ka@hropus.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) (02/08/86)
There has been a discussion in net.singles of all places about the value of computer science degrees. It started in <128@ttidcc.UUCP> when Jerry Hollombe wrote: > More seriously, I've met a wide assortment of programmers in the last few > years and I haven't noticed that programming ability is significantly > related to possession of a BSCS degree. Note I didn't say inversely > related. I said _not_ releated. I will respond to one of the most recent articles: > In article <3407@nsc.UUCP>, freak@nsc.UUCP (Curt Mayer) writes: > > It has been my experience that CS professors haven't the foggiest idea what > > the industry needs. [...] > > A random hacker grade programmer of high school age is worth 5 brand new > > CS degree-oids. > > Note that ALL the awesomely hot programmers I know do not have degrees. > > I don't know whether this is a joke or not. > It is silly, but not very funny. It gives people the misleading > impression that you can get far in computer science without anything > but coding talent. This will be true for a very few. Or it will > restrict you to working for banks and job shops. > It's unlikely to get you working for Sun, Symbolics, Xenon, > Teknowledge, Intellicorp, SRI,....... > It's also an implied insult. Why do people write such things? > > Peter Ladkin I'm not sure I understand what Peter is getting at, perhaps not all that familiar with the companies Peter lists. Sun has done things like porting UNIX to their machine and making various enhancements. One way to learn to do this is to read the UNIX kernel source code. This will take a little longer for someone who doesn't know anything about operating systems when s/he starts; fortunately I started reading the UNIX source code well before I started hacking the kernel. Of course there are people who are not capable of just sitting down and reading the UNIX source. Is there hope for such people, or are they doomed to spend their days working for banks and job shops if they decide to enter the profession? When Peter disbarrages coding talent, he is probably using the word in somewhat narrow sense. Of course you cannot code a program effectively unless you have some idea of how to design and structure a program; nor does a person get to be a hacker grade programmer without learning something about human interfaces. "Coding talent" in a broad sense covers everything that is required to write programs; if understood in this sense, "coding talent" is what industry hires people for. Is compter science broader than this? Yes, the article was an implied insult to CS professors since it implies that they are rather useless, but that's no reason why the issues raised should not be discussed. My first college course was a graduate level compiler construction course that I managed to sneak into. Several students in the course found it rather tough even though they had under- graduate degrees in computer science. So of what value is an undergrad- uate CS program? One answer is that it teaches a fair amount of mathematics. But what can it teach about computer science per se? And is this teachable to a person who won't pick it up fairly quickly if given a UNIX system to hack on for a while? Flame if you will, but try to put a little content in your flames. Kenneth Almquist ihnp4!houxm!hropus!ka (official name) ihnp4!opus!ka (shorter path)
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods, Software) (02/10/86)
> There has been a discussion in net.singles of all places about the value > of computer science degrees. It started in <128@ttidcc.UUCP> when Jerry > Hollombe wrote: [stuff not re-included] > >> In article <3407@nsc.UUCP>, freak@nsc.UUCP (Curt Mayer) writes: >>>It has been my experience that CS professors haven't the foggiest idea what >>>the industry needs. [...] >>>A random hacker grade programmer of high school age is worth 5 brand new >>>CS degree-oids. >>> Note that ALL the awesomely hot programmers I know do not have degrees. A lot of random hacker grade programmers of high school age whom I've met or been :-) are really, REALLY GOOD at optimizing the hell out of a bubble sort. Many of them just do not know about Order statistics, and those who've heard of them don't know how to calculate them. Raw brute force does best when you have acquired skill and finesse in pointing it. A CS education is not the only place you can learn these things, but not learning them is a severe deficiency. (And CS 'educations' that don't teach tidbits like that are criminally deficient!) > > ...It is silly, but not very funny. It gives people the misleading > > impression that you can get far in computer science without anything > > but coding talent. This will be true for a very few. Or it will > > restrict you to working for banks and job shops. > > It's unlikely to get you working for Sun, [others...] > > Peter Ladkin > > I'm not sure I understand what Peter is getting at, perhaps not all > that familiar with the companies Peter lists. Sun has done things like > porting UNIX to their machine and making various enhancements. One way > to learn to do this is to read the UNIX kernel source code. This will > take a little longer for someone who doesn't know anything about > operating systems when s/he starts; That is not the only problem. Reading the UNIX kernel source will tell you how UNIX does things, and give you ideas for how to distribute 'register' declarations to help out those tight inner loops. To implement ideas that distinctly improve on how UNIX did something, you've got to have exposure to alternatives, and a good feel for how to develop alternatives on your own. Again, this is not a dark secret distributed only by Ministers of CS, but a good CS program will include such things. > > When Peter disbarrages coding talent, he is probably using the word in > somewhat narrow sense. Of course you cannot code a program effectively > unless you have some idea of how to design and structure a program; nor > does a person get to be a hacker grade programmer without learning > something about human interfaces.