gardner@rochester.UUCP (03/05/86)
From: Paul Gardner <gardner> >From: aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP > Just a comment about EEs vs. CSs: > > I was one of the first EEs at McGill to start taking "Honours" Computer > Science courses. The School of Computer Science, which was very theoretical, > discouraged me from taking their courses because I didn't have the necessary > math background. I think they underestimated how much math an EE takes. > The "Honours" Computer Science courses were jokes. > > The next year an "advanced" computer science class in filesystems and > databases was opened up for the first time to engineers. It was taught by > a visiting European professor, very theoretical, very mathematical. On > the first in-class test, the marks distribution was bimodal: CSs around > 30%, EEs around 80%. Same thing in a Discrete Math course - the CS students > complained that they were being asked to solve new problems that they couldn't > just look up in the literature. > > By the time I left school, the School of Computer Science had once again > started providing special courses "adapted to the needs of engineers" > taught by second-rate professors and teaching assistants. Just a comment about CSs vs. EEs: CS people are not all "systems" people. It seems to me that EE types have an easy time with systems because it's the closest thing in computer science to the machine level stuff they like so much. But what about the myriad other subdisciplines that CS encompasses, are the EEs of McGill superior in these areas also? I hope that you're not implying that EEs enjoy and excel at AI, Theory of Computation and Algorithms. If so then why aren't they all CS majors? Could it be possible that there are a race of superpeople in the EE dept of McGill? From your description I get the impression that the EEs there could master any subject thrown at them. By the way, wouldn't you consider yourself a Computer Engineer rather than an EE? In that case I would hope that you would slay the CS majors in a filesystems and database course. Here at the University of Rochester the only way to get a CS degree is through the Mathematics department. There are BA and BS programs each of which is like a math degree with a heavy concentration of CS. Piss on you and your Discrete Math experience, if you had taken it here you would have been eaten alive by the CS majors. Reciprocally I found the EEs in my Complex Analysis class to be the ones who whined about problems they couldn't just look up in the textbook. I for one can give credit where it's due. I appreciate the EE majors of the world, they worry about the nit-pickity low-level details so I don't have to. I wish EEs would feel the same way about CS people and their high- level nit-picking. The world needs both of us and we need to realize that we're all better in some things than others are. > Rigour is not the exclusive preserve of CSs Indeed, I wish that all disciplines subscribed to the rigor of mathematics. Granted, the situation at Rochester may not be typical of the CS situation across the world but at least I realize this and don't seek to imply that it is. --------------- Paul C. Gardner UUCP: ..!{allegra,seismo,decvax,cmcl2}!rochester!gardner USMail: PO. Box 29404 River Station, Rochester NY
gds@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Greg Skinner) (03/08/86)
One of the professors of the mathematics department at MIT who teaches
a math class required of the CS department (intro. to algebraic
systems) likes to make fun of the CS majors, because he feels they
don't understand enough math. For example, to illustrate set theory,
he will describe sets as LISP lists, and illustrate operations on them
with the cons, append, member, etc. functions, so the CS people will
understand him. I don't think any math majors take this course -- I
have also heard that the modern algebra course required by math majors
is more difficult.
--
It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder how I keep from goin' under.
Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{decvax!genrad, allegra, gatech, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gds
gds@eddie.mit.edumangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (03/11/86)
>Some of you out there seem to think that the abilities of a coworker, >colleague, or prospective employee can be reduced to a simple "University >of Texas, 1982, B.S., C.S.". Well, a diploma by itself doesn't say anything >about how much creative insight, self-discipline, ability to learn, common >sense, "deep understanding", ability to work with others, experience, or >broad knowledge its owner has. Whatever his or her diploma says, a college >graduate may or may not have major side interests, which may or may not >be appropriate for the particular position (s)he has or is applying for. >For example, if you had a position open for a researcher in the state-of- >the-art computer graphics, and Richard Feynman and my friend-Teddy-with-a- >C.S.-degree applied for the job, which should you hire? My answer is Richard >Feynman, because he is a genius, while Teddy is not, despite the fact that >Feynman's degree is in physics. Unfortunately, Feynman is presently employed. When the choice is between my- friend_Teddy-with-a-BSCS and my-friend-Eddie-with-a-BSEE, I'm going to hire Teddy 90% of the time. Most college graduates are not genuises, and personally, I'd rather have some testimonial that a person (a) is capable of learning at the the college level, abd (b) knows something about computer science. THAT's what a CS degree means. Of course, this isn't the whole story. One would like a little spark of imagination and various other desirable qualities. This is why we have interviews. C. Wingate
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/13/86)
> > Unfortunately, Feynman is presently employed. When the choice is between my- > friend_Teddy-with-a-BSCS and my-friend-Eddie-with-a-BSEE, I'm going to hire > Teddy 90% of the time. Most college graduates are not genuises, and > personally, I'd rather have some testimonial that a person (a) is capable of > learning at the the college level, abd (b) knows something about computer > science. THAT's what a CS degree means. > Not in my experience. I used to work with a guy with a BSCS from Florida Institute of Technology (NOT a diploma mill, I'm told), and I had to explain what a linker what. The concept was COMPLETELY foreign to him. He had NEVER run into it in school, or in three years working for ITT as a software engineer. Note: this guy got his degree in the late 1970s. Fortunately, I don't have a degree, so I was able to explain what linkers were, why it's good to break up large programs into several (or more) modules, externs, publics, and all these other really deep subjects. A degree means only that you were there, didn't insult the professors too much, and managed to pass most of the tests. It doesn't mean you know anything -- and this problem isn't just CS degrees. I spent about twenty minutes on an airliner once talking to a guy with a B.S. in Chemistry from CSU Long Beach, and he was unaware that fluorine gas is causes most common substances to burst into flames on contact. > Of course, this isn't the whole story. One would like a little spark of > imagination and various other desirable qualities. This is why we have > interviews. > > C. Wingate I agree. I promise not to hold a degree against someone -- they may have had no choice but to stay in school.