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

[Alan Gauld]

Pah, finger trouble meant the first attempt at a 
reply got blitzed half way thru', if it turns up 
ignore it, sorry...

>I think this post a rant.  

Thats OK I had one on a related them a few months ago.
Partly based on the response to that I'll chip in here.

>Recently, the Potomac Tech Journal published an article:
>
>    "Universities aren't serving the IT workforce"
>...
> which I found offensive in the article's attitude 
> toward computer science education.  

I think the article is understandable and I agree with 
the underlying sentiment. I think the autheor is 
simply revealing a fundamental misunderstanding of 
what Computer Science is about as a subject.

What he is really lamenting is the lack of a computer engineering discipline.
Thus we have the equivalent of 
Chemistry being taught but no Chemical Engineering.

I know some colleges have a subject variously labelled 
computer engineering or software engineering but in 
practice these seem to be very thin on engineering 
and mainly a kind of "pragmatic CS". The writer is 
correct in that the IT industry is screaming for grad 
level IT workers in computing but not always in those 
areas involveed in writing software - which is where 
CS is still focussed. There simply are no courses 
that cover computer hardware, configuration, networking,
performance tuning etc etc. 

Where I disagree with the writer is in his dismissal 
of math, since math is vital in almost all aspects of 
computing including the hardware/networking elements. 
You may not use it in everyday work - most electrical 
engineers would say the same! But to acquire real 
understanding of the principles you must have the math...

Whether the math needs to be quite so heavy as it seems 
to be is debateble - that seems like a heridary aspect 
of computing originally being a branch of math in most universities.

> 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.  

I think there is a responsibility on university computer departments to produce
the IT engineers that are needed 
and they are simply not doing that. The CS courses have 
split into those that have become so esoteric in their algenbraic/algorithmic/computational(in
the math sense) 
focus that they are of little pracxtical relevance and 
those that have simply tried to produce cannon fodder 
for the programming/software develoment industry (the 
subject of my own rant). 

The problem is that as industry builds ever computing systems of ever greater
complexity there are 
no graduates available who can understand how or what 
its about. Industry in effect has to bear the cost of 
training which in other engineering disciplines is done at univversity level.


The telecoms indiustry was in a similar position about 
20-30 ytears ago with telcos providing huge amounts of 
basic theory simply because EE coursew didn't teach the networking/switching
stuff needed. As the Telecomms 
sector exploded colleges reacted to that and there are 
now specialist telecomms degrees available in most 
places. The Computing industry is cryiong out for 
the same kind of change to happen.

> It seems to ask "What good is education?"

I don't think so, I think it asks why is the education 
so impractical? When the subject name would suggest 
it should be one of the most practical of subjects 
to study! Nobody expects a course on prehistorc music 
to be practical but CS students might be expected to 
emerge with a degree which teaches them about 
computing in the modern context rather than a 
purely theoretical understanding of mathematical 
computation and irs application to machines.

> If CP4E ever becomes widely implemented,
> will educators also have to defend what they teach 
> on the basis of direct application?

My understanding of CP4E was that its justification was precisely the programming
was a practical skill and didn't neeed lotsof esoteric background math etc.
Indeed my concern with CP4E is that it may not in fact be possible to really
teach programming without at least basic math.

The real problem as I see it is that CS has not apparently grasped that computing
as a subject is about much more 
than programming. 

>I don't think application training is what computer 
> science should primarily be about.  

Nor I but IT workers don't generally run applications 
- they worry about security, network loading, CPU loading, 
RAM usage etc etc - who teaches that stuff? Whe teaches 
how to size a computer or network to run a set of programs?
What about network management - MIBs, event monitoring, resource management
etc etc. This stuff is simnply ignored 
by most computer departments and yet is the biggest 
single cost for most IT departments - much more than 
that of software development!

>... the article's view of computer science completely 
> ignores the role that mathematics plays in CS.  

Here I agree and it is very disappointing that the 
professors he spoke to could not do a convincing job 
of persuading him of the need for math.

>to restrict an CS education to "IT".

Again there is a need IMHO for a new degree discipline 
of IT. CS does not address this area well, if at all. 
But then neither does anyone else! Thats why it has 
become black magic with a few guru's ruling the roost 
based on years of experience. Thats why the famous 
series of spoof articles the "operator from hell" ring 
so true to life.

> the article still touches on an attitude that seems 
> common: what good is education if it cannot be applied?

Education serves two purposes - to inform and to train.
The IT industry needs the training aspect and isn't 
getting it. The academic community, if it wishes to 
be paid to inform, needs to provide the training too. 
In this it is singularly failing at present. If the 
current trend continues I can fortesee many large 
businesses withdrawing the current high level of funding/grants/sponsorship
given to CS departments 
because they are simply not seeing the required 
return on investment!

Alan G.