[1] "Coding talent" in a broad sense > covers everything that is required to write programs; if understood in > this sense, "coding talent" is what industry hires people for.[2]... [1] "Design and structure" encompasses a lot of things, many of which don't interest typical high-school hackers (I'm talking about much more that "Gotos Considered Harmful"-Versus-"Dykstra Considered Loony"...). And what was that crack about "Human Interfaces"? Considering that the typical hacker programs largely for personal consumption, the human interface tends to be a bit scant... [2] If industry could always predict ahead of time what objects will definitely maximize whatever metric they are interested in at the time (programmers/"Coding Talent", investments/"return on investment", etc), there'd be fewer business failures. None, even. > > So, of what value is an undergraduate CS program? One answer is that it > teaches a fair amount of mathematics. But what can it teach about computer > science per se? And is this teachable to a person who won't pick it up > fairly quickly if given a UNIX system to hack on for a while? > I think that the most important courses I took at MIT were 'Software Engineering' (which showed me a philosophy of bullet-proofing code to a greater extent than I'd been accustomed), 'Compiler Engineering' (when taught by Prof. Hammer, whose motto was that "Computer Science is not a science and has nothing to do with computers", whose course was not about compilers but instead encouraged us to learn to think about them (I knew the course would be different when he said the first lesson was to sweep the lecture hall...:-)), and 6.033 (whose formal name I cannot remember, but which was referred to as the "Course 6 (EECS) Book Report Course", and was basically about SYSTEMS -- ranging from an Indian village to the Northeast Power Grid (with mention of computer systems thrown in here and there). This course exposed me to ideas I'd likely not have seen elsewhere, and while only a couple of them have had direct applications in my work, the methodology and maturation gained thereby has helped indirectly in just about everything). > Flame if you will, but try to put a little content in your flames. > Kenneth Almquist Well, I'm not so much trying to flame (probably a lost cause...), as trying to give a different viewpoint. Raw coding prowess is not enough, even though it is a valuable and rare commodity. A good CS education can (mind you, can) enable such power to be used with a grace and understanding that will move mountains (not crush them). A poor CS education combined with no coding talent, on the other hand, is the pessimal combination, and probably is what gives CS degrees a bad name. So, which is worse: extremely fast, buggy code that does not do what you want, or clean, elegant code that would do what you want if you could only wait for it to finish... -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA This space dedicated to Challenger and her crew, Francis R. Scobee, Michael J. Smith, Ellison S. Onizuka, Judith Resnik, Ronald E. McNair, Gregory B. Jarvis, and Christa McAuliffe. "...and slipped the surly bonds of Earth to touch the face of God."
ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (02/11/86)
In article <256@hropus.UUCP>, ka@hropus.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) writes: > When Peter disparrages coding talent, [...] I had not meant to disparrage coding talent. My words as quoted may sound as if I had meant to. > Yes, the article was an implied insult to CS professors since it implies > that they are rather useless, but that's no reason why the issues raised > should not be discussed. I agree, and refer interested parties to the net.singles discussion, which has recently become more mature than it was. The discussion on this issue started when I responded to some extreme comments such as "CS degrees aren't worth the paper they're printed on", and "CS Professors don't know anything about [...]" I felt that if there were readers wondering about whether to take courses to improve their abilities, these comments might lead them to the wrong decision. There are a number of important issues here, of which I shall pick two: 1. How do we alter curriculum so that CS graduates become better programmers? 2. How do we broaden the horizons of the kind of career systems programmers that make these extreme comments (and believe them). There are many areas of computer science that are only accessible to people with advanced degrees, and some people in our industry seem to be, almost deliberately, unaware of this. I had thought the knowledge that Sun was started by academics to be essentially universal, hence my choice of example. Thanks to Ken for posting the discussion to net.cse, and for drawing my attention to the change of venue. Peter Ladkin
rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) (02/12/86)
