Slashdot Mirror
Interest in CS as a Major Drops
Dasein writes "The Computer Research Association says that the popularity of CS as a major among freshman has dropped in the last four years. Why is obvious to anybody working in the field. They conclude by saying 'With a fall in degree production looming, it is difficult to see how CS can match expected future demand for IT workers without raising women's participation at the undergraduate level.'"
The University of Guelph (Southern Ontario, Canada) normally has 200 students entering its Bachelor of Computing (honors) program every year. This year the entrance class had 66 students. My own program at Guelph-Humber (degree/diploma in computing/telecom) has a nominal class size of 60, but we've not had a full class in the 3 years we've been running. According to my prof, the only University in Canada whose compsci department hasn't suffered is Waterloo's.
------- "From bored to fanboy in 3.8 asian girls" ----------
They conclude by saying 'With a fall in degree production looming, it is difficult to see how CS can match expected future demand for IT workers without raising women's participation at the undergraduate level.'"
By raising the price, it's basic economics. So this is a good thing for all you CS grads out there.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Besides, if there's a an employee shortage, salaries are more likely to stay high.
With the offshoring of certain types of work, I must wonder if the number of IT jobs in the U.S. is actually going to shrink---at least in relative numbers, rather than increase over then next decade. It'll all be interesting, I'm sure.
This is not my sandwich.
A "freshman" CS major is as reliable as a freshman "pre-med" major.
(Although in the first case, the designation is usually picked to land a high-paying internship, where the second designation is picked to get laid.)
Unless you're looking at people enrolled in 3xx and 4xx level courses, this article doesn't mean much.
TFSummary says that a drop in CS students will lead to a shortage of IT workers. Most CS students I know do not want to do IT. They want to code, either academically or commercially, but they do not want to do IT. IT is for IT majors (or Cisco/A+/MCSE certs), not for Computer Scientists
The previous sig has been removed due to
I don't know the stats but I would imagine that majors like Information Systems, MIS, BIS and similar ones to those would be syphoning off some of the computer science majors. Just because you want to work in IT doesn't mean you need Computer Science. Lets face it to work on internal tracking systems you hardly need to know complier design but some businss\IT integration classes may help. Many Universities now offer atleast one Info System type major and one CS type major. Combine the IS majors becoming more common with the perception that tech jobs are a bust now and its easy to see why CS enrollment is dropping.
Something that's been bothering me a lot throughout my career as a computer programmer is the attitude of the "leading luminaries" to the fundamentals of life for programmers (and engineers in general but most intensely for programmers) -- most specifically reproduction. People like to joke a lot about "nerds getting a date" but when you compare what Western society did to the reproductive rates of its engineers, particularly since the advent of the microprocessor, to the reproductive supports provided Asian engineers -- especially Indian engineers -- you can easily see why engineering is being exported to Asia.
A critical exemplar of these of those "leading luminaries" is someone with whose work most digerati are undoubtedly familiar:
George Gilder
What I see as George Gilder's primary failure is his inability to connect his work on "Men and Marriage" (aka "Sexual Suicide") with work regarding the high tech industry. The major result of this failure is his lack of credibility regarding outsourcing and guest worker visas for high technology.
Basically it boils down to this:
During Gilder's watch, what has been the cost of reproduction of a young American engineer vs the cost of reproduction of a young engineer from India?
My experience, working side-by-side with young H-1b visa employees during the latter part of the 1990s was that there is virtually no comparison:
While both a young engineering from India and a young engineer from the US must focus on his studies, career -- living like a virtual monk -- while working in the male-saturated ghettos that surround the engineering profession, only the Indian engineer has a social support network and the social status, frequently called "sexism" in the US (including arranged marriages), that provides him with a wife of similar background (crucial to reproduction in a larger sense) and the security to raise children within a marriage to such a wife.
Something Gilder should have done was figure out what a comparable marriage and family would actually cost a young US engineer.
Indeed, the reproductive costs, as well as resulting fertility rates and mating quality among US engineers are statistics that needs to be studied carefully if we are to come to any sort of understanding of the outsourcing phenomenon.
The strategy of encouraging women to go into programming makes sense from a few angles:
1) Corporations tend to discard programmers as they age. This means a woman, about the time her biological clock is kicking in, can exit to a second career as mother. This fits with lowering the cost of reproduction for programmers. Indeed, many Japanese companies have had a policy for sometime of encouraging young women, rather than young men, to enter software careers precisely because they are open about their "agism" in hiring programmers and saw this "second career as mother" as an honorable way of dealing with their employees who were programmers.
2) Since engineering is a male-saturated profession, it females entering the profession will have a lot less difficult time meeting a viable marriage partner of comparable background than will males entering such a male-ghetto.
