tlh@arthur.cs.purdue.edu.UUCP (05/09/87)
In article <1166@super.upenn.edu.upenn.edu>, shaffer@operations.dccs.upenn.edu (Earl Shaffer) writes: > Hello: > > This is the third in my "questions" posting... > 4) Should there be a formal certification process (unlike the > current one) that tests CS grads on specific certification > areas (such as software engineer, UNIX/IBM systems programmer) In my view, I feel that the discipline is too young to decide what knowledge is most important and thus what knowledge would be tested in a certification process. Because I've always been a student of CS I do not know of ANY certification process (please feel free to fill me in on this point via email). As an additional topic for consideration, my undergraduate institution is requiring of its new CS majors a course in Ethics (yes, that philosophical stuff!) Although I never had a course in Ethics, I am a philosophy phreak and would be interested in how others view this. BTW it is a liberal arts university. Purdoin' it, Tom ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas L. Hausmann | Graduate Assistant | tlh@mordred.cs.purdue.edu ( ARPA ) Dept of Computer Science | Purdue University | ...!purdue!tlh ( UUCP ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
det@herman.UUCP (Derek Terveer) (05/11/87)
One thing that kind of bothers me is the number of people i noticed that went to the engineering school merely to escape the language requirement in the college of arts and sciences. They chose engineering, not for the reason that they wanted to be engineers, but rather, so they would not have to fulfill the requirements of another discipline. Kind of negative if you ask me.
kmd@sdcsmb.UUCP (Karen M. Davis) (05/13/87)
In article <486@herman.UUCP> det@herman.UUCP (Derek Terveer) writes: > >One thing that kind of bothers me is the number of people i noticed that went >to the engineering school merely to escape the language requirement in the >college of arts and sciences. They chose engineering, not for the reason that >they wanted to be engineers, but rather, so they would not have to fulfill the >requirements of another discipline. Kind of negative if you ask me. I am an engineer. Most of the engineers I know didn't come in to escape the language requirements of other schools. They came into engineering because they were more comfortable dealing with *things* (rather than with people). This is a pervasive problem in Engineering -- the technically brilliant who can't communicate who have to deal with a technically mediocre world that *demands* communication. This is why technically competent engineers who *can* deal with people go so far up the management chain so fast ;-).. The people you describe, Derek, who merely wish to escape foreign language requirements [like English :-)] generally don't do too well in Engineering. They are also apt to be rather disappointed, since new accreditation rules (as I remember them) seem to call for some rather broad general ed. requirements (from the folks who accredit schools of engineering). It *is* possible to go to an engineering school that is not accredited, but it generally doesn't help one's chances in the job market. :-) karen -- Email: kmd@sdcrdcf.UUCP (uucp) kmd%sdcrdcf.UUCP@CAM.Unisys.COM (arpa) Work : UNiSYS/DS/System Development Group; 2525 Colorado; Santa Monica CA 90406 (213) 829-7511 x6295 Home : 8333 Columbus Avenue #17; Sepulveda CA 91343
det@herman.UUCP (05/16/87)
In article <409@sdcsmb.UUCP>, kmd@sdcsmb.UUCP (Karen M. Davis) writes: > [...] > This is why technically competent engineers who *can* deal with people go > so far up the management chain so fast ;-).. And so disappear from where they are needed! > They are also apt to be rather disappointed, since new accreditation rules Hmm, thats interesting -- what are some of these new accreditation rules. I graduated in '83, so perhaps i missed (or squeeked by (:-)) meeting them.