Slashdot Mirror
College: Are They Training Engineers Or Coders?
Durrik asks: "Recently I've had to go to the local university and interview a lot of students for job openings for next term. I've also had to go through a lot of resumes for more senior positions. I must say I wasn't too happy with the results of the recent graduates, or the current students. Most of the resumes that have crossed my desk are from people who would make good coders and implementers. In my opinion that's not what engineering is about. Engineering is about problem solving, and coming up with solutions, but most universities are now graduating people who know C, C++ and a whole mess of languages, but don't teach how to solve a problem. They can code an application but can they really come up with something new? One of the problems I've noticed is they teach a problem, and a solution but not how one works from the problem to the solution, and most of the problems are 15 to 20 years old! So are the universities turning out people who'd be better off with a diploma or certificate instead of a degree?"
As I've gone through school (I get my BS in CSE in May), and chatted w/others at different universities, I've noticed two very different mindsets at different schools. Some, as you say, focus on turning out coders: they take language courses by the dozens (some hyperbole), and in general spend the majority of their degree-work coding. By contrast, programs such as those offered at my school, and the other major (research) universities teach exactly one language (we use C++), with the understanding that it could just as easily be C, Perl, or the Turing Machine model: as per Church's Theorem, any is sufficient for teaching the theory behind this stuff. Now, does this mean we are supposed to graduate knowing only the one language? Hell no! We are expected (unlike every other kind of degree that I know of...) to actually teach ourselves outside of the classroom. Scary, no?
More specifically, as to your remarks: Yes, we are taught solutions to old problems. Why? Because they are FUNDAMENTAL problems, things that people struggled with mightily. It's no different than teaching Physics students about Newton and Einstein: they, too, are old news, but they are also the solid base for everything else. Now, you may have one of the universities of the first type near you, which could help explain your frustration. But at the same time, the resume is not everything. The principal purpose of a comp. sci. degree is to give a student some base to work from, to THINK from. They can't teach us to think, although they do try.
Before placing the blame solely on the backs of the education system, you should remember stuff like the above. Maybe you should widen your search to include other schools?