> I don't believe that University courses are the way to go.

Well, there are pros and cons here. I'd say that the main issue is quality. If you are getting material directly from a famous, tenured, chaired, full professor at a top research university, say, Princeton or Stanford, then you have a good shot at getting the best quality there is. That sense of quality can be important in picking good future directions and avoiding poor ones. So, the stuff you get from Knuth, Sedgewick, Ullman, etc. is going to be tough to improve on. There are ways at times to have some improvement, but basically start with Knuth, etc.

If you want to get the stuff from Knuth, etc., good, but you don't necessarily have to get it in person; their books can also be good. In my education, I got my sense of quality from some high end material in pure and applied mathematics, and that sense of quality applies well enough to computing when read from Knuth, etc. So, the courses I took in math were important.

I'd say that likely somewhere do need some good courses from some good people. If you can't get such courses, then pick very carefully what you study. If you see something in both Knuth and Sedgewick, then likely that is an important topic, so take it seriously. If you are going to buy a car, then you will investigate well before you buy. Do the same for topics in computer science. That is, there's a lot of junk out there, and you could waste a lot of time on that junk, so be careful in what you pick to pursue.

But in the end, just for computer science, no, you don't actually need courses. I've taught courses in computer science at two major universities, but I really never took a course in computer science and, instead, learned from Knuth, papers, and what I dragged over from pure and applied math. I've published in computer science and artificial intelligence but, still, never took a course in the stuff.

By "exposure to that material", I'm unsure just what you mean: Go to a library, photocopy 20 pages or so from each of Knuth and Sedgewick, take notes on the rest, and call it done.

In the end, first cut, what you want from Knuth and Sedgewick is mostly just to use them as references. To this end, maybe get copies of the tables of contents. Might be able to do well enough just from Amazon.

Uh, for 'Knuth', mostly I'm talking about just his volumes 'The Art of Computer Programming', TACP. His volume 'Sorting and Searching' is the most relevant here. One of his other volumes has a fantastic collection of binomial and combinatorial formulas. If you have trouble going to sleep, that volume could do wonders.

Or, the main material is so simple we can cover it right here: You want to
know the basic material on algorithms and data structures. Great. So, the main algorithms you want are just what Knuth calls "sorting and searching". For sorting, learn at least merge sort and quick sort. For more learn heap sort and radix sort. The heap data structure is darned clever; I recommend you learn it. Right: Radix sort is what the old punched card machines used and in an important sense is the fastest of the four I mentioned. That's an hour each. Likely Wikipedia could be enough for these. Actually Wikipedia has a super cute animated GIF on what heap sort does. For an exercise: You have a disk file with 100 million numbers. You want to read the file once and end up with the 100 largest of those numbers. Write some software using the heap data structure to construct a 'priority queue' to make this operation fast. This is real: I needed it in my work and coded it up. It may also be a standard Google interview question.

For searching, that's first cut mostly just binary search, and that's mostly just what anyone does when looking up a word in a dictionary. Read about binary search for an hour and write a binary search routine. Done. Exercise: Suppose you have 1 million key-value pairs in an array sorted in order on the keys. Suppose you have 100 keys and for each want to look up the values. So, you can just apply binary search 100 times. Right. But could you speed that up a little? What would be the 'best' way to speed that up? For this last, there may be a research paper in it. Maybe. This exercise is real: In my work I needed to do this, thought of a solution, wrote the code, and it's in my production software. The solution I found I'm sure is significantly faster than just doing binary search 100 times, but I don't know the fastest solution (and don't much care).

Publish? The world is awash in computer science profs who would jump through flaming hoops to publish anything they can get accepted. So if you publish, then in a sense you have beaten a lot of them. So, net, no one can say you are not a computer scientist, even if you never touched Rails. And for silly job interview white board exercises to 'see how you think', can just say that your best evidence on how you think is in your published papers, which actually is a good answer. Besides, really it's nobody's business 'how you think' as long as you do, and a published paper proves that you do think well. Maybe you think only standing on your head in a shower. Fine.

