rcd@nbires.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (02/28/86)
> > In my book, your degree has no intrinsic quality or value; it is a statment > > that you attended university X and performed well enough not to be expelled. > > What about a 4.0 gpa from Princeton or somewhere? Yes, indeed--what about it? So *** what? > ... > It's very hard to get a 4.0 from a good school without being > interested and motivated. No, it is not. In fact, the people who can get a 4.0 from any reputable school are, in my experience, much less likely to be interested and motivated than the people in roughly the 3.3-3.8 range. You can get a 4.0 by being pretty bright and obsessive/compulsive with the right(???) focus. You don't have to be the least bit interested. Why? What am I getting at? Look, I've taken AND taught lots of university courses. You can't spend too much time in the university environment before you realize that it has its share of BS just like the rest of the world. Some of the faculty lecture from notes which are yellowing with age. Some of the faculty are absolute ignorant assholes who maintain their positions through sheer perverse tenacity. In a good school, most of the faculty DON'T fit these profiles--but a few do. The chances of going through an entire degree program (undergraduate in particular) without encountering at least one turkey are so small as to be negligible. I am suspicious of people who have never lost interest in a course, never said "it's not worth the grief", never focused their interests on one area to the extent of neglecting another. The difference between a 4.0 and a 3.8 (particularly in undergraduate) may be at best luck-of-the-draw in courses and professors. At worst, the 4.0 student is a grade-oriented automaton who is useless in the "real world" because he has trained for 16-20 years in the "academic arts" to the exclusion of any useful skills or knowledge. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Worst-case analysis must never begin with "No one will ever want..."
lamy@utai.UUCP (Jean-Francois Lamy) (03/03/86)
In my experience the really good CS students were both bright and innovative.
Most exceptional students I've met had outside interests -- so much for the
grade-oriented automata myth. The automata type students even had
difficulties finding jobs -- recruiters obviously were able to peek beyond the
very thin layer of varnish on their personalities.
The issue of which title to use is a sticky one... I'm still puzzled by the
fact that the "programmers" in our AI Lab staff have M.Sc.s, while the
"analysts" at "Miracle Consultants" may have one-year-beyond-high-school COBOL
degrees... There is no such confusion between "technician" and "engineer",
and people usually understand that they are doing different jobs altogether,
that you don't become an engineer after having been a good technician for a
while.
In fact, up here in Quebec/Ontario "technicians" and "engineers" belong to
regulated professions, like lawyers, dentists, psychologists and doctors.
I've seen so many cheap shots by consulting firms that I sometimes think that
DP professionals should be regulated also (why not, your plumber and
electrician are...) Perhaps the current legal mood in the States (sue
everybody in sight AND their mother) will push computer professionals in that
direction.
Will we ever see Registered Programmers and Registered Analysts (R.P. and R.A)?
--
Jean-Francois Lamy
Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto,
Departement d'informatique et de recherche operationnelle, U. de Montreal.
CSNet: lamy@toronto UUCP: {ihnp4,utzoo,decwrl,uw-beaver}!utcsri!utai!lamy
EAN: lamy@iro.udem.cdn ARPA: lamy%toronto@csnet-relaycampbell@sauron.UUCP (Mark Campbell) (03/03/86)
In article <636@nbires.UUCP> rcd@nbires.UUCP (Dick Dunn) writes: >> > In my book, your degree has no intrinsic quality or value; it is a statment >> > that you attended university X and performed well enough not to be expelled. >> >> What about a 4.0 gpa from Princeton or somewhere? > >Yes, indeed--what about it? So *** what? > >> ... >> It's very hard to get a 4.0 from a good school without being >> interested and motivated. > >No, it is not. In fact, the people who can get a 4.0 from any reputable >school are, in my experience, much less likely to be interested and >motivated than the people in roughly the 3.3-3.8 range. If you can come up with a generalization as sweeping as that, then the schools you've been associated with give too many 4.0's. >You can get a 4.0 by being pretty bright and obsessive/compulsive with the >right(???) focus. You don't have to be the least bit interested. > > [...] The chances of going >through an entire degree program (undergraduate in particular) without >encountering at least one turkey are so small as to be negligible. I am >suspicious of people who have never lost interest in a course, never said >"it's not worth the grief", never focused their interests on one area to >the extent of neglecting another. [...] Disclaimer: I've never gotten any degree with a 4.0. And I've known very few who have earned 4.0's. And I too have lost interest in courses. But I've got to say that I admire someone with the discipline to maintain a 4.0 throughout a degree program. On the other hand, I also admire those that said "what the fuck" and pulled a 2.3 GPA and spent their days and nights coding. I've seen both types of students become excellent engineers, and I've seen both types become terrible engineers. It would be interesting to see if this posting is another case of the "I got/am a 3.5/BA and so it is the only thing worthwhile" syndrome that has been sweeping the net lately. (for clarification: my GPA's were between 3.7 and 3.9.) If so, don't all of you think that it might serve all of your interests to become a little broader-minded? -- Mark Campbell Phone: (803)-791-6697 E-Mail: !ncsu!ncrcae!sauron!campbell
crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (03/06/86)
In article <1376@utai.UUCP> lamy@utai.UUCP (Jean-Francois Lamy) writes: >In my experience the really good CS students were both bright and innovative. >Most exceptional students I've met had outside interests -- so much for the >grade-oriented automata myth. The automata type students even had >difficulties finding jobs -- recruiters obviously were able to peek beyond the >very thin layer of varnish on their personalities. > And when we hire people, we usually read the part of the resume that goes into personal interests, too. We have to more or less *live* with these people, and the automata are no fun. More to the point, the automata usually are not very well self-directed: they can code anything if you give them a definite spec, but don't get the urge to go out an get at the problem themselves. That seems to be what the "hackers" do well. > >Will we ever see Registered Programmers and Registered Analysts (R.P. >and R.A)? Well, I don't really *want* the Gummint involved in this, for various reasons which resolve to "I just don't trust them." (I've worked for them a lot, I have reason not to trust them.) But a voluntary mechanism of this sort already exists, in the ICCP's Certificate in Data Processing/Certificate in Computer Programming program. The purpose was just what you suggest, i.e. to have a certification program analogous to CPAs and PEs. ("Registered Accountant" is what you folks call a CPA, right?) The test for CDP can only be taken after five years of professional experience in data processing, and tests in not just programming, but things like accounting, management, hardware concepts, and a couple of other things I don't recall. It was not an easy test in 1978 and I understand it is harder now. I've never taken the CCP test (maybe after I finished this ridiculous Ph.D.) but I hear it is no small trick, either. (Peter Denning wrote an editorial on this while he was president of ACM -- he didn't think it was trivial.) W.r.t. CS education: I am all in favor of people getting theoretical background -- that math background was just what I got most out of when I came back to University. But an interesting thing: almost everything an accountant learns in an Accounting degree (major courses, I mean) applies to the CPA exam. Darn little that is covered in an undergrad CSP program will show up in CDP or CCP exams. We just don't cover the things that people can use at all. This time, the signature should probably be Charles R. Martin, CDP. -- Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (03/06/86)
All this talk about 4.0s is really beginning to sound very silly, especially as it doesn't seem to take any sort of context into account. There are very, very, very few people who could get the very highest grades without taking some steps to lighten their load. I know only a couple of people who might have been able to get 3.8 or higher taking the load I took as an undergrad. I certainly didn't, although I got respectable grades. Most of the people I know who have very high marks have a very restricted focus; I went out and took a heavy-duty course of honors seminars, philosophy, and writing classes, on top of a double major. When you spread yourself that thin, it almost has to hurt your grades. As to the claim that getting a fixation on grades is an absolute necessity for getting a 4.0, I have mixed feelings about that. It takes a lot of discipline to get such high marks; but for perhaps the vast majority of really bright people, such discipline demands crippling one's interests. I chose to cultivate my many interests, and thuse sacrificed my grades to some extent. It seems to me to be rather dangerous to spend too much time worshipping at the shrine of the great God GPA. He is a jealous and demanding God. C. Wingate
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) (03/09/86)
[FLAME ON]
Damn it all to hell! Let's get something straight: if you are going to
talk about Computer Science programs, then you are talking about a course of
study designed to prepare one to be a Computer Scientist, a theoretician who
analyzes and does research.
I find it fascinating and distressing that so many of you want to water this
down to meet the needs of people who wish to be (or think they wish to be)
PROGRAMMERS!
