[comp.software-eng] I should go back to school?

rsd@sei.cmu.edu (Richard S D'Ippolito) (05/08/89)

In article <4236@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> Jason writes:

>Oh no .... that isn't it at all.... that "100%" of time is only the 10%
>of the REAL time that the CS people wait around for the soft. eng's to get
>frustrated and give the work to them....

Jason, you seem to have a real problem here.  What happened in your recent
past that makes you say such things?  I would like to know if someone who
called him(her)self a SE got you upset, and if the statement made above is
based on a large number of years of work experience.  After all, the term
"SE" has been in general use for only a relatively short time, and then only
as an informal replacement term.


>Now with CS, the time varies.  Were [sic] what you'd call, [sic] variable and versatile.
>We are not little money craving [sic] robots drilled with [sic] applications and small
>scientific background. 

This is an apparently worthless flame adding nothing to the discussion.  Can
you please support it with some evidence?


>Its [sic] a shame how I find in college that ME's,CE's,EE's and AE's are NO MATCH
>for upper-division or graduate physics [sic] ..... and for EEC or ECS ..... they
>now [sic] about as much CS when they graduate at [sic] a lower division peon in CS.
>When the arrogant society of people with an "E" on the end of their degree
[sic] 
>get their noses out of the air and out of their wallets, and start nosing
>around in and appreciating PURE science, THEN and ONLY then can the [sic]
>let their pompus [sic] trash out.......until then... why don't you guys (and
>gals ... no predjudice here) .. go back to school....  

I don't normally comment on this subject unless the writer invites it by the
content of his message, but your suggestion that others might require more
schooling should be seen in the light of the basic spelling, compositional,
and grammatical errors (some of which were too hard to mark) that you
yourself have made in the preceeding paragraphs.  How do you communicate the
results of your work?

If you really have something to say, please take reasonable care that your
message is not disregarded simply due to its ugly package.

My suspicion is that you have very little real experience on major software
projects, almost no knowledge of what an engineering discipline really is,
and have had no formal training whatever in engineering design methods.

Please tell me that it isn't so.


Rich
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ideas have consequences.                                    RSD@sei.cmu.edu
Richard Weaver
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ccs013@castor.ucdavis.edu (Jason) (05/10/89)

In article <3315@ae.sei.cmu.edu> rsd@sei.cmu.edu (Richard S D'Ippolito) writes:

>I don't normally comment on this subject unless the writer invites it by the
>content of his message, but your suggestion that others might require more
>schooling should be seen in the light of the basic spelling, compositional,
>and grammatical errors (some of which were too hard to mark) that you
>yourself have made in the preceeding paragraphs.  How do you communicate the
>results of your work?
>

1)  When I am upset at some one making remarks (as the ones that were made
    ORIGINALLY by that request for job qualities to look for) , you may not
    agree, but I really don't care about paying special attention to the
    fact that there is not a superb correctness to my spelling.
    Also, the situation is CS and E , not English...

>If you really have something to say, please take reasonable care that your
>message is not disregarded simply due to its ugly package.

2) If this is all you can say about my note ... about its "package" ....
   (grammer I suppose):  why did you respond to this posting. Were you
   originally studying English or language in college?  The important
   part is the idea's of the posting not its spelling.  If you want to flame,
   flame that...

Yes, Rich,  I have had alot of experience with E's . However, I will admit 
to harshness; this is in light at the fact of 95% of the E's I know or knew
are here at UCD. And, I will say that, especially in lower division, they
have a great attitude about themselves. They frown on all other divisions of
learning here.  Money, is a big issue:  "oh, my first job will start me with
 $40,000" .  Well, that's really nice. It would've been nice if my first job was
$40,000/yr.  Everyone would like to be financially well off; but of all of
 the fields you can become apt in, in college, its seems to me (yes, becuase
of personal preference) to be the biggest waste to think of a degree in science as big meal ticket.  Let these (I will say for UCD now...) people go and study
other things....

There is basically a lack of love for pure science....excuse me, but I think
it sucks.


also....

         You ought to see some junior in E look at the upper division texts for physics.  I've never seen eyes get so wide. They learn there physics 8 
material (general physics whith calculus). They take a few upper-division (and lower-division) concentrated courses that are specific to there E concentration. And then then the general education requirements and eng. application classes.
        I really see no grounds for them to ridicule physics majors (or those that are out in "the real world". 


Lastly, I have NO meaning to ridicule engineers.  As en (ex) "physics person"
I hold them in as high regard as I do physicists.  In a nutshell (crude but
somewhat accurrate): then physicist creates and shapes and the engineer causes
it to grow and applies it.  Both have an extremely important part in our
 society as well as in the scientific world.  I see no  reason for ridicule
and/or remarks about CS that were made by the original posting tha started all 
this.