Here is a basic theory: CS programs are primarily concerned with ability to understand and adhere to rigidly defined standards. Furthermore, they teach 'canned algorythms' and 'standard solutions'. Most CS programs also seem to stress technical writing, and technical programming. I have actually worked with a student who got a B on a program that did not accomplish the problem but was well indented and documented. BA programs tend to stress ability to think 'creatively', finding new solutions to problems. There is also a stronger tendency toward 'creative and persuasive writing' in both written and verbal communications skills. I got a B on a paper even though the grammer and spelling were bad, because the arguments were effective and persuasive. An MIT (BSEE) graduate once told me that some day, a program will be written that solves all problems. He was actually serious! EE programs are really 'practical math' degrees. A lot of time is spent doing proofs of things like "DeMavre's Theorem". A good engineer can mathmatically prove that 1+1=3. If you want to know how many micro-seconds a search routine will take, an engineer can tell you without running a profiler. A BSCS will scientifically analize the problem, and use a scientifically accepted solution. A BSEE will engineer a solution (Top Down analysis and implementation). A BA will invent a solution (Bottom Up implementation). A BA has the unique ability to start his analysis from just about anywhere. More simply, a BSCS will make a detailed map of each tree, look at the map and say "I'm in a forest", a BSEE will say "I want a forest, and forests have trees, I'll look for trees. A BA will look around, see a few trees, and say "I must be in a forest". The EE says 'get a bigger hammer', the BSCS says 'get a bigger saw' and the BA says 'lets try a screw driver, lets try a wrench, lets try...' A BA also likes to 'simplify things' conceptually (often leading to oversimplification). He is more concerned with the principles specific implementation practices. BSEE's can complicate a wet dream ;=} A BA will actually have a stronger need for tools like indent, style, diction, spell, lint and similar assistance from the computer, but will frequently come up with more innovative solutions to a problem. Ironically, personal computers are needed and used most by BA types, because of the need for personal organization. This is in contrast to the BS types, who prefer large mainframes or minis because of the extra 'Structure' imposed within the system. Accountants and BSCS types are nearly identical in their approach to nearly everything. Does this mean that any of these degrees is better than the others? Every company has need for both types of people. If the task is to port UNIX to a specific machine, a BSCS or BSEE will be less likely to take 'liberties' with the code, even IOCTL will work exactly. If the task is to define and implement level 4-7 X.25 layers (or something else currently not standardized or well defined) in order to provide new multi-processing capabilities, the BA will find an effective solution. The worst situations for a company is to put BA's in the maintenence positions (They will create by rewriting where a patch would do), or put exclusively BSEE's and/or BSCS's in the R&D department. Most companies do this and it shows up in their P/L statements during bear periods (when innovative solutions are most needed). I have also read that BA's are more likely to advance to leadership roles, and that BS's are more likely to advance to 'Consultant' or 'Tech Specialist' roles. The manager and perspective student should be aware of these traits. Also, a student should probably not try to go against his natural tendencies. If you are naturally creative in some way, going for a BS will be more difficult (lower grades, more frustration...) and you may lose that 'Ah Ha' approach to solving. As to whether one is better than the other, it just depends on what you need done.
freak@nsc.UUCP (Curt Mayer) (02/13/86)
i think that i need to clarify some things, in light of much discussion a hacker grade programmer is not some bozo who writes dreck for her/his trash-80 at home. what i meant for this is a hacker has an intuitive, rather than learned, grasp of mechanisms in general. Laura Creighton pointed out, better than i can, that there is an Engineer mentality, and a Mathematician mentality. The hacker has the former. also, when i flamed CS profs, it was aimed mostly at every two-bit state school who thinks that hiring failed DP professionals gives them a viable CS department. It makes no sense to pretend the problem does not exist. schools like CMU, Stanford, UCB, MIT and GIT have a much better handle on the problem, since they attract talent. i know many damn good programmers with degrees, but none of them have CS degrees. I am sure that they exist. Most of the degreed Hot programmers i know have fuzzy studies (Psychology, Philosophy, Education, etc) backgrounds. Every hacker i know has read Knuth. it is, after all, the bible. curt
ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin) (02/14/86)
In article <3422@nsc.UUCP>, freak@nsc.UUCP (Curt Mayer) writes: > [....] there is an Engineer mentality, > and a Mathematician mentality. The hacker has the former. Stereotypes always lend credence to a point. > also, when i flamed CS profs, it was aimed mostly at every two-bit state > school who thinks that hiring failed DP professionals gives them a viable > CS department. Move to another state. Our Californian two-bit state schools hire Ph.D.s > i know many damn good programmers with degrees, but none of them have > CS degrees. I am sure that they exist. Try your favorite top university, or the list of companies I gave, or even a two-bit state school. > Every hacker i know has read Knuth. it is, after all, the bible. Right. And done all of the number theory problems, I suppose. And they've all implemented many-sorted algebraic data types, it's only Knuth-Bendix, after all. Please, let's not turn this discussion into a Luddite revival. Peter Ladkin
chen@gitpyr.UUCP (Ray Chen) (02/14/86)
