From: boyer@cs.utexas.edu (Robert Boyer)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Petition for withdrawal of NRC report: Computing the Future
Date: 7 Sep 1992 12:45:09 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: ai.cs.utexas.edu

In article <JMC.92Sep6153940@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>
>Some people are pressing NRC to put the whole report on line.  As
>stated before, we OCRed the preface and executive summary, and
>they are available for anonymous ftp at sail.stanford.edu under
>the name  pub/jmc/preface.tex.  The other files in that directory
>also relate to the issue.

>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305

Below is the preface and executive summary to `Computing the Future',
which McCarthy got OCRed.  Sorry for this long post, more than 30K
characters, but perhaps it is more network efficient to post it to
USENET than to have it ftp'ed from sail.stanford.edu many times.
There have been over 100 signatures to the petition just this weekend.
Here again is the ordering info:

  National Academies Press
  2101 Constitution Ave.
  Washington, D.C. 20148

  1-800-624-6242

The price is $24.95 per copy + $3.00 shipping per order, and people
from California and Maryland have to pay sales tax.

\documentstyle[fullpage]{article}
\begin{document}


\centerline{\bf PREFACE}
\bigskip

In April 1990, the Computer Science and Technology Board (now the
Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (CSTB)) of the National
Research Council formed the Committee to Assess the Scope and
Direction of Computer Science and Technology. Composed of 16
individuals from industry and academia, the committee was charged with
assessing how best to organize the conduct of research and teaching in
computer science and engineering (CS\&E) in the future. The committee
took a broad outlook on its charge but chose to focus its efforts
primarily on academic CS\&E, which is both a major source of trained
personnel at all levels (for itself and for industry and commerce) and
a very important performer of research in the field. This dual role
suggests that positive changes in academic CS\&E will have high
leverage throughout industry and academia. 

The committee addressed
four questions in its deliberations:

1. {\it What is CS\&E?} What characterizes the intellectual content of the
field? How is it different from other fields? What are the
implications of rapid technological change for the field? What is the
science that underpins hardware and software computer technology? 

2. {\it How is the field doing?} What are the accomplishments of the field?
What is the impact of the field on society? What is the demographic
profile of the field? 

3. {\it What should the field be doing?} To what
extent and in what directions should the field change its educational
and research agenda?  How can the academic and industrial sectors 
work together more effectively?

4. {\it What does the field need in order to prosper?} Are current funding
emphases appropriate? What structural or institutional changes (if
any) are necessary to support academic CS\&E as it evolves into the
next century?

These questions are particularly appropriate given the circumstances
of today. From its beginnings as an organized and independent academic
discipline in the 1960s, academic CS\&E has been quite successful. It
has witnessed rapid growth in demand for computer scientists and
engineers, and it has worked hand in hand with the computer industry,
demonstrating the remarkably rich interaction possible between
academic and industrial CS\&E research. Indeed, together academic and
industrial CS\&E research have in a few short decades laid the
intellectual foundation and created the scientific base for one of the
most important technologies of the future. 

But today, both the
intellectual focus of academic CS\&E and the environment in which
academic CS\&E is embedded are in the midst of significant change. The
traditional intellectual boundaries of academic CS\&E are blurring with
the rise of in-depth programs and activities in computational science.
Universities themselves are retrenching; the computer industry is
undergoing substantial and rapid restructuring; and the increasingly
apparent utility of computing in all aspects of society is creating
demands for computing technology that is more powerful and easier to
use. Such changes motivate the forward-looking assessment of the field
that this report attempts to provide. 

Given the increasing
pervasiveness of computer-related technologies in all aspects of
society, the committee believes that several key groups will benefit
from an assessment of the state of academic CS\&E:

$\bullet$ {\it Federal policy makers}, who have considerable influence in
determining intellectual directions of the field through their control
of research budgets and funding levels; 

$\bullet$ {\it Academic computer
scientists and engineers}, who are the ``troops on the ground'' that do
research and teach students; 

$\bullet$ {\it University administrators}, who play
key roles in setting the intellectual tone of the academic
environment; and 

$\bullet$ {\it Industry}, which is by far the major employer of
CS\&E baccalaureate holders, one of the major employers of CS\&E Ph.D.
recipients, and (in the computer industry) a key player in CS\&E
research.

