From: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin)
Subject: Re: Computer Science Programs
Reply-To: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles C. Lin)
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 02:03:50 GMT

In article <mwalker-180892163404@mwalker1.npd.provo.novell.com.>, mwalker@novell.com (Mel Walker) writes:
[my comments are indented]
> >     My feeling is that in computer science, more tham almost
> > any other engineering or science, you need to learn a lot
> > of the more "practical" things on your own.
> 
> That's why it's called Computer "Science". Nobody majors in Physics to
> become an engineer, right? They take Engineering with a little bit of
> Physics. If all someone wants to do is program, they should take some
> vocational courses along with a little bit of theory.

   Well, I had a long debate with some folks over whether computer
"science" is a "science" (it all had to do with noticing "science"
quoted by someone at Yale).  Rather not get into that again.

   I think you're right.  Most majors in sciences/math/engineering
even those that may seem pratical, almost always throw in some
theory here and there, to make it hard, and therefore, supposedly
worthwhile.   So, if one is trule interested in programming,
but more practically, it might be better to major in something
else, and take computer science courses that interest you.
Unless of course, you can deal with the math.  In that
case, majoring in it may be no problem at all.

   On a related note, (mainly to Darrin's post), I wonder whether
it should be the objective of schools to train for jobs.  This
has certainly been the attitutde during all the eighties and
up to current times.   It used to be (in the early seventies
and late sixties), that some people felt that higher education
was meant to broaden the mind.   Of course, the typical retort
is that broadened minds don't put dinner on the table.

   In any case, it seems that the "better" schools, or the
ones with the so-called repuation tend to favor a more
theoretical treatment.  Why do some schools teach Scheme?
Because some of those folks who are interested in more
functional languages feel that functional languages are
the way to go.  Obviously, C is popular (and, ugh, even
FORTRAN), and it's popularity will keep it popular for
a long time to go, with everyone fearful of not learning
it.  On the other hand, I'm not so sure that just because
a school doesn't teach it doesn't mean that one can't learn
the language on one's own.

   Personally, I think that if they didn't teach theory,
then there would be no new, interesting developments.  Where
would someone be interested in theory if it was never taught?
For example, calculus is taught in high school, and yet
some folks will never use it, even having learned it.  Physics
and chemistry tend to be required, but many never learn
anything approaching useful from it, and yet I think there
is some benefit with having learned it.  Even if the material
is not remembered, just trying to solve problems and such is
a skill that might be used elsewhere.

   I think there should be some aims toward more practicality,
but that some theory should always be required.

--
Charles Lin
clin@eng.umd.edu