3) Although many men "go gay" during stays in prison, and many may be cajoled into doing so during their stays in the male-saturated ghettos of western engineering, it really isn't a good way to run technological civilization to base either your penal system or your technology creation on "turning out" your most problematic _or_ your most valuable members.
4) Universities are increasingly female. Indeed, the University of Illinois, origin of the a lot of the key technologies going into computing, networking, the Internet and the web specifically, has gone from a male-saturated engineering school when I was working there to a much more female environment. Much of this can be attributed to the fact that young men simply are dropping out of society at a much greater rate but whatever the cause the fact
Seastead this.
That's just off the top of my head in a couple of minutes. I'm sure the reason the Computer Research Association found it "difficult to see" these reasons are that none of them are in the Computer Research Association's financial interest to promote as alternatives.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
You simply can't take statistics from one university and assume that they're not indicative of a universal trend either. I teach computer engineering at a major public university in the midwestern US, and we are seeing trends exactly like UCLA. If you follow the link in TFA to the Taulbee survey, which encompasses all of North America, you'll see that the data there is consistent with UCLA's findings.
There's plenty of work for those of us already (or still) in IT... and plenty of competition as well.
Unlike many who saw the bursting of the ".COM bubble" as the arrival of apocalypse... I saw it as simply a time to separate the wheat from the chaff. Seems to me there were a lot of people who were in IT in 1999-2000 who had no business being there. I can't tell you how many times I heard fresh grads say "You mean I have to actually PROGRAM?!"
Not trying to knock anyone here, but if someone is trying to enter a field simply because they think there's money in it, they won't be there very long. Maybe that's what's going on here now.
Just my $0.02...
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
The singular of ancedotes may not be datum, but when you have multiple ancedotes, you start to get a trend.
Add in common sense, and its pretty obvious that when everyone predicts doom and gloom in IT in the US as India and China take over the world, nobody's interested in sinking $100,000 into a university degree for a career that may not exist when they get out.
The big question though, is whether interest in these degrees are returning to pre-.com era days, or if they're dropping even lower.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Outsourcing. Be available 24/7. When you're 40, get packing. Dealing with PHBs. Yes, it's a wonderful opportunity in a Walmart world.
I'm a student at one of the biggest universities in Sydney; and right across Australia we're seeing just the same trend.
:)
You're correct; the article's conclusions don't necessarily follow from the data they have, but they're still right
'No publisher will ever pay you enough to successfully sue them' - Dave Sim
. . . voila they've discovered something that the Math majors have taken for granted since 1600.
.the others are making a ton of money in the real world.
Except for the fact that they get it wrong. There should be no difference in the comp sci program and the math program for the first two years.
. .
And they're welcome to it, but they should still learn their math. It is the basis of engineering and compute-ers.
No, I'm not ensconced in the ivory tower. I've been out in the real world for decades, banging my head against the wall dealing with all the problems that "engineers" create with their "practical solutions," that ignore even the most basic of mathematical "theory."
KFG
Throw in some Slashdot posts and it becomes an absolute metaphysical certitude.
Most people working in IT probably won't benefit from computer science degrees. Moreover, someone really interested in IT, should probably transfer to their university's school of business and, if possible, enroll in whatever their equivalent of an "Information Technology" degree is. Such programs usually have a number of IT classes, e.g. databases & networking (both with a much more applied slant then you would get in a typical CS class on the same topic), but also provide students with enough knowledge of business that they'll be able to more effectively interact with the high ups in the company when it comes to such things as policy making and infrastructure planning. Alternatively, there are also some two year programs that strictly focus on IT skills.
Why? Well any CS program worth its salt doesn't focus on teaching people how to admin Windows Server 2003, or Oracle administration. Rather, it focuses on teaching people about theories computation, algorithms, and, on the more applied side, best practices in software engineering. This kind of training will make some one a better programmer or software engineer, but it wouldn't necessarily be even that the relevant to the individual deciding which routers to buy or even the one installing set routers
<rant> Okay, so maybe I am little bit peeved when people ask me how to do such and such in Microsoft Word or Windows XP, and the looks they give me when I tell them I don't know. It's like they think it's so inexplicable that I don't know since some of the core classes for CS majors *must* be esoteric document formatting in Microsoft Word, and Windows XP - Why sometimes it can't connect to the network printer. </rant>
Too bad that's not going to happen. Why would women want to jump in a field whose skillset is on the export list?
Obviously if the conclusion is people aren't doing CS because there's no money in it (which I do think is a valid conclusion, judging by the falling engineering enrollment from my own former school as well), there's a bigger problem than gender disparity.
Want more women in tech? Quit teaching them as zygotes that math is nerdy and for boys. If you look around it's really all over, in kids shows, in those pre-teen girly detective shows etc. Always the strong female character who is "not good at math, but very good with people". I notice it a lot at least, I'm sure there's more to it.