Each of these groups has a different perspective on the intellectual,
fiscal, institutional, and cultural influences on the field, and the
committee devoted considerable effort to forging a consensus on what
should be done in the face of the different intellectual traditions
that characterize various subfields of CS\&E and of different views on
the nature of the problems that the field faces. 

This report does not
address international dimensions of CS\&E in any detail or depth, other
than to note that the importance of CS\&E as an area of research is
recognized all over the world. Although the committee believes
strongly that international aspects of the field are worth considering,
it had neither the expertise nor the resources to focus on such
aspects. Appropriate sponsoring agencies and the Computer Science and
Telecommunications Board may wish to consider a study that addresses
international dimensions of the field. 

The report is divided into two
parts. Part I addresses in broad strokes the fundamental challenges
facing the field and what the committee believes is an appropriate
response to these challenges. Part II elaborates on certain issues in
greater detail. In particular, the reader unfamiliar with CS\&E as an
intellectual discipline will find the necessary background in Chapter
6. Readers unfamiliar with the institutional infrastructure of
academic CS\&E or the demographics of the field will find additional
detail in Chapters 7 and 8, respectively. 

A variety of previous
studies have addressed important aspects of the field. The Taulbee
surveys \footnote{David Gries, ``The 1984-1985 Taulbee Survey'' {\it
Communications of the ACM}, Volume 29(10), October 1986, pp. 972-977;
David Gries, ``The 1985-1986 Taulbee Survey,'' {\it Communications of
the ACM}, Volume 30(8), August 1987, pp. 688-694; David Gries and
Dorothy Marsh, ``The 1986-1987 Taulbee Survey,'' {\it Communications
of the ACM}, Volume 31(8), August 1988, pp. 984-991; David Gries and
Dorothy Marsh, 11The 1987-1988 Taulbee Survey,'' {\it Communications
of the ACM}, Volume 31(10), October 1989, pp. 1217-1224; David Gries
and Dorothy Marsh, ``The 1988-1989 Taulbee Survey'' {\it
Communications of the ACM}, Volume 33(9), September 1990, pp. 160-169;
David Gries and Dorother Marsh, ``The 1989-1990 Taulbee Survey,'' {\it
Computing Research News}, Volume 3(1), January 1991; and David Gries
and Dorothy Marsh, ``The 1990-1991 Taulbee Survey,'' {\it Computing
Research News}, Volume 4(10, January 1992, pp. 8 ff.}  of the past 
several years have reported on human resource
issues in CS\&E, CSTB's report {\it The National Challenge in Computer
Science and Technology}\footnote{Computer Science and Technology
Board, National Research Council, {\it The National Challenge in
Computer Science and Technology}, National Academy Press, Washington,
D.C., 1988.} discussed research opportunities in the field,
and the Hopcroft-Kennedy report\footnote{John E. Hopcroft and
Kenneth W. Kennedy, eds., {\it Computer Science Achievements and
Opportunities}, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics,
Philadelphia, 1989.} described in 
the scientific contributions of CS\&E. The 1989 ACM-CRA conference,
published as {\it Strategic Directions in Computer
Research,}\footnote{Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) and the Computing Research
Association \allowbreak{(CRA)}, {\it Strategic Directions in Computing Research,}
ACM Press, New York, 1990.} discussed
structural and long-range issues for the field. These studies provided
a strong foundation on which the committee built its comprehensive and
integrated assessment.

In addition, the CSTB, in cooperation with the Office of Scientific
and Engineering Personnel at the National Research Council, conducted
a companion project on human resources concurrently with this project.
The key activity of this project, a workshop on human resources in
computer science and technology held on October 28-29, 1991, addressed
the utility of current and proposed new taxonomies for classifying
computing professionals and considered present and future
supply-and-demand issues for the labor market for computer
specialists. Participants in the workshop included experts in computer
science and technology, labor market analysis, and the administration
of human resources. While certain insights of this workshop have been
incorporated into this report, a full report based on this workshop is
expected to be released in the summer of 1992.

The Committee to Assess the Scope and Direction of Computer Science
and Technology met in June and September of 1990 and in February,
June, and September of 1991.  It received input through briefings and
interviews with a variety of federal government officials and
representatives from the computer industry, from several major
commercial users of computer and information technology, and, through
the Computing Research Association, from heads of departments granting
Ph.D's in CS\&E.

The committee appreciates the time and thoughtful attention provided
by numerous individuals, who are listed in the appendix; in particular
the comments and criticisms of reviewers of early drafts of this
report are gratefully acknowledged. Of course, the findings,
conclusions, and judgments of this report are solely the
responsibility of the committee.