In article <3422@nsc.UUCP>, freak@nsc.UUCP (Curt Mayer) writes: > i know many damn good programmers with degrees, but none of them have > CS degrees. I am sure that they exist. Most of the degreed Hot programmers >i know have fuzzy studies (Psychology, Philosophy, Education, etc) backgrounds. I don't want to really jump in here, but let me point out that CS degrees and good CS programs are young. There are a lot of good programmers and CS people around who don't have CS degrees because they got into the field before such programs were established. Ray Chen gatech!gitpyr!chen
gds@eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (02/17/86)
> From: rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) > An MIT (BSEE) graduate once told me that some day, a program will be written > that solves all problems. He was actually serious! Apparently, this was one of those MIT Course 6 people that "can't program themselves out of a wet bag", because if they had learned anything in their theoretical computer courses, they would have known that such a program is mathematically impossible. However, I could excuse an MIT BSEE of such a statement, since they don't take all the CS classes, but I would be surprised to hear a CS major say that. > EE programs are really 'practical math' degrees. A lot of time is > spent doing proofs of things like "DeMavre's Theorem". DeMoivre's Theorem, acutally. I think it is debatable whether or not someone should theoretically understand a concept and be able to apply it in practical situations. Most of the MIT undergraduate curriculum (not just Course 6, but the entire engineering school) is based upon teaching the theory of the subject and applying the theory in some practical situations. Of course all situations cannot be covered in the classroom (like porting vax code to 68000's, since typically you do all your assignments on a single machine). However, there are programs designed to give undergraduates exposure to solving practical problems in both research and production environments. The Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program gives undergraduates the chance to do research work in the lab groups of certain professors. Many companies have agreements with MIT to allow MIT students to do cooperative work and research at the company, as part of a combined 5-year BS/MS program. > A good engineer can mathmatically prove that 1+1=3. A good mathematician can tell you that such a proof requires division by zero, or some such incorrect assumption. I'm not going to go into a long-winded flame about whether it is better to have a degree or not to have one, or if people without degrees are better, or what is important in getting a product out. As the original poster said, different companies need different individuals to do different things. I agree that programs that are written should be fast, portable, etc. but I won't deny the importance of understanding the principles behind sorting, code optimization, etc. [Sorry for cross-posting to net.singles, but I wanted the people there to see it too.] -- 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.edu
campbell@sauron.UUCP (Mark Campbell) (02/17/86)
> [Blah, blah, blah...] > >The EE says 'get a bigger hammer', the BSCS says 'get a bigger saw' >and the BA says 'lets try a screw driver, lets try a wrench, lets try...' Unfortunately, the objects which are being manipulated are usually a board and nails in this case. (:-) An EE really says "Yo, BA, use apostrophes in contractions and quotes for quotes". (Sorry) >A BA also likes to 'simplify things' conceptually (often leading to >oversimplification). He is more concerned with the principles >specific implementation practices. BSEE's can complicate a wet dream ;=} > _____________________________________ > [Blah, blah, blah...] / / / (Freud must have been a BSEE!) ------- I'd just like to say how informative I've found this entire discussion. Over 90% of the volume has basically been an exercise in self-justification; a bunch of people arguing that they have the BEST possible degree and that anyone that doesn't have that degree is marginal at best. It's not very difficult to imagine the degree earned by the author of the above bullshi..., uh, article. My opinion? Let's see, my degrees were in EE... -- Mark Campbell Phone: (803)-791-6697 E-Mail: !ncsu!ncrcae!sauron!campbell
eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (02/18/86)
<3422@nsc.UUCP> <1405@gitpyr.UUCP>
A comment from a person without a completed CS degree (I've math degrees)
formerly working toward a phd who's gone to bat for CS degrees.
The CS degree is a valuable degree. It should not be a math degree or
a EE degree or anyother degree. I've have taken on more than two assignments
where the people hiring me didn't want a programmer/hacker/CS person,
what THEY really wanted was a radar engineer, or XYZ jockey who happened
to know how to program. Letters have been posted to the CACM saying they
wanted their CS people to have experience with chemistry, physics, and English.
Fine. But some of these people really want physicists who know programming,
chemists who know programming, and so forth.
There is no one single problem to pin point. The problems lie in
the political structure of universities (departments), the nature of
the teaching materials, what's taught and so forth.
First, CS degrees are important, but they are not math degrees. I know
several mathematicians who would make terrible programmers. Knuth wrote
an AMM paper last March I think on the differences. Basically, the
"fault" here can be found in early programming books where people believed
they knew how to program after reading a FORTRAN book (or Pascal, etc.).