Unlike liberal arts subjects, math and science build on each other from the very beginning. Start with a weak foundation and you won't build a very tall building.
You might want to define "well paying". I have talked to alot of CS majors who just came out of undergrad programs from top schools, their salary is an insult.
I also know alot of excellent grad students, also out of top schools, who have to settle for intern like positions. They are so overqualified, companies seriously don't know how to fit them in. Companies want young guys coming in fixing bugs, not architecting major projects.
My ultimate advice in the new millenium is get a "real estate" related degree. Work for a construction company. Forget grad schools unless you are highly devoted to a research position. There is enough software in the world now to run for the next 10 years.
Companies want young guys coming in fixing bugs, not architecting major projects.
No offense, because maybe you're a genius - but most young people are really only qualified to fix bugs and work on small portions of a project. If a 22-year-old with a CS degree is qualified to architect major projects all I can say is run hard and fast to get another degree, because the party's over.
My first year Intro to CS instructor put it this way:
"Computer Science is to programming as mechanical engineering is to operating a drill press"
Too many people think of a BS in Comp Sci as a degree in programming.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Hi there. I graduated with a degree in Comp. Sci. a couple of years ago. Like many other people, I started CS because I liked computers and I was pretty darn good with them. I participated in different computer clubs, learned how to program and do other fun things at an early age. Given that and the fact that IT provided stable and well-paid careers in the past, it was a no brainer! But had IT sucked in terms of pay, I would have never gotten into it to begin with. You heard me correctly. If I had to choose a major in 2002, Comp. Sci. would not be on my list.
See, I was poor all my life. I could not major in Liberal Arts or English because I had to support myself and think of supporting my parents and relatives in the future. I had to choose something that I liked and that paid good. This is a fucking no-brainer and I know that 90% of you would do the same thing. Would you study your ass off to find out that your jobs are moving to India and that you get shit for pay? I highly doubt that.
Comp. Sci. was a perfect major for me. I thought of going to a medical school, but my parents could not afford that. I thought of doing science, but then I saw what most of research specialist brought in terms of income and I said "fuck that." Business and Economics were okay; however, I did not like them as much as I liked Computer Science and that is why I majored in it. After four years of pain, I got out of college with no job, a butt load of loans and no chances to find a good job. It took me a while to find one and I went through a lot of pain to get where I am right now. Not everybody can do that.
Anybody with more than two brain cells saw that IT got fucking smashed and that it was harder to get jobs in the field. With that in mind, who wants to take a risk? How many people would like to study one of the hardest fields and then end up without a job and a load of student loans? It is not pretty; take my word for it. For some people it does not make sense to get into a field if they can't earn good money. This is just a rational thought because there are individuals, believe it or not, who want to be financially secure. Why would I pay to go to college if four years down the road I am going to be unemployed?
Of course, there are people who can afford doing what they like regardless of financial benefits. I know a person who pissed through four years of Ivy League education majoring in some useless crap that can't get a her a job that pays more than $25K/year. She can afford loving what she does for living (whenever she has a job) only because her daddy supports her. In theory, she does not even have to work to be well-off. For me, it was not an option. It was either boom or bust. I had to choose a discipline that satisfied three criteria: a stable career and income while being interesting at the same time. If a career did not fit any of those three parameters, I'd pass. Would not you?
I assume that Comp. Sci. can no longer fit people in my situation; hence we have a drop in enrollment.
If writing code is all the CS program expects from majors, I'd encourage both men and women to leave immediately. While algorithmic thinking and coding is essential to a computer science degree, there's so much more to it that even people who don't like to code should find a niche there. No wonder women leave if the program emphasizes CS==coding.
I've got a MSc from CS and after the novelty wore off I have found coding boring. But I'm a respected professional in my area, security.
Those guys are sociopaths. They have the ability to fake empathy, and use it for manipulative purposes. They often become politicians.
my CS class at JMU '93 graduated with only 24 (out of over 2000 graduates per year). Being so small we were told of stories of how they used to have over 200 graduates in the CS program back in the 80s (the original micro-computer boom time, when computers were popular).
years later, by '98 (the second computer boom-time thanks to the 'net) the CS classes were back up to over 200 / year.
now, they're dropping again.
i would put it that the reason is that there's no major "popularity" in Computers right now. they're just there, rather than being full of new and interesting things. the two peaks of CS student-hood were at times when there were tons of new things to do and discover. related to that was the idea that if one was into it at the time, one could get a guarenteed high-paying job fresh out of school.
the valley i was in was at a time of staticness. DOS hadn't changed in 5 years, windows was unheard of, "IBM-compatibility" was taking over the world, the mac was too expensive to become a hacker box, and most people getting into CS had never heard of "unix" before (much less VMS or the AS/400s where the real work was still being done). at the time, nothing looked like it would change. many in my class got into CS from other degree programs (physics in my case) because we discovered we were decent programmers first once exposed to real hardware.
