NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/comp/edu/1482

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-02 | 3.9 KB

Xref: sparky comp.edu:1482 comp.lang.fortran:3372 comp.lang.misc:2887 comp.arch:9168 sci.math:10863 sci.edu:958
Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!warwick!str-ccsun!strath-cs!st-and![e-mail]
From: [e-mail] (Tony Davie)
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch,sci.math,sci.edu
Subject: Re: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 2 Sep 92 11:08:28 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (NNTP access user)
Organization: St.Andrews University
Lines: 57
Nntp-Posting-Host: 138.251.192.26

Marc R. Roussel([e-mail]) says:

>      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 couldn't agree more. But I'm afraid it's very unfashionable nowadays
to distinguish between training and education. The UK has taken the bizarre
step recently of renaming their polytechnics (Institutes of Technology)
as universities and this has had the unfortunate effect of reinforcing the
confusion between training (which the polys are very good at) and education
(which the universities are supposed to be very good at).

We had, in the dim and distant past when I was a student, a prof. who
said that the only purpose of a university was to teach students how to
use a library. While slightly cynical, this contains more than a grain of
truth. A well educated person may not know how to do something but they
should know where to look to find out. It should not matter whether their
degree is in Computer Science, Ancient History or Theoretical Physics.

In particular, a well educated computer scientist should be able to know
where to look or who to ask to find out how to solve problems in partnership
with other scientists or accountants say.
Similarly a well educated Chemist or Biblical Scholar should be able to lay
their hands on the techniques necessary for programming their particular
application. It may be as simple as fetching those methods from libraries of
computer programs (this is known as software reuse) or as complicated as
knowing who to ask for help.

I refuse to believe that any sufficiently compicated application is
capable of being tackled by either specialist on their own.
Programming MUST be a cooperative process between experts in various techniques
learnt by each or available to them in learnt-of places.

Tony Davie (CS, St. Andrews University, Scotland - [e-mail])