This is not true, and it is where the CS major should be able to step in.
I learned to "program" years ago with learning about data structuring.
I learned about DS and their tradeoffs. It was really neat to ask a
friend (physicist) who asked about sorting techniques [after giving
him a couple of simple choices]: have you considered trees? No,
what are those? Well, let me illustrate... The CS major should
be able to help educate us old dogs.
Second, too many CS departments are wedded to the EE or math dept.
This is a historical trend which dates to the first CS departments
in the late 60s and early 70s but is still found in many smaller
schools such as the Cal State system (I've found). Why create
a new department? What biases are created. One of the biggest
problem areas for the next 20 years for those math centered
departments will be the emergence of stronger experimental programs.
CS is not very empirical by it's structure and composition.
I've had some discussons with Denning (PJ) here about it.
He wrote two editorials. Great. Does someone teach an experimental
methods class in a CS department? Let me know.
Also, many of the tools used to teach algorithms, programming, design
of compilers, OSes, etc. are too low-level. We teach "top-down
programming" in a bottom-up fashion!
There are other biases and factors, and spoke of two as well as an important
reason for you guys to exist: education. If you only could see the number
of highly paid programmers I have met who don't know what a stack is,
what semaphores (or rendevzous) are, why studying compilers are useful
for doing numerical methods, that languages and operating systems and
networks are merging..... What's worse is when people such as
these get into positions of decision making. This is why CS majors should
exist.
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
--eugene miya
NASA Ames Research Center
{hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene
eugene@ames-nas.ARPAg-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter) (02/19/86)
In article <> eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes: > >The CS degree is a valuable degree. It should not be a math degree or >a EE degree or anyother degree. I've have taken on more than two assignments >where the people hiring me didn't want a programmer/hacker/CS person, >what THEY really wanted was a radar engineer, or XYZ jockey who happened >to know how to program. Letters have been posted to the CACM saying they >wanted their CS people to have experience with chemistry, physics, and English. >Fine. But some of these people really want physicists who know programming, >chemists who know programming, and so forth. > Just a few words from someone senior (25 years in software). Most programming jobs are application jobs -- you are getting the machine to do something for somebody. In most programming assignments the most important things are to understand the application and understand the users needs. Things like algorithms, data structures, languages, and operating systems are simply tools that you use to get done what it is that you set out to do. You have to know these things; they are your basic stock of tools. You also have to know where and how to look things up. You have to be able to invent or build these things if you need them and they aren't available. You should also know how to learn an application area -- this year you are working on a radar system, so learn about radar. Next year you might be processing chemical data; learn about chemical data. Above all, you need to know how to relate to the people that you will be working for and with. There is no doubt that a CS degree is a valuable degree. Today they teach in the schools the things that we had to invent, often on the fly. The complaint in industry is that, all too often, people with CS degrees know only the tools and don't know that they are only tools. Too many don't understand applications, don't want to understand applica- tions, don't know how to learn about applications, and don't want to learn. Pity the poor radar engineer who hires the CS graduate who resists learning anything about radar -- I've seen it all too often. Perhaps the answer is that there should be more software engineering programs. I don't know. But it does seem to me that a lot of people who taking CS are being fundamentally short changed. Most people go to college with the expectation that what they learn will be of value to them in their future employment -- learn computers, and earn big bucks. Well, that's OK. But you get big bucks because you're valuable to someone who can pay big bucks. It would seem that part of your education should teach you what it means to be valuable and how to be valuable. Richard Harter, SMDS Inc.
ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin) (02/20/86)
I'm reposting fragments of the net.cse discussion to net.singles, in order to encourage interested parties to join us there. This message contains nothing new for net.cse people. If you read net.singles, and you're wondering about further education in CS, you'll want to be in on this. In article <6282@cca.UUCP>, g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes: > In article <> eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes: > > > >The CS degree is a valuable degree. It should not be a math degree or > >a EE degree or any other degree. [....] > > Just a few words from someone senior (25 years in software). > [........] > There is no doubt that a CS degree is a valuable degree. Today > they teach in the schools the things that we had to invent, often on the > fly. The complaint in industry is that, all too often, people with CS > degrees know only the tools and don't know that they are only tools. > Too many don't understand applications, > tions, don't know how to learn about applications, and don't want to learn.