A variety of government agencies that sponsor computer research and
professional organizations in the computer field were interested in
conducting a broad-ranging assessment of the health of the field. Some
of them generously provided funding for this project; they include the
National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, the Air
Force Office of Scientific Research, and the Association for Computing
Machinery, Inc.

\vfill
\eject
\centerline{\bf EXECUTIVE SUMMARY}
\bigskip
As an academic discipline, computer science and engineering (CS\&E) has
been remarkably successful in its first decades of existence. But both
the intellectual focus of academic CS\&E and the environment in which
the field is embedded are today in the midst of significant change.
Accordingly, a proactive look forward will better prepare the field to
evolve into the 21st century. The Computer Science and
Telecommunications Board's Committee to Assess the Scope and Direction
of Computer Science and Technology was asked to take such a look,
examining how best to organize the conduct of research and teaching in
CS\&E for the future.

\bigskip

\centerline{\bf THE BACKDROP}
\bigskip

Computers and computing are ubiquitous in modern society. In nearly
every part of modern life, the hardware and software of computer
technology enable the delivery of services and products of higher
quality to more people in less time than would otherwise be possible.
Indeed, computing and increasingly powerful computers are the driving
force behind the movement of society into the information age,
affecting transportation, finance, health care, and most other aspects
of modern life; computing technology and related services account for
about 5 percent of the gross national product.

What has led to the unprecedented expansion of computational power?
The contributions of those who have made successive generations of
electronic components smaller, faster, lighter, and cheaper are
undeniable. But the organization of these components into useful
computer hardware (e.g., processors, storage devices, displays) and
the ability to write the software required to exploit this hardware
are primarily the fruits of CS\&E. Further advances in computer power
and usability will also depend in large part on pushing back the
frontiers of CS\&E and will be motivated by a myriad of applications
that can take advantage of these advances.

CS\&E research, in which the academic CS\&E community has played a major
role, has made enormous contributions to computing practice, and
insights derived from such research inform the approach of programmers
and machine designers at all levels, from those designing a
still-faster supercomputer to those programming a small personal
computer. Techniques and architectural themes developed or codified by
CS\&E are familiar to every developer of software and hardware,
concepts like programming languages, compilers, relational databases,
reduced-instruction-set computing, and so on. Moreover, as the
complexity of computing has grown, so also has the need for
well-understood concepts and theories with which to manage this
complexity. Indeed, entirely new CS\&E research problems and
opportunities today are created by rapid technological advances in
computing. Whereas intuitively grounded insight was often sufficient
to lead to substantial progress in the earliest days of the field, a
systematic approach has become increasingly important. Thus the
importance of CS\&E research to computing practice can only be expected
to increase in the future.

Federal support for CS\&E research has been critical. From its initial
support of CS\&E research for strictly military purposes, the federal
government now invests considerable amounts (\$680 million in FY 1991)
in basic and applied CS\&E research for both military and civilian
purposes; about 46 percent of this \$680 million went to academic
research. Such support is a strong indication that the federal
government recognizes the importance of CS\&E research to the missions
of many government agencies as well as to the welfare of the nation.
However, growth in funding, substantial though it has been in recent
years, has not kept pace with the growing need for a science base to
create, control, and exploit the potential of ever more powerful
computer systems. Nor has funding kept pace with the growth in the
number of academic CS\&E researchers; in the academic community, 
the ratio of funding per researcher has dropped by over 20
percent since 1985. Such trends have led to substantial concern within
this community that resources are inadequate to support a research
agenda vigorous enough to exploit advances and address problems as
they arise.

Decreasing per capita amounts of federal research funding are only one
aspect of a new environment for academic CS\&E. Assumptions of the
1940s and 1950s regarding the positive social utility of basic
research (i.e., research without foreseeable application) are being
questioned increasingly by the federal government, and justifications
for research may well in the future require concrete demonstrations of
positive benefit to the nation. An illustration of this possible trend
is that the High Performance Computing and Communications Program, a
program initiated in FY 1992, calls for CS\&E research specifically in
the context of solving ``fundamental problem[s] in science and
engineering, with potentially broad economic, political, and/ or
scientific impact, that could be advanced by applying high performance
computing resources.'' \footnote{Office of Science and Technology
Policy, {\it The Federal High Performance Computing Program},
Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C., September 8,
1989, p.9.}