Does this answer any of your questions...... Rich.

Oh  and excuse my english.  I only got a C+ in my English A  class way back
when.     :)



        ___    ___   __    ___  )___   ______________________________
       (   |  '__|  (__   /  /  /  /   |   II Corinthians 10:17     |
        \  |  (__)\  __) /__/  /  /    +****************************+
         \_|Internet: jygabler@ucdavis |"Why me!?" , said Garion.   |
           |BITNET:   jygabler@ucdavis |"Do we have to go thru that |
           |UUCP:     ucdavis!jygabler |again?", the dry voice said.|
      

kerchen@iris.ucdavis.edu (Paul Kerchen) (05/11/89)

What follows is a rather personal flame directed at Jason Gabler and 
anyone else who shares his opinions.  I feel that I have an obligation as a
UC Davis engineer to publicly respond to Mr. Gabler's gross
generalizations.  Please note that this is aimed at Mr. Gabler and not
computer science majors in general.  I'll not be accused of the same
stereotyping for which I am flaming Jason Gabler.



Jason Gabler writes:
> Its a shame how I find in college that ME's,CE's,EE's and AE's are NO MATCH
> for upper-division or graduate physics [majors] ..... and for EEC or ECS 
> ..... they [know] about as much CS when they graduate [as] a lower division 
> peon in CS.

And it's also a shame that you are no match for a freshman English major.
Computer Science and Engineering majors are exposed to the exact same
material as Computer Science and Mathematics majors.  Therefore, to make
a statement like the one above implies that CS people consistently do better 
in these classes than ECS people, but this simply is not the case.  To 
argue whether CS is better that ECS or vice versa is foolish and it shows a 
great deal of immaturity on your part.  

> get their noses out of the air and out of their wallets, and start nosing
> around in and appreciating PURE science, THEN and ONLY then can the

Simply because you've encountered some "money craving robots" does not 
imply that all engineers are the same way; proof by induction doesn't work
when classifying people and a pure scientist such as yourself should know
that by now.  I can disprove your statement by contradiction: I'll name a
dozen engineers who don't give a damn about how much they'll be making when
they get out of school.  Anyone who goes into engineering just for the
money will soon find themselves very unhappy and then you can laugh all the
way back to library.  Meanwhile, the rest of us will go on enjoying what
we're doing regardless of how much we're being paid.


>     agree, but I really don't care about paying special attention to the
>     fact that there is not a superb correctness to my spelling.
>     Also, the situation is CS and E , not English...
>     ...
>   originally studying English or language in college?  The important
>   part is the idea's of the posting not its spelling.  If you want to flame,
>   flame that...

What good is the idea behind the posting if no one can understand it?
Minor grammatical mistakes can be forgiven, but when one has to wade
through numerous spelling, diction, punctuation, and fundamental structural
errors the main point of the message is lost in trying to decipher it.

A "love for pure science" is all well and fine, but there *is* a real world
outside of the university.  Industry complains that university schooling is
already too detached from reality and yet you advocate further separation!

> Oh  and excuse my english.  I only got a C+ in my English A  class way back
> when.     :)

They certainly were generous.



Paul Kerchen				| kerchen@iris.ucdavis.edu

periklis@ecrcvax.UUCP (Periklis Tsahageas) (05/11/89)

In article <4255@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> ccs013@castor.ucdavis.edu (Jason) writes:
>1)  When I am upset at some one making remarks (as the ones that were made
>    ORIGINALLY by that request for job qualities to look for) , you may not
>    agree, but I really don't care about paying special attention to the
>    fact that there is not a superb correctness to my spelling.

In news.announce.newusers :
In article <6185@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> spaf@cs.purdue.EDU(Gene Spafford) writes:
|
|              A Primer on How to Work With the USENET Community
|                             Chuq Von Rospach 
|  [...]
|  If you are upset at something or someone, wait until you have had a chance
|  to calm down and think about it.  A cup of coffee or a good night's sleep
|  works wonders on your perspective.  Hasty words create more problems than
|  they solve.  [...]
(no comments)

>    Also, the situation is CS and E , not English...
I don't think that anybody tried to say that CSs are better than SEs or the
opposite (the usual argument about comparing apples with oranges).
These are (or are becoming) two distinct professions in the same way as a
chemical engineer is different from a chemist.  Obviously, nobody can be a
software engineer without knowing about computer science and I would find it
highly improbable for a computer scientist to be totally ignorant of SE.
Of course, whether CS is a science and SE is an engineering discipline is open
to dispute.

Then, what is a programmer ?
A programmer is someone who writes programs.
They may be CSs, SEs, physicists or theologists.  My humble opinion is that
ambitious software projects involving more than one programmer should be
coordinated by (at least) one SE educated by training or experience.