stan@drilltech.UUCP (Stan Hanks) (02/24/86)
There seems to be a common thread of misconception involved in this discussion. Namely, that all BSEE's or BSCS's or random BA's are plug- compatible within their discipline. This is patently not the case. What is of value in your education -- technical or otherwise -- is that it gives you some ablility to use your mind to solve your problems. In the CS arena this most often means (1) knowing the "classical" solutions to certain types of problems [generalizes to "don't re-invent the wheel"], (2) knowing enough theory to give yourself a better understanding of the principles involved in the problem at hand [generalizes to "if you do re-invent the wheel, don't give it 5 sides"], (3) having the ability to go off and actually attempt to solve your problem [generalizes to "know where the tools are so you at least don't have to re-invent them too"]. 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. The value of this attendance is directly proportional to your ability to perform in a satisfactory manner -- and how much of this you gleaned for yourself as opposed to have been force-fed in class. It is my experience that the formal education process leading to degrees is in general worthless unless the individuals involved are interested enough in the subject to go off and learn more on their own. My credentials? BA in EE/CS, minor in Art History, graduate work in CS. Stan Hanks Senior Research Scientist Teleco Oilfield Services, Drilling System Technology
ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin) (02/25/86)
In article <18@drilltech.UUCP>, stan@drilltech.UUCP (Stan Hanks) writes: > > There seems to be a common thread of misconception involved in this > discussion. Namely, that all BSEE's or BSCS's or random BA's are plug- > compatible within their discipline. This is patently not the case. We have all agreed that they're not. There has been some discussion as to whether they *should* be. There's no misconception. > 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? > It is my experience that the formal education process leading to degrees > is in general worthless unless the individuals involved are interested > enough in the subject to go off and learn more on their own. It's very hard to get a 4.0 from a good school without being interested and motivated. And if someone could do that, think of what they could do when they find problems they're interested in! Peter Ladkin
rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) (02/26/86)
In article <612@sauron.UUCP> campbell@sauron.UUCP (Mark Campbell) writes: >Over 90% of the volume has basically been an exercise in self-justification; >a bunch of people arguing that they have the BEST possible degree and that >anyone that doesn't have that degree is marginal at best. From the BA: My intention was not to say that a BA is BETTER than BS or EE, only that 1: A good team should have ALL THREE TYPES. The BA might come up with some good stuff, but the BS will define the problems clearly, and the EE can make it fast/and or bullet-proof (as needed). The BA also makes a good buffer/interpreter between engineering and marketing. By the way, there are "creative BS and EE people" too! 2: If you have certain talents, don't go against them because you think you need a certain degree. Find a program that will help you build your strengths, and help you compensate for your weak areas. It is possible to go against the grain, but more rewarding in the long run to go with it. The most important thing for anyone in this field is the ability to LEARN. In an industry where "state of the art" changes twice a year, and anything over 10 years old is obsolete, it is critical to be able to spend a lot of time reading and staying up to date, rather than watching the TV at night. College teaches you the discipline of unsupervised, self-directed study. Some people are able to do that by the time they graduate from high school, they should go to college anyway. Bill Gates may have written Microsoft BASIC when he was in high school, but you can bet he's had to get at least the equivelent of a degree to manage todays Microsoft. Much of the first tirade came from knowing that there are a few companies who exclude BA's from developement teams. A good example of the BA/BS relationship comes from the film industry. Before the shooting starts, the director, a BA, has the lighting crew adjust the lights (he must know their terminology) until it looks right. Then the Cinimatographer, an EE, cranks all the lights back up. The director has the ability to see the finished product in his mind before it has even been started. The director knows what he wants it to look like, the EE knows how to make it look that way on film and TV. The EE knows how to get the best depth of field, the best modulation, the best picture. The same goes for the sound crew.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (02/26/86)
I'd like to amplify a couple of things Eugene Miya said, and also add some comments of my own based upon my experience in the workplace. Here at Maryland, due to the curious division/college structure, the CS department is totally independent of either the Math department or the Engineering College. It's also an important factor that the engineering department academic programs are very programatic, whereas those of Math and CS are rather free-form. This has tended to divorce the CS and engineering camps completely. While this set-up has a lot of advantages as far as the independence of the departments are concerned, it in practice leads to some problems. One is that the engineering college (and indeed, many departments across campus) has its own programming courses, which, unless a student takes a double-major, are likely to be the only programming courses he takes. Things may have changed somewhat, but my experience has been that these courses have always been years behind the times. When I was a "first-aid" consultant, we always saw six year old handouts and use of obselete software as a consistent pattern in these courses. None of these engineers were taught any languages besides Fortran and (very bad) assembly, and little or nothing about data structures was ever taught. The