steve@hubcap.UUCP ("Steve" Stevenson) (11/16/87)
in article <3386@ames.arpa>, lamaster@pioneer.arpa (Hugh LaMaster) says: > .... Back in the fifties and sixties, many schools had > five year programs for engineers, but I never seem to hear about them anymore. > Ten semesters would make it lot easier to fit it all in. I agree. And even when it wasn't stated as a five year program, it turned out to be. I'm particularly concerned about computer scientist ( and not programmers ) having weak backgrounds in such things as logic, natural languages and such essentials as ethics. Such deficiences could be cured in a five year program. -- Steve (really "D. E.") Stevenson steve@hubcap.clemson.edu Department of Computer Science, (803)656-5880.mabell Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-1906
jsloan@wright.EDU (John Sloan) (11/18/87)
in article <665@hubcap.UUCP>, steve@hubcap.UUCP ("Steve" Stevenson) says: > in article <3386@ames.arpa>, lamaster@pioneer.arpa (Hugh LaMaster) says: : >> Ten semesters would make it lot easier to fit it all in. > I agree. And even when it wasn't stated as a five year program, it > turned out to be. This is a good point. Most of the undergraduates in either our computer science or computer engineering major find our program to effectively be five years, no matter what our model program says on paper. To make matters worse, recent (successful) attempts to meet accreditation guidelines have virtually eliminated any notion of electives from the undergraduate program. This is a sore point, since my B.S from years ago came from the same university, and I seem to recall enjoying the philosophy, creative writing, and physics that I took as electives, and have found much of what I learned in those courses as (or more) relevant to my day to day life than the technical stuff. As a CS major I had to take a lot of CEG-related hardware courses (and the CEG majors have to take quite a few CS software courses). I think thats a really good idea. But I gotta admit that wiring up circuits with discrete components was not particularly useful later in life (VLSI and uCPUs were not around then). I think most of us would agree that a five year program is a good idea. Indeed, professional engineering schools have done it, with success. Some problems: [1] Identifying with the policies of a professional engineering school does not sit well with many CS faculty, who identify mostly with the disciplines of math and traditional sciences. This caused a bit of a rift when our Department was moved from the College of Math and Science to the College of Engineering. Tenure questions are a sticky issue, since Engineering schools often promote as much (or more) on the basis of grants and funding than from scholarly research and publication. Its okay for me, a non tenure track staff member, to say "I think CS belongs with engineering because their policies regarding curriculum are more pertinent to us" but for junior faculty members, this is a real, lasting career altering move. [2] CS programs that move to a five year program will compete with CS programs that have a four year program. Can they compete successfully? Dunno. When my wife went to med school, she attended a traditional four year school, although she was accepted at a three year _accelerated_ program. If students perceive the four year schools to be _accelerated_, than the five year programs can compete. If they see the five year schools as _protracted_, then the five year programs are in trouble. I agree completely. Five year programs are the answer. Its going to take some cultural adjustment for them to be accepted. -- John -- John Sloan Wright State University Research Center jsloan@SPOTS.Wright.Edu 3171 Research Blvd., Kettering, OH 45420 ...!cbosgd!wright!jsloan (513) 259-1384 (513) 873-2491 Logic Disclaimer: belong(opinions,jsloan). belong(opinions,_):-!,fail.
lamaster@pioneer.arpa (Hugh LaMaster) (11/19/87)
In article <191@wright.EDU> jsloan@wright.EDU (John Sloan) writes: > >I think most of us would agree that a five year program is a good idea. >Indeed, professional engineering schools have done it, with success. >Some problems: I agree with all of this. I think that the solution is to have separate Computer Science and Software Engineering programs. Computer Science is logically part of the same school as Mathematics, Physics, and Applied Mathematics, Statistics, etc. (Letters and Sciences, or some such.) Software Engineering is logically part of the engineering school. Programming is a lower division prerequisite to either school, as is a basic course in Computer Science. I think that this division will not only help solve the political problem described below, but will help students make a clearer choice about what their choices of majors signify. > >[1] Identifying with the policies of a professional engineering school >does not sit well with many CS faculty, who identify mostly with the >disciplines of math and traditional sciences. This caused a bit of a >rift when our Department was moved from the College of Math and Science >to the College of Engineering. Tenure questions are a sticky issue, > >[2] CS programs that move to a five year program will compete with >CS programs that have a four year program. Can they compete >successfully? Dunno. When my wife went to med school, she attended a If other programs in the engineering school also have five year programs (especially EE) then I think there will not be a problem. One way to make sure that these programs are sufficiently attractive to students is to make a student internship an integral part of the program between the fourth and fifth year. Most engineering students have been told of the merits of such internships, and will probably find the complete program very attractive, even though it does take longer. > >I agree completely. Five year programs are the answer. Its going to take >some cultural adjustment for them to be accepted. >John Sloan Wright State University Research Center >jsloan@SPOTS.Wright.Edu 3171 Research Blvd., Kettering, OH 45420 >...!cbosgd!wright!jsloan (513) 259-1384 (513) 873-2491 This discussion has reminded me of another confusion in engineering programs, and that is regarding the place of Computer Engineering. Some programs include hardware and software engineering in a Computer Engineering program, others separate out Software Engineering and include computer engineering as part of the digital hardware part of Electrical Engineering. One of the disadvantages of the latter approach is that students must spend extra time learning about electromechanical machinery, and therefore less time on digital hardware. Assuming a five year engineering program, what is the correct way to split up Electrical Engineering, Digital Hardware Engineering, and Software Engineering? 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'sJanJanJailaila46an
yg@culdev1.UUCP (Yogesh Gupta) (11/20/87)
In article <665@hubcap.UUCP>, steve@hubcap.UUCP ("Steve" Stevenson) writes: > > natural languages and such essentials as ethics. Such deficiences > could be cured in a five year program. > What kind of a five year program would cure deficiences in ethics? Hard labor, maybe :-) :-)
stern@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (harold a stern) (11/20/87)
>In article <191@wright.EDU> jsloan@wright.EDU (John Sloan) writes: >> >>I think most of us would agree that a five year program is a good idea. >>Indeed, professional engineering schools have done it, with success. This topic came up at MIT a year ago at a forum to discuss changes in engineering education. There were several hundred students in attendance, and the overwhelming opinion (myself included) was that a five-year program is a great idea _in theory_, but who is going to pay the extra $18K per student to do it? You cannot reasonably expect students, many of whom graduate with tens of thousands of dollars in loans to pay off after four years, to foot the bill for a fifth. harold a. stern <stern@ge-crd.arpa> room k1-5c8, ge corporate r&d center p.o. box 8, schenectady, ny 12301
steve@hubcap.UUCP ("Steve" Stevenson) (11/23/87)
in article <7925@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>, stern@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (harold a stern) says: > >>In article <191@wright.EDU> jsloan@wright.EDU (John Sloan) writes: >>> >>>I think most of us would agree that a five year program is a good idea. >>>Indeed, professional engineering schools have done it, with success. > You cannot reasonably expect students, ... to foot the bill for a fifth. This is certainly a consideration. However, what about a five year program that is demonstably close to a masters. Would you be willing to pay then? -- Steve (really "D. E.") Stevenson steve@hubcap.clemson.edu Department of Computer Science, (803)656-5880.mabell Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-1906
stern@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (harold a stern) (11/23/87)
In article <752@hubcap.UUCP> steve@hubcap.UUCP ("Steve" Stevenson) writes: >in article <7925@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>, stern@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (harold a stern) says: >> >>>In article <191@wright.EDU> jsloan@wright.EDU (John Sloan) writes: >>>> >>>>I think most of us would agree that a five year program is a good idea. >>>>Indeed, professional engineering schools have done it, with success. > >> You cannot reasonably expect students, ... to foot the bill for a fifth. > >This is certainly a consideration. However, what about a five year >program that is demonstably close to a masters. Would you be willing >to pay then? > Me personally? Sure. In fact, I am now a fifth-year student in such a program at MIT. But part of that program includes an internship in industry, which reduces the financial burden. And graduate student support programs (fellowships, teaching/research assistantships, etc.) are also available. Without the extra aid, however, I wouldn't have gone for it. The problem with making a five-year program the norm for engineers is that I just can't see a university arranging co-ops and graduate financial support for a large number of fifth-year students. Most schools have enough trouble meeting the financial needs of their regular graduate students; throwing in another thousand or so students in with them would be impossible. And (at MIT at least) they've found that it's too difficult to manage internship programs with more than 100 or so students enrolled per year. This means that the majority of students in any five-year program would be left footing the bill. Even if the program was close to a master's, I would expect the majority of students to say no. harold a. stern <stern@ge-crd.arpa> | after january 1: room k1-5c8, ge corporate r&d center | post office box 29, mit branch p.o. box 8, schenectady, ny 12301 | cambridge, ma 02139
cd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Clarence K. Din) (11/24/87)
In article <752@hubcap.UUCP> steve@hubcap.UUCP ("Steve" Stevenson) writes: > >... However, what about a five year >program that is demonstrably close to a masters. Would you be willing >to pay then? > I don't think there's really a point in making a five-year BS program demonstrably close to a Master's. A Bachelor's degree signifies that its holder has a fundamental grasp of the knowledge of his field. A Master's degree goes beyond this basic knowledge. ... just my opinion Clarence K. Din, cd@bu-cs.buacca.bu.edu
jsloan@wright.EDU (John Sloan) (11/24/87)
in article <7925@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>, stern@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP (harold a stern) says: >>In article <191@wright.EDU> jsloan@wright.EDU (John Sloan) writes: >>>I think most of us would agree that a five year program is a good idea. >>>Indeed, professional engineering schools have done it, with success. : > and the overwhelming opinion (myself included) was that a five-year program > is a great idea _in theory_, but who is going to pay the extra $18K per > student to do it? : I edited Harold's remarks for brevity. He's talking about MIT. He makes a good point that I hadn't thought of. As a state institution in Ohio, our tuition is not so high, hence its less of a factor, although most of our students pay their own way and are not on scholarships. The additional financial burden is a very real problem. We effectively have a five year program. Few students are able to complete the requisites in four years. The schedule is so tight that getting knocked out of a couple of required classes because they are closed can add several quarters to a degree, because higher level classes cannot be offered every quarter (not enough faculty). Also, most of our CS and CEG majors work at least part time, and a high percentage work full time. That's our market in the area from which we recruit. Many professionals and also Air Force types, airmen in the undergraduate program, officers in the graduate program. Taking five or six years to complete a B.S. is not uncommon. Took me ten years of taking at least one class _every_ quarter (for forty quarters) to complete a B.S. and M.S. while working full time. As you might expect, the program bore little resemblence at the end to the one I started in. I ended taking a lot of extra stuff just to play catchup. Anyway, we really do have a five year program, for all intents and purposes, and it sure would be helpful if we could just make it official and take advantages of the scheduling windows in that extra year. -- John Sloan Wright State University Research Center jsloan@SPOTS.Wright.Edu 3171 Research Blvd., Kettering, OH 45420 ...!cbosgd!wright!jsloan (513) 259-1384 (513) 873-2491 Logic Disclaimer: belong(opinions,jsloan). belong(opinions,_):-!,fail.