In addition, another major influence on academic CS\&E, the computer
industry, is undergoing massive change as it shifts from sales based
on large mainframe computers affordable by only a few institutions to
``computers for the masses,'' i.e., smaller computer systems that are
increasingly portable and interconnectable to each other or to
information service providers, and most probably embodying new
computing styles such as pen-based computing. Such a trend will
increase the importance, already considerable, of being able to
introduce new products on a much shorter time scale. At the same time,
customers are demanding greater degrees of functionality from their
computer systems. New computing technology will have to be fitted to
customer needs much more precisely, thus placing a premium on
knowledge of the customer's application. New applications of computing
will also lead to new CS\&E research problems.

Finally, computing has resulted in costs to society as well as
benefits. Amidst growing concern in some sectors of society with
respect to issues such as unemployment, invasions of privacy, and
reliance on fallible computer systems, the computer is no longer seen
as an unalloyed positive force in society.

These changes in the environment for academic CS\&E mark a critical
juncture for the discipline. It is rapidly becoming clear that,
although academic CS\&E has enjoyed remarkable success in the last
several decades, the ways of the past will not necessarily lead to
success in the future.

\bigskip
\centerline{\bf JUDGMENTS AND PRIORITIES}
\bigskip

In considering appropriate responses of CS\&E for the future, the
committee examined the current state of the field and made several
important judgments that guided its work.

The first and foremost judgment was that CS\&E is coming of age.
Although as an organized and independent intellectual discipline the
field is less than 30 years old, it has established a unique paradigm
of scientific inquiry that is applicable to a wide variety of
problems. Indeed, the committee believes that this history and
resulting strength should enable academic CS\&E to recognize that
intellectually substantive and challenging CS\&E problems can and do
arise in the context of problem domains outside CS\&E per se. CS\&E
research can be framed within the discipline's own intellectual
traditions but also in a manner that is directly applicable to other
problem domains, as illustrated in Table ES.1. CS\&E can thus be an
engine of progress
\vfill
\eject

\centerline{TABLE ES.1 Importance of Core Subfields of CS\&E to Selected
Applications}
\hrule

\begin{tabular}{lllll}
                   &   Global Change& Computational& Commercial& Electronic \\
Core Subfield    &     Research &     Biology    &   Computing & Library\\

Multiple processors &  Very     &    Central   &   Important&  Very\\
                    &  important &             &            &    important \\

Data communications &  Central &      Important  &   Central  &  Central \\
 and networking   \\

Software engineering & Important&     Very       &   Central &   Important \\
                     &          &     important &			\\

Information storage &  Central    &   Very    &      Very  &     Central\\
and management       &            &   important   &  important \\

Reliability        &   Very     &     Important  &   Very    &   Important \\
                     & important   &               & important  \\

User interfaces    &   Very    &      Very      &    Central &   Central\\
                    &  important&     important 			\\

\end{tabular}

\hrule
\medskip
NOTE: The core subfields listed above constitute a future research
agenda for CS\&E. As significantly, they are important to, and can
derive inspiration and challenging problems from, these selected
application domains. The core subfields correspond to areas in which
major qualitative and quantitative changes of scale are expected.
These areas are processor capabilities and multiple-processor systems,
available bandwidth and connectivity for data communications and
networking, program size and complexity, management of large volumes
of data of diverse types and from diverse sources, and the number of
people using computers and networks. Understanding and managing
these changes of scale will pose many fundamental problems in CS\&E,
and using these changes of scale properly will result in more powerful
computer systems that will have profound effects on all areas of human
endeavor.
\smallskip
\hrule
\bigskip
and conceptual change in other problem domains, even as these domains
contribute to the identification of new areas of inquiry within CS\&E.

Second, the strong connections between CS\&E research and computing
practice led the committee to conclude that at least within CS\&E, the
traditional separation of basic research, applied research, and
development is dubious. Given the way research in CS\&E is practiced,
distinctions between basic and applied research are especially
artificial, since both call for the exercise of the same scientific
and engineering judgment, creativity, skill, and talent.

Finally, the committee concluded that the growing ubiquity of
computing within society places a premium on the largest possible
diffusion of CS\&E expertise to all endeavors in society whose
computing applications stress the existing state of the art. However,
the primary vehicle for such diffusion--undergraduate CS\&E
programs--is highly variable in content and quality, largely due to
rapid advancements in the field. It is imperative that undergraduate
CS\&E education reflect the best knowledge and insight that the field
has to offer if computing is to reach its full potential within
society.