For more in binary search, suppose for some positive integer n you have 100 million n-tuples of floating point numbers and want to put this data into a data structure to permit, given one more such n-tuple, a fast way to find its nearest neighbor in the 100 million. Yup, it's a real problem I had once. So, likely a first step will be something like binary search except on the n dimensions. Now you will have reinvented k-D trees, and it's in Sedgewick. Now for the rest, that's another exercise!

For data structures, of course you know arrays from just nearly any programming language. With arrays you can construct queues, linked lists, etc. These are too trivial even to describe.

Then, of course, there are trees. First cut, these are dirt simple. There are some issues in 'storage management', but now mostly can leave that to the
programming language, e.g., any of the Microsoft languages on the 'common language runtime' (CLR).

Then with trees, can have a 'binary' tree, and that just means that each parent has at most two children. Then can quickly see how to have the 'leafs' of the tree have your data. Data? Right, that is mostly just key-value pairs, and you want to 'search' given a key and look up the value. We're talking something about as sophisticated as working with file folders or index cards.

Well, a binary tree can become 'unbalanced', so often we don't want that. So, the first good solution was AVL trees in Knuth. Now there are red-black trees, likely in Sedgewick. They are cute. They are also the basis of collection classes in object oriented languages and the 'look up' means in several interpretative scripting languages.

Such balanced binary trees are so good that they are nearly a 'do everything' data structure and remove much of the interest in hash tables, extensible hashing, etc.

But trees can be not just binary but with each parent with multiple children. Then have a multi-way branched tree. The main one of interest is B-trees from Bayer and McCreight or some such, at the time at Boeing, long ago. They are used much like AVL trees, that is, are balanced, and mostly are for storing data in direct access, fixed length records on hard disk. Then likely B-trees are or have been the key bottom level means of access for all or nearly all of database.

There's no end of more, but here we've outlined s most of a first cut. Can cover it well in two lectures, and I gave you an outline in a few minutes. We're not talking a biggie here.

Then there is the big-O notation. So, suppose have a sorting algorithm, and for a positive integer n when sorting n items the sorting time grows proportional to, say, (n)ln(n). So, we say that the algorithm runs in 'order'
(n)ln(n) and write that as O((n)ln(n)).

Look up in Knuth
the exact definition of big-O. Personally I don't use big-O notation so don't remember the exact definition. I could guess. But once I looked up the exact definition and tried to redo calculus with just big-O notation instead of the usual limits and concluded that the goal was either too clumsy or not possible. So I'm not a fan of big-O.

For computing just saying that the execution time is proportional to, say, (n)ln(n) is good enough (as accurate as we please for sufficiently large n even if not very accurate for small n), and big-O is only a little more precise but still quite crude as a way to express running time. E.g., usually in big-O people are only counting, say, comparisons or multiplications and ignoring everything else. In particular they usually ignore virtual memory locality of reference, effect on cache concurrency, etc. And they omit the constant of proportionality out front. Gads. So, big-O is usually quite crude. So getting too serious about big-O notation is to try to polish something better flushed.

Why care about (n)ln(n)? Because in sorting the usual alternative is n^2, and easily in practice the difference in running time is very important.

This stuff about running time, that is, 'computational time complexity', is a big theme in high end computer science research. Indeed, the famous unsolved problem P versus NP is just about running time. That is, it's easy enough to find an algorithm that solves problems of size n, for positive integer n, in time proportional to 2^n, but what we would like, first cut, is an algorithm that is guaranteed to solve the problems in time proportional to n^k for small positive integer k. Find one of those and collect $1 million from Clay Mathematics in Boston and get your choice of chaired, full professor slots at leading research universities. You will also get a nice parking spot, a nice table at the faculty club, a nice office with a good view of the quadrangle, get to meet rich people the university president wants to give money, etc. Commonly you will have your choice of undergraduate coeds as your secretary. So, rush right away and find an algorithm that shows P = NP and f'get about all the details of C++, TCP/IP IPv6, PowerShell, Python, Rails, IIS, SQL, LALR parsing, ASP.NET, HTML5, etc.!

Or with your algorithm, to heck with the professorship and, instead start a company, Optimization as a Service, OaaS, and be worth, say, $10 billion. Am I joking about the $10 billion? Not really. An algorithm that showed P = NP would be one of the largest steps up in the 'ascent of man' ever.