[Edu-sig] Computer science without all that "heavy math" stuff...?

[Danny Yoo]

[First, I have to apologize in advance; I think this post a rant.  Now
that I've written it, it really doesn't touch on Python, although it hints
at the role of CP4E.]


Recently, the Potomac Tech Journal published an article:

    "Universities aren't serving the IT workforce"

http://www.potomactechjournal.com/displayarticledetail.asp?art_id=48819&sec_id=95

which I found offensive in the article's attitude toward computer science
education.  The article seems to argue that CS education should cater more
towards the IT workplace, removing prerequesites that are not "needed by
business".


He uses his son as an example of how CS education has failed him.

"""My son now attends Boston College, majoring in business and computer
science. After one semester of computer science, he decided he didn't care
for the heavy math concentration, in spite of the fact that he loves to
write code and has done so for several years. Another IT worker lost."""


My argument with the article is that it assumes that the charter of a
computer science education is to make good little IT tech workers.  It
seems to ask "What good is education?"  Didn't Pythagoras or Euclid have
to deal with this attitude once?  If CP4E ever becomes widely implemented,
will educators also have to defend what they teach on the basis of direct
application?


I don't think application training is what computer science should
primarily be about.  If one wants to find a place to get IT training, the
trade schools are simply a more appropriate place.  On the other hand,
computer science should expose students to ideas as well as techniques.  
In short: it should be dense but filling.

Furthermore, the article's view of computer science completely ignores the
role that mathematics plays in CS.  For example, computer graphics uses
linear algebra and artificial intelligence uses logic --- both would be
empty calories without the technical content.  These two fields are
significant, even in a business setting, and it seems a very shallow view
to restrict an CS education to "IT".


The author concludes with:

"""Our colleges and universities are supposed to be training the workers
of the future. Despite the current soft economy, well-educated technology
workers will be in demand for many years to come, so institutions of
higher education would be wise to make curriculum adjustments now in order
to meet this long-term demand."""

If direct applicability is the article's argument, then even the author
must admit that some "theory" is necessary to create a well-educated and
effective workforce.  Still, even with the shallowness of the argument,
the article still touches on an attitude that seems common: what good is
education if it cannot be applied?