There is nothing wrong with being a programmer (software engineer, whatever).
The world *NEEDS* many, many good programmers. We should have traning programs
designed to prepare people to be good programmers. This means keeping a close
tab on what is being doen in the "Real World". This means graduating
programmers who actually know how to program. WHo have been acquainted with t
the techniques and requirements of programming in industry.
It also means providing for the different kinds of programming. Additional
specialization so that DP oriented filk will get what they need, while
the ones interested in scientific programming will be taught what *THEY* need.
Computer Sciences, on the other hand, is a highly rigorous, mathematically
oriented field. Science is perhaps not a completely accurate description, but
it's damned close. These people don't *NEED* to know about the day-to-day
nitpicky crap that the programmers do. Many computer scientists go hours, days,
weeks, even MONTHS without ever writing a line of code! (*gasp*)
But the insistence of schools to lump programmers and computer scientists
together results in many problems. The real issues here, it seems to me, are
not whether a CSci degree has any value, but whether *PROGRAMMERS* need one.
Whether we should try to combine the educational requirements for applied
engineering (programming) and theoretical physics (Computer Science).
Would you consider a degree in theoretical physics to be terribly useful to
someone wishing to design bridges? Of course not!
Most of the really vocal people in this discussion are people who in other
newsgroups are incredibly nit-picky about terminology and accurate descriptions
of situations and facts. Why is it that when they discuss the issues being
debated here, they completely ignore such details?
[FLAME OFF]
*I* want, ultimately, to be a computer scientist. I may never achieve that
goal, as I have some severe emotional problems vis-a-vis mathematics. But I
will try, and I will work toward that goal. In the meantime, I have a
sufficient education and store of experience to do a good job as a software
engineer (programmer), and I will do so (given the opportunity...anyone know
where I can get a job in the Bay Area?).
~sigh~....after two weeks of watching the rhetoric and the mis-information
scroll by on my screen, I just *HAD* to spout. Sorry, filk.
--
====================================
Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers.
tom keller
{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020
(* we may not be big, but we're small! *)ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin) (03/11/86)
In article <55@gilbbs.UUCP>, mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) writes: > Damn it all to hell! Let's get something straight: if you are going to > talk about Computer Science programs, then you are talking about a course of > study designed to prepare one to be a Computer Scientist, a theoretician who > analyzes and does research. > > I find it fascinating and distressing that so many of you want to water > this down to meet the needs of people who wish to be > (or think they wish to be) PROGRAMMERS! Please read the other contributions to this discussion to find out why this viewpoint is fundamentally mistaken. Your equation of a Computer Scientist with a theoretician is strange, as is your suggestion that theoreticians are the only people who do research. Peter Ladkin
g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter) (03/11/86)
In article <> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) writes: > > Damn it all to hell! Let's get something straight: if you are going to >talk about Computer Science programs, then you are talking about a course of >study designed to prepare one to be a Computer Scientist, a theoretician who >analyzes and does research. > > I find it fascinating and distressing that so many of you want to water this >down to meet the needs of people who wish to be (or think they wish to be) >PROGRAMMERS! > Tom is quite correct. The fundamental problem is that industry, for the most part, needs software engineers and programmers. It does not need many computer scientists per se. The universities have created departments of computer science which either (a) producing graduates who are theoreticians rather than applied people, or (b) short changing the people who want to be Computer Scientists. However there is another factor involved. You see industry enthusiastically hiring theorecticians for applied work. Why? Because the person with the theoretical background can work in applications and bring to them the knowledge of theory, whereas someone with training in applications only doesn't have the theory when it is needed. Richard Harter, SMDS Inc.
crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (03/14/86)
In article <55@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) writes: > > Computer Sciences, on the other hand, is a highly rigorous, mathematically >oriented field. Science is perhaps not a completely accurate description, but >it's damned close. These people don't *NEED* to know about the day-to-day >nitpicky crap that the programmers do. Many computer scientists go hours, days, >weeks, even MONTHS without ever writing a line of code! (*gasp*) My goodness. Poor people. They spend all that time doing computer science, doing all that intensive mathematical labor, and hardly ever write a line of code. Sorry, but you are completely off the wall here. All that theory, all the science or mathematics that is accumulated in CS has one and only one purpose or reason to exist: it allows us to explain and understand the processes involved in programming. It has only one subject: programs. No matter how abstract, no matter whether you are a front-line programmer or a theory person using dynamic logic to build a model of concurrency, you are still occupied in understanding and describing programs. THERE SIMPLY IS NOTHING ELSE THERE. And just as we expect physicists to understand the language of physics -- i.e. lots of scuzzy differential equations, wave equations, etc. -- we simply should and must expect computer scientists to understand the language of computer science: programming. Would you expect a chemist not to understand how to put together a lab setup? A biologist not to understand statistical experiment design? A philosopher not to know how to write an argument? Then why do you expect that a Computer Scientist need know nothing about the practical aspects of his (or her) field? I admit it is often true -- but I'm an idealist. Furthermore, many or most graduates from computer science programs will take their BS or BA and leave, go out into the real world and make a living -- just as many chemists will go out and become lab chemists. It behooves us as educators to see to it that these people are prepared to do just that, just as it behooves a chemistry department to see to it that their graduates know how to work and work effectively in a lab. There will still be OJT, of course: but a chemistry graduate who learned all the theoretical parts of chemistry without learning about life in the lab would have been cheated. Chemistry departments realize this, of course: how many chem departments let someone graduate without several heavy lab courses? Computer science departments should do the same. > But the insistence of schools to lump programmers and computer scientists >together results in many problems. The real issues here, it seems to me, are >not whether a CSci degree has any value, but whether *PROGRAMMERS* need one. >Whether we should try to combine the educational requirements for applied >engineering (programming) and theoretical physics (Computer Science). > > Would you consider a degree in theoretical physics to be terribly useful to >someone wishing to design bridges? Of course not! NO, but it sure helps someone who is interested in VLSI. Tools of the trade ands all, you know. Even a theoretical physicist needs to know about building experiments. -- Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) (03/17/86)
In article <7010@duke.UUCP>, crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) writes: > Would you expect a chemist not to understand how to put together a lab > setup? A biologist not to understand statistical experiment design? A > philosopher not to know how to write an argument? Then why do you > expect that a Computer Scientist need know nothing about the practical > aspects of his (or her) field? > > I admit it is often true -- but I'm an idealist. Unfortunately, I got carried away in my comments. Yes, it is true that the Computer Scientist needs to be able to write good programs. An example of what happens when they can't is Niklaus Wirth. He may (or may not) be a well respected computer scientist, but the code that he writes (at least the code *I* have seen) is lousy. On the other hand, the computer scientist (I refer here to the theoretical computer scientist, drawing a parallel with the theoretical physicist) is more concerned with theory and research. Granted, most people will not become theoretical scientists...we still need some, and they need traning. > > Furthermore, many or most graduates from computer science programs will > take their BS or BA and leave, go out into the real world and make a > living > > > But the insistence of schools to lump programmers and computer scientists > >together results in many problems. The real issues here, it seems to me, are > >not whether a CSci degree has any value, but whether *PROGRAMMERS* need one. > >Whether we should try to combine the educational requirements for applied > >engineering (programming) and theoretical physics (Computer Science). > > > > Would you consider a degree in theoretical physics to be terribly useful to > >someone wishing to design bridges? Of course not! > NO, but it sure helps someone who is interested in VLSI. Tools of the > trade ands all, you know. > -- > (...mcnc!duke!crm) Yes. The problem is that the computer scientists are being forced to take the same courses as the many students who have no real interest in computing, and are there solely because it is a way to make more money. These students, being less motivated, slow down the progress of the course work. This is because they frequently have difficulty comprehending the concepts being presented. Most of them do not have the necessary mindset or interest to be in computer sciences. This screws the serious computer sciences student over. I still maintain that separate courses of study are appropriate. Not that programmers shouldn't be taught theory, and not that computer scientists oughtn't to be taught to program. I also maintain that the computer scientist will require more mathematical background than the programmer. There *IS* a difference between these professions, and anyone who refuses to recognize it is too busy worrying about not being perceived as an elitist, and not enough about dealing with the realities of life. cheated and frustrated by the curricula and the failure to segregate serious students from opportunists (no, not all who wish to become programmers are opportunists...nor are all who opt for true computer sciences serious students...but there do appear to be some generalizable trends in these directions). -- ==================================== Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers. tom keller {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)