These judgments led to the committee's formulation of a set of
corresponding overall priorities.

$\bullet$ {\bf The first priority is to sustain the core effort in CS\&E}, i.e.,
the effort that creates the theoretical and experimental science base
on which computing applications build. This core effort has been deep,
rich, and intellectually productive and has been indispensable for its
impact on practice in the last couple of decades.

$\bullet$ {\bf The second priority is to broaden the field.} Given the many
intellectual opportunities available at the intersection of CS\&E and
other problem domains and a solid and vigorous core effort in CS\&E,
the committee believes that academic CS\&E is well positioned to
broaden its self-concept. Such broadening will also result in new
insights with wide applicability, thereby enriching the core.
Furthermore, given the pressing economic and social needs of the
nation and the changing environment for industry and academia, the
committee believes that academic CS\&E {\it must} broaden its self-concept or
risk becoming increasingly irrelevant to computing practice.

$\bullet$ {\bf The third priority is to improve undergraduate education in CS\&E}.
The quality of undergraduate CS\&E education is inextricably tied to
the state of computing practice in all sectors of society. Moreover,
better undergraduate education is necessary for better research, since
it is necessary for transmitting recently developed core knowledge to
the next generation and for providing the intellectual basis in CS\&E
for individuals pursuing a broader research agenda.

\bigskip
\centerline{\bf RECOMMENDATIONS (A SUMMARY)}
\bigskip

In the interests of brevity, this summary of recommendations omits
many substantive details. Readers are urged to read the full text of
the recommendations in Chapter 5.

\bigskip
\centerline {\bf To Federal Policy Makers Regarding Research}
\bigskip

{\it Recommendation 1}. {\bf The High Performance Computing and
 Communications (HPCC) Program should be fully supported
throughout the planned five-year program.}

The HPCC Program is of utmost importance for three reasons. The first
is that high-performance computing and communications are essential to
the nation's future economic strength and competitiveness, especially
in light of the growing need and demand for ever more advanced
computing tools in all sectors of society. The second reason is that
the program is framed in the context of scientific and engineering
grand challenges. Thus the program is a strong signal to the CS\&E
community that good CS\&E research can flourish in an applications
context and that the demand for interdisciplinary and
applications-oriented CS\&E research is on the rise. And finally, a
fully funded HPCC Program will have a major impact on relieving the
funding stress affecting the academic CS\&E community. Consistent with
Priority 1, the committee believes that the basic research and human
resources component of the HPCC program is critical, because it is the
component most likely to support the research that will allow us to
exploit anticipated technologies as well as those yet to be discovered
through such research.

The committee is concerned about the future of the HPCC Program after
FY 1996 (the outer limit on current plans). If the effort is not
sustained after FY 1996 at a level much closer to its planned FY 1996
level than to its FY 1991 level of \$489 million, efforts to exploit
fully the advances made in the preceding five years will almost
certainly be crippled. In view of the long lead times needed for the
administration's planning of major initiatives, {\bf the committee
recommends that funding necessary for exploitation of recently
performed research and the investigation of new research topics be
fully assessed sometime during FY 1994 with an eye toward a fol1ow-on
HPCC Program.}

{\it Recommendation 2.} {\bf The federal government should initiate an effort to
support interdisciplinary and applications-oriented CS\&E research in
academia that is related to the missions of the mission-oriented 
federal agencies and departments that are not now major
participants in the HPCC Program. Collectively, this effort would cost
an additional \$100 million per fiscal year in steady state above
amounts currently planned.}

Many federal agencies are not currently participating in the HPCC
Program, despite the utility of computing to their missions, and they
should be brought into the program. Those agencies that support
substantial research efforts, though not in CS\&E, should support
interdisciplinary CS\&E research, i.e., CS\&E research undertaken
jointly with research in other fields. Problems in these other fields
often include an important computational component whose effectiveness
could be enhanced substantially by the active involvement of
researchers working at the cutting edge of CS\&E.

Those agencies that do not now support substantial research efforts of
any kind, i.e., operationally oriented agencies, should consider
supporting applications-oriented CS\&E research because of the
potential that the efficiency of their operations would be
substantially improved by some research advance that could deliver a
better technology for their purposes. Such research could also have
considerable ``spin-off''  benefit to the private sector as well.

