, or things would be even worse). The biggest challenge is the lack of qualified teachers in non-elite schools, due to the salary inequities and crumbling lab equipment and large student-teacher ratios etc... no matter how much dedication and perseverence a teacher has, he/she must eat, too. The only thing a parent can do currently, besides politicking (and parent pro-education groups are hot'n'heavy here), is move to the suburbs. It concerns me greatly that the lower 30/40% of the income bracket doesn't have that option, dooming their children to, at best, a merely adequate education, despite whatever talent that child has. Many of my friends are from overseas (about 60% of the CS enrollment at my university is non-American). I was talking to one person from a mid-east country (before all the troubles there that led to the retraction of most of those students), and he mentioned that by the time he had graduated from high school, he'd taken two years of Calculus. He started taking Algebra etc. in either the 6th or 7th grade, I don't remember which. I think it's a shame that we take 8 years to teach our kids just how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide, and that many of our "gifted and talented" students are turned off by "math" because it is "repetitive and mechanical" (a quote from the co-ordinator of the Lafayette Parish Gifted & Talented Program). Until we start teaching our elementary school teachers mathematics instead of arithmetic, and until we expect them to challenge our best students instead of boring them, I think you'll continue to find that the majority of American students simply are not prepared to take mathematics courses on the college level. -- Eric Green elg@usl.CSNET Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg Lafayette, LA 70509 Hello darkness my old friend, I've come to talk withordeordeoh ih i
levy@ttrdc.UUCP (12/01/87)
In article <2232@killer.UUCP>, elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) writes: > All in all, most experts agree that math education > for the average U.S. child is abysimal I'd wager that spelling education is almost as bad. :-) [Please, no meta-flames. This was just ASKING for it...] -- |------------Dan Levy------------| Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa, | an Engihacker @ | <most AT&T machines>}!ttrdc!ttrda!levy | AT&T Computer Systems Division | Disclaimer? Huh? What disclaimer??? |--------Skokie, Illinois--------|