NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/comp/edu/1458

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-01 | 3.8 KB

Xref: sparky comp.edu:1458 comp.lang.fortran:3349 comp.lang.misc:2855 comp.arch:9136 sci.math:10818 sci.edu:954
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch,sci.math,sci.edu
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!utcsri!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca!mroussel
From: [e-mail] (Marc Roussel)
Subject: Re: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: sci.edu,comp.edu
Organization: Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:12:08 GMT
Lines: 58

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Charles Blair) writes:
>[e-mail] (Stu Zweben) writes:
>>This is one of the main reasons that the Computing Sciences Accreditation
>>Board was formed by ACM and IEEE-CS in the mid-80s.  Programs that are
>>accredited through CSAB must require 2/5 of a year of science (four courses,
>>including the equivalent of a two-semester sequence in a lab science for
>>science majors, and ...
>
>   I do not see why somebody intending to programming work, even in a real
>world setting, needs two semesters of lab science.

     I have redirected followups to sci.edu and comp.edu because this has almost
nothing to do with any of the other newsgroups in the Newsgroups line
anymore.
     The question which we are constantly nibbling around in this
discussion is "What's a computer scientist?"  I would tend to think that
a computer scientist is NOT a programmer, although I would guess (as an
outsider) that programming would be a useful skill to many computer
scientists in the same way that simple electronics is a useful thing for
an experimental physicist to know.
     More broadly, this discussion is running around in circles because
of a poorly addressed dichotomy in our universities:  We have both
students who want to learn and students who want to acquire skills.  (I
hope no one thinks I am being condescending to either group.  I see
nothing wrong with either pursuit but I refuse to accept the current
situation wherein neither group's needs are properly addressed.)  The
needs of the two groups are not entirely compatible.  The latter group
in particular is being ill-served by our system.  In my opinion, we need
to do one of two things:

      1) Separate the two functions of modern universities into
         distinct administrative units.  These could either be
         entirely different schools or just different faculties
         within existing universities.  A simple expansion of the
         mandate of existing Faculties of Applied Science or
         Engineering might be sufficient.

      2) Leave things more or less the way they are, but create new
         programs for people who want vocational training.  The
         advantage to this plan is that there could be some
         interaction between (for instance) the programming stream
         and the traditional computer science program.  The
         disadvantage is that the temptation to blur the significant
         differences between the two would be almost overwhelming.

     I favour the first plan since I think that far too many people are
taking general Arts and Science degrees for want of something better to
do.  A real separation which did not result in some silly stigma being
attached to the more practical program would address this problem.
Since there is no obvious stigma attached to being an engineer, I
conclude that some amalgamation of technical programs might be
successful.
     I realize that I have made these points in this forum before.  I hope
that older readers of this forum will forgive me for the repetition.

                Marc R. Roussel
                                [e-mail]