today we're in another valley. the 90s saw a ton of good stuff and a ton of junk get made in a very short time, but right now there's little being done that a high school grad could recognize and go "hey, that's something i could be doing in 5 years". yeah, there's lots of stuff in XML -- but would a high school kid really know what it was or how it was useful to them?
its kinda like getting into open-source programming: having an itch to scratch, a peek of curiosity. the peaks of CS student-counts happen at times when there's so much going on that's obvious to anyone outside of the industry, enough to get kids to go "i wonder how they did that?" and get into the degree program to find out.
the valleys like now or like the late 80s to early 90s happen when what is going on in the industry is really only of interest to those within the industry.
we're back into a gadget world (digital cameras, mp3 players), and gadgets are known for being "black boxes" outside the industry. contrast that to the early micro- world where everybody had "BASIC", or the internet world where anybody could hack together a page of html, gifs, and perl scripts. you can't look at an iPod and go "i could make my own" the way you could some trendy web page or early 6502 game.
so really the downtimes comes down to being in a time where you can't see what you would do with a CS degree, compared to other times where it seemed obvious what you could do with one.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
This is as it should be. The industry is a pretty screwed up place for a number of reasons. One of them being so many project fail because they are late and over budget.
Its a two fold problem. First there have never been enough good engineers and there are a lot of pretty so-so engineers. I have worked on too many projects where I was trying to design and do major coding while trying to hire and mentor new people.
Second, often this was complicated by my boss dictating that would have a particular number of people wether I needed them or not. Mostly so he or she looked good. The result was, as with so many companies, we got bodies.
I did my best to train them but programming, as with most engineering types, does require some natural ability and INTEREST. Those without it are of very little help down to a real drain on the rest of the project.
Any project of any size needs a leader, some top notch talent and a few worker bees. Too much at any end does not work. They must also each one be capable and willing to do the work.
Companies think they beat the problem by throwing cheap bodies at it offshore. Most of the projects will fail for the same reasons outlined above. They are mostly still just bodies.
Recently, when I was looking for an EE position, I did look at defense company openings. The need to pay the mortgage and eat makes you cast a wider net.
One position at White Sands NM had a substantial list of specific skills that looked like a good match for me until I got to the last requirement:
Experience flying fighter aircraft.
Holy crap! Not your everyday combination.
I don't remember that course being available:
EE453 Fighter Aircraft Piloting
That sort of threw my search back into private sector.
If Master's or Doctorate degrees (which typically involve a major project that gives real programming experience) don't qualify you to do more than fix bugs, what does?
Ok, it adds a few years, but it doesn't change the bottom line. As a project manager I would take a BS with 2-years of good, real-world experience over someone with 3- to 5-years of graduate study any day of the week.
You apparently failed to notice that I did not limit the appropriate tasks to fixing bugs. However, even a graduate degree just is not sufficient experience to be architecting major projects, unless you're incredibly gifted.
You must have not been paying attention when he said it's the grad students -- not "22-year-old[s] with a CS degree" that are the ones who are overqualified. If Master's or Doctorate degrees (which typically involve a major project that gives real programming experience) don't qualify you to do more than fix bugs, what does?
As someone with a Master's and someone with friends with Master's from different Universities I can safely say you are wrong. A Master's does not really add much to your qualification outside of the topic you did your research in. As for the project/thesis, it's a lot of work for school but not much compared to a job. Especially since it is generally a solo project. The real value of a job candidate with a Master's is that they have a greater pre-disposition to go research a complicated problem than just start writing code.
Also there are very good reasons to start recent grads doing maintenance. First, they generally have exaggerated opinions of themselves and their code quality is sometimes low ("big" fish in a small pond). Maintenance can help correct that, it can give them a broader perspective, exposure to larger scale projects, introduce them to the local coding and design standards, and possibly most important of all they learn the domain specific knowledge for the job. Once you have worked on a product/project you are better qualified to expand it or work on the next version.
In short, the University does not demonstrate you are qualified to do a job. It demonstrates that you are qualified to learn to do a job, that you are able to complete long and sometimes boring tasks.
>socialization starts at birth (look at toys and
>types of play offered to infant males vs females
Amusingly enough a recent Scientific American article on gender differences mentioned an experiement dealing with the young and toys. They offered some baby monkeys/baboons their choice of various toys. The male babies preferred things like cars and balls that involved motion. The female babies preferred dolls. So maybe babies are given particular toys because that's what they like, not because that's what is being forced on them.
The article actually had a lot of other good material on the differences between the sexes. Apparently different areas of the brain take up proportionally different amounts of space in the two sexes (they use a ratio since women tend to be smaller). Since different parts are responsible for different functions, it makes sense this would lead to differences.
Ok, it adds a few years, but it doesn't change the bottