From: zweben@linguine.cis.ohio-state.edu (Stu Zweben)
Subject: Re: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted)
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:32:08 GMT

In article <PCG.92Sep1164927@aberdb.aber.ac.uk> pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:

>
>Surely you jest here. The CSAB was created mostly because some less well
>known Universities want a substitute for the reputation they don't have.
>The famous Universities don't need any accreditation, they have a
>reputation. And viceversa.
>
>A secondary goal was to create the framework for an eventual future
>licensing of computer science professionals, managed by the two
>societies above, to provide them with a power base similar to that of
>professional bodies of other professions that by tradition and law can
>enforce restrictive practices.
>
>Another secondary goal was to create teaching jobs for doctors in CS,
>and also in various disciplines that are not as popular as CS in student
>numbers, but that are powerful in University politics.
>
>These are the goals of accreditation programmes thruout the world.
>Verbiage about "ensuring a minimum standard" is just window dressing,
>even if at times (doublethink!) some people that advocate such
>programmes honestly believe in it. Too bad there is now way a minimum
>standard can be ensured by purely formal requirements:
>


Many of those responsible for forming CSAB were not from "less well-known"
institutions.  Their schools didn't need to have accreditation to be 
recognized in the community.  Their institutions offered Ph.D.s in computer
science, and their reputation was not going to be made or not made by
the fact that their UNDERGRADUATE program was or was not accredited.  If
some programs became better known because they are accredited, that's fine
with me.  They deserve recognition from some of us who otherwise would not
give their programs' graduates a second look.

I don't want to touch the licensing issue here, because that's a whole other
thread.  I was on the ACM Council when the subject of CSAB approval was 
debated in the early-to-mid 80s.  I can assure you that the licensing issue 
was as controversial then as it is now.  Yet the vote to approve CSAB's 
formation was opposed by only 3 of 25.  At least one of those opposing it 
did so for reasons totally unrelated to the problems of licensing; I don't 
know for sure about the other two.  If licensing was such an important 
factor, it would have been more prevalent in the debate and influential in 
the vote.

At the time CSAB was created, the last thing universities needed was to
look for new places for their Ph.D. graduates to be employed.  There were
far more jobs available for Ph.D.s than there were Ph.D.s to be hired.
Perhaps the creators of CSAB were looking to a time like this for protection
of their Ph.D. programs in times like we are in today, but I doubt it.  
However, the existence of CS accreditation does provide reasons to hire 
Ph.D.s in CS and CE, and therefore it also provides self-interest for even
the strongest in reputation to support the accreditation process.


Stu Zweben
Ohio State University


Newsgroups: soc.college,comp.sys.mac.programmer,misc.education