\bigskip
\centerline {\bf To Universities Regarding Research}
\bigskip

{\it Recommendation 3.} {\bf Academic CS\&E should broaden its research horizons,
embracing as legitimate and cogent not just research in core areas
(where it has been and continues to be strong) but also research in
problem domains that derive from nonroutine computer applications in
other fields and areas or from technology-transfer activities.} The
academic CS\&E community should regard as scholarship any activity that
results in significant new knowledge and demonstrable intellectual
achievement, without regard for whether that activity is related to a
particular application or whether it falls into the traditional
categories of basic research, applied research, or development.
Chapter 5 describes appropriate actions to implement this
recommendation.

{\it Recommendation 4.} {\bf Universities should support CS\&E as a laboratory
discipline (i.e., one with both theoretical and experimental
components).} CS\&E departments need adequate research and teaching
laboratory space; staff support (e.g., technicians, programmers, staff
scientists); funding for hardware and software acquisition,
maintenance, and upgrade (especially important on systems that retain
their cutting edge for just a few years); and network connections. New
faculty should be capitalized at levels comparable to those in other
science or engineering disciplines.

\bigskip
\centerline{\bf To Federa1 Policy Makers Regarding Education}
\bigskip

{\it Reconmendation 5.} {\bf The basic research and human resources component of
the High Performance Computing and Communications Program should be
expanded to address educational needs of certain faculty.} The program
described in Chapter 5 to address these needs is estimated to cost \$40
million over a four-year period.

Of particular concern are two groups: CS\&E faculty who are not
themselves involved in CS\&E research and researchers from other
scientific and engineering disciplines that depend on computation.
Many of these individuals received their education in computing many
years ago and are unfamiliar with new paradigms in CS\&E developed over
the last decade or so. They would benefit from exposure to these
paradigms, and such exposure could well have a major impact on the
quality of undergraduate CS\&E education in the United States, as well
as on the nation's ability to use computing in support of other
science and engineering.

The committee believes that senior academic CS\&E researchers have an
obligation to participate actively in providing such continuing
education efforts. Mechanisms to encourage their attention to these
matters need to be developed; one example is that research funding
could be used to some extent to encourage participation in these
efforts.

\bigskip
\centerline{\bf To Universities Regarding Education}
\bigskip

{\it Recommendation 6.} {\bf So that their educational programs will reflect a
broader concept of the field, CS\&E departments should take the
following actions:} (a) Require Ph.D. students either to take a
graduate minor in a non-CS\&E field or to enter the Ph.D. program with
an undergraduate degree in a non-CS\&E field, (b) encourage Ph.D.
students in CS\&E to perform dissertation research in nontraditional
areas, (c) offer undergraduate students not majoring in CS\&E a wide
range of CS\&E courses and programs, and (d) provide mechanisms to
recognize and reward faculty for developing innovative and challenging
new curricula that keep up with technological change and make
substantive contact with applications in other domains.

{\it Recommendation 7.} {\bf The academic CS\&E community must reach out to women
and to minorities that are underrepresented in the field particularly
as incoming undergraduates) to broaden and enrich the talent pool.} 
Such outreach is necessary if CS\&E is to fulfill the potential for
inclusion of such groups that might be expected given the youth of the
field.

\bigskip
\centerline {\bf CONCLUSIONS}
\bigskip

Since the invention of the electronic stored-program digital computer
less than 50 years ago, CS\&E has blossomed into a new intellectual
discipline with broad principles and substantial technical depth. By
embracing the computing challenges that arise in many specific problem
domains, computer scientists and engineers can build on this legacy,
guiding and shaping the course of the information revolution. This
expansive view of CS\&E will require a commensurately broader
educational agenda for academic CS\&E, as well as undergraduate
education of higher quality. Adequate funding from the federal
government and greater interactions between academia and industry and
commerce will help immeasurably to promote the broadening and
strengthening of the discipline. If the major thrusts of this
report--sustaining the CS\&E core at currently planned levels,
broadening the CS\&E discipline, and upgrading undergraduate CS\&E
education to reflect the best of current knowledge--are widely
accepted in the CS\&E community, the community--as well as government,
industry, and commerce--will be well positioned to meet the coming
intellectual challenges as well as to make substantial and
identifiable contributions to the national well-being and interest.

\bigskip\bigskip
\noindent [A Latex source of this document is available by anonymous
ftp at sail.stanford.edu with the name pub/jmc/preface.tex.]
\end{document}