end result of this is to produce a lot of "programmers" who really don't know what they are doing. This was especially true when I worked for a defense laboratory. At the time, it was almost impossible for Civil Service to hire CS people: they could not pay enough, and the job classifications caused a lot of problems. I was in only because with my second major in Math, I could be classified as a mathematician. This meant that almost all the programmers were engineers. And these people were not just writing stress analysis programs either; they wrote realtime applications and huge simulations programs. The latter were generally monuments to ignorance, because those who wrote them had no idea about data structures or algorithms. When I moved on to a private employer, a similar situation reigned. At the time, this company was hiring its first real CS people, except for one or two who had been around for some time. They had written two very large personnel programs, both of which had some good ideas, but which tended to brute force and which had been patched to death. I came on board during the construction of a third, which, although it contained a number of good ideas, was hamstrung by a bad requirement on the part of the customer (who had been told that the decision was going to cause trouble) to use a particlar DB package, and by the presence of too many people who didn't know anything about data structures, structured programming, or algorithms. As a result, the project remains under a cloud. It seems to me that what you want is someone with the spark and flare of a "hacker", but who has computer science education, and who can work in a coordinated fashion with others. There are far too many hackers whose CS education is minimal; there are many many more who can only go off and work in a corner by themselves. In this respect, it seems clear to me that courses in software engineering ought to be part of CS curricula, and they should include group projects. Well, that's my opinion. C. Wingate
wex@milano.UUCP (02/27/86)
In article <3367@umcp-cs.UUCP>, mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: > It seems to me that what you want is someone with the spark and flare of a > "hacker", but who has computer science education, and who can work in a > coordinated fashion with others. Are Universities producing hackers these days? When I was at UPenn, I was disappointed to see how the hacker community was shrinking. In the classes before mine ('84), there were 10-12 hackers in each class. In my year there were about 7, the year after maybe 5, and I didn't see any after that. At the same time, the number of CSE majors was increasing, the number of people taking CS courses was skyrocketing, the quality of the staff, faculty and facilities were all increasing... I wonder if there are any new hackers being produced these days. Has something happened in the colleges or in society to cause this drop? Certainly the rewards are still there (and are even greater in most cases). But where are the hackers? Note, there are still many good programmers, theoreticians, etc. coming out, but that spark that Charlie mentioned seems to be gone. -- Alan Wexelblat ARPA: WEX@MCC.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4, seismo, harvard, gatech, pyramid}!ut-sally!im4u!milano!wex "No wife, no horse, no mustache."
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) (03/01/86)
In article <1046@milano.UUCP>, wex@milano.UUCP writes: > Are Universities producing hackers these days? When I was at UPenn, I was > disappointed to see how the hacker community was shrinking. In the classes > before mine ('84), there were 10-12 hackers in each class. In my year there > were about 7, the year after maybe 5, and I didn't see any after that. At > the same time, the number of CSE majors was increasing, the number of people > taking CS courses was skyrocketing, the quality of the staff, faculty and > facilities were all increasing... > > I wonder if there are any new hackers being produced these days. Has something > happened in the colleges or in society to cause this drop? Certainly the > rewards are still there (and are even greater in most cases). But where are > the hackers? > > Note, there are still many good programmers, theoreticians, etc. coming out, > but that spark that Charlie mentioned seems to be gone. > Hackers can only develop in an environment that is conducive to individual activity and non-structured persuit of self-determined goals. The current atmosphere in most CS programs, and at virtually *ALL* college and university computing centers is not thusly conducive. In many cases, such acticities are actively and viciously discouraged. Access to resources is becoming more and more limited (see related articles re: 'billing' practices), while freedom in the academic area is becoming less available. In essence, the mantle of respectability has fallen upon the CSci arena, thus raising up the push for conformity. Too put it bluntly, it stinks! -- ==================================== tom keller {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin) (03/01/86)
In article <3367@umcp-cs.UUCP>, mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: > [...] it seems clear to me that > courses in software engineering ought to be part of CS curricula, and they > should include group projects. Agreed, and they are all too rarely. Group programming is possible without a special course. Students in my compiler and OS courses are encouraged to work in groups. The projects are stiff enough that they have to. I have long been puzzled as to what should be in a software engineering course. It shouldn't just be Programming Methods N (for large N) else it will bore teacher and student alike. My favorite current candidate is Specification. There is much more to this than I had realised before I worked with (and designed) specification languages. Many of the problems are general enough to attract anyone's attention. A sample: Is first order logic an adequate specification language? (Traditional verification vs Gordon's HOL hardware verification examples). Are algebraic specifications adequate for Abstract Data Types? Does one need some set theory? Pick a problem - what is the most