From: idfriedm@hertz.uwaterloo.ca (id friedman)
Subject: Re: Computer Science Programs
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:09:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.020350.26435@src.umd.edu> clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles C. Lin) writes:
>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 the short term, maybe. But in the long-term people who can combine
 ideas from different disciplines, etc.. are extremely valuable as 
 companies look for *** creativity *** as a source of competetitive
 advantage.

  For example, one of the top MBA schools in the US, Univ. of Chicago, 
  apparently started a program in which students study architecture and
  art in Europe for about a month before classes ( to introduce them to
  other modes of thinking or whatever).

  M

  This is one of the top business schools!!
>
>   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
>
>
>

Ishay
Xref: sparky soc.college:3634 comp.sys.mac.programmer:14196 misc.education:3151