>  [...]
>Yes, Rich,  I have had alot of experience with E's . However, I will admit 
                        ^^^^
>to harshness; this is in light at the fact of 95% of the E's I know or knew
>are here at UCD.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All SEs I KNOW, can write specs and design software properly.  What a wonderful
world it would be, if this meant that ALL SEs IN THE WORLD could do that.

> [...]
>         You ought to see some junior in E look at the upper division texts
>for physics.  I've never seen eyes get so wide. They learn there physics 8 
>material (general physics whith calculus). They take a few upper-division (and
>lower-division) concentrated courses that are specific to there E concentration
> And then then the general education requirements and eng. application classes.
I think we agree here.
No one can be considered a qualified engineer without a firm understanding of
the scientific foundations of their discipline.  If your university produces
engineers like you've described them here, that is very unfortunate.

A slight point though : 
While most engineering disciplines are based mainly on physics and continuous
maths, SE is based, (currently) purely, on discrete maths.  This stems from the
fact that other engineering disciplines are concerned with variables taking
values from a continuous domain (e.g. the speed with which a car moves, the
weight a bridge must be able to support), while all values in a computer take
discrete values.  This should be taken into consideration when designing a SE
course.

>        ___    ___   __    ___  )___   ______________________________
>       (   |  '__|  (__   /  /  /  /   |   II Corinthians 10:17     |
>        \  |  (__)\  __) /__/  /  /    +****************************+
>         \_|Internet: jygabler@ucdavis |"Why me!?" , said Garion.   |
>           |BITNET:   jygabler@ucdavis |"Do we have to go thru that |
>           |UUCP:     ucdavis!jygabler |again?", the dry voice said.|
>      
-- 
Periklis Andreas Tsahageas           European Computer-Industry Research Centre
Arabellastrasse 17, D-8000 Muenchen 81, West Germany       +49 (89) 92 69 91 09
USA: periklis%ecrcvax.uucp@pyramid.pyramid.com     ...!pyramid!ecrcvax!periklis
Europe: periklis@ecrcvax.uucp                        ...!unido!ecrcvax!periklis

kerchen@iris.ucdavis.edu (Paul Kerchen) (05/12/89)

In article <721@ecrcvax.UUCP> periklis@ecrcvax.UUCP (Periklis Tsahageas) writes:
>No one can be considered a qualified engineer without a firm understanding of
>the scientific foundations of their discipline.  If your university produces
>engineers like you've described them here, that is very unfortunate.

UCD does *not* produce engineers like those described by Jason Gabler any
more than any other university.  A university education is what one makes
of it and there will always be people at *any* university who have no
interest in anything but thier major.  The fact that Jason Gabler has met
some of these bad apples should not taint the reputation of this
University.  Just for the record, UCD's engineering department is a 
nationally recognized one which produces high caliber engineers.  The basic
physics which UCD engineers are required to take is taught by one of the 
best undergraduate physics departments in the nation.  The fact that 
Davis engineers only take one physics series does not indicate that that is
the only physics to which they are exposed.  There are numerous other 
required courses which are taught by the engineering department which could
just as easily be classified as physics courses--electrodynamics, device
physics, statics, dynamics--all of which are taught by the
engineering department.  As for other "pure science" courses, Davis
engineers are also required to take a battery of mathematics courses as
well as basic chemistry.  I find it unfortunate that the words of one
person (i.e. Jason Gabler) can be taken as the absolute truth in this
matter when Mr. Gabler isn't even familiar with the required course work of
a UCD engineer.




Paul Kerchen				| kerchen@iris.ucdavis.edu

ccs013@castor.ucdavis.edu (Jason) (05/12/89)

In article <4285@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> kerchen@iris.ucdavis.edu (Paul Kerchen) writes:
>
>UCD does *not* produce engineers like those described by Jason Gabler any
>more than any other university. 
>of it and there will always be 
>  The fact that Jason Gabler has met
>some of these bad apples should not taint the reputation of this
>University. 
>I find it unfortunate that the words of one
>person (i.e. Jason Gabler) can be taken as the absolute truth in this
>matter when Mr. Gabler isn't even familiar with the required course work of
>a UCD engineer.

1)  Yes, I did make a mistake when I refered to the coursework of engineers.
    However, it has been corrected if you've read the news lately.

2) Also my posting ought not to to be taken as a rule for UCD or the world
   any other planet.  I know engineers form NY ((where I am from) and other
   places.  Many have the same attitude I previously described. 


Lastly , if you remember I said I was an undergrad.  So most of the E's I know
are undergrads (should be taken as default).  And I will say that many do
grow out of that type of attitude when they see what real-life engineering and
programming is about, I suppose.

Jason jygabler@ucdavis

p.s.  Once more asking: Did the author of the original posting have the right
      to slander a CS's abilities?