abstract specification of this problem? Is there one? Does it generalise? Pick an area (e.g. time modelling). How does one model temporal information in a given setting? (Temporal Logic, Interval Calculi, First order axiomatisations). These issues are not at all theoretical. I am currently working in an environment which allows me to define functions assertionally (with a fragment of first order logic and set theory) or procedurally. I have designed a time calculus, and can implement it using transformations from intervals to sets, defined assertionally. I would also claim (with theorems to back it up) that in a precise sense the time calculus is most general for countable time modelling (and who cares about higher infinities for applications). I am an experienced logician, therefore I have been used to specifying in first order logic. I nevertheless found that finding good specifications of problems in computer science was a subtle art that could be as difficult as you could wish for. I also know that most of my students, even the good ones, lack the ability and training in specification that I wished they had. I used to think a training in logic was adequate, but now I believe the problem is more general. I would appreciate suggestions for extending my sample list above. I would prefer a curriculum oriented to mental problem-solving, since I believe that in ten years our software engineering environments will be much more sophisticated, and somewhat similar to the one in which I currently work. In such an environment, training in *abstract* specification is likely to be much more important than having programmed a large editor in Pascal 10 years before. Peter Ladkin
aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP (03/02/86)
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. Rigour is not the exclusive preserve of CSs, nor does creativity solely belong to BAs. Most engineers chose to become engineers because they have this wonderful hard-to-articulate need to BUILD something. I became a programmer because systems are what I'm best at building, but my friends who became power engineers and microwave engineers did so because that's where their creative skills lay (I think the microwave engineers also like modern art). As for hackers - look for any small, underfunded, computer lab that has a resident undergraduate flunking his courses while he learns the machine. Trouble is, if he flunks too many courses, he gets expelled - the universities are still, literally, <<turning out>> hackers.
lamy@utai.UUCP (Jean-Francois Lamy) (03/03/86)
In article <25@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) writes: > Access to resources is becoming more and more limited (see related articles >re: 'billing' practices), while freedom in the academic area is becoming less >available. Huh? I see immense improvements in the first area (a PC a person for intro. courses is an improvement over cards... and many places have sufficient computing power to use cycle and memory hogs like Ada and Common Lisp -- even grossly underfunded canadian universities). As far as academic freedom is concerned, I see no essential difference. > In essence, the mantle of respectability has fallen upon the CSci arena, >thus raising up the push for conformity. Too put it bluntly, it stinks! You have to realise that students now are much more conservative than a few years ago. They can't party all the time and still rest assured to find a job... Their motivations for entering Computer Science programs are certainly different from mine 6 years ago. -- 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-relay
ebh@bentley.UUCP (Ed Horch) (03/05/86)
In article <25@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) writes: >In article <1046@milano.UUCP>, wex@milano.UUCP writes: >> I wonder if there are any new hackers being produced these days. >> Note, there are still many good programmers, theoreticians, etc. coming out, >> but that spark that Charlie mentioned seems to be gone. >> > Hackers can only develop in an environment that is conducive to individual >activity and non-structured persuit of self-determined goals. The current >atmosphere in most CS programs, and at virtually *ALL* college and university >computing centers is not thusly conducive. In many cases, such acticities >are actively and viciously discouraged. First, I'd like to thank these two for reminding us that the term "hacker" is not the obscenity the news media has tried (with a lot of success) to turn it into. I associate the term "hacker," in its good connotation, with tenacity, single-mindedness, and a desire to finish what one starts. Although these qualities do develop on an individual basis, they can still be applied in a group environment. It is this point that the colleges fail to recognize. I started programming at age 12, and got my first paycheck for it at 17. I have attended two colleges, and will attend a third starting this fall. (Obviously, I do not have a degree.) At the first two schools, one a respected private university in the Midwest, the other a state school in the Deep South, this "you do it OUR way" attitude was prevalent. At the first school, this was okay, since their curriculum taught the kinds of things that, six years later, I now apply every day. At the second, however, they taught FORTRAN, COBOL, Assembly, you know what I mean... There wasn't one full professor in the entire computer science department. Was I crazy for quitting out of boredom and frus- tration? ("Are there any keypunches free? Oh, the machine's down?") This fall I'm going to try again. To be honest, I don't expect to learn anything about software there either, but I may learn something in another field, like English. But I figure that maybe the no-degree stigma may finally be removed. Put another way, I want the piece of paper. Also, a university is populated with people closer to my own age, whereas my coworkers are usually just finishing grad school at my age. I don't agree with the way the system works, (my father, whose income mine exceeds by 50%, still thinks I'll never amount to anything...) but it never asked my opinion, so I have to play by its rules. Then, maybe I'll amount to something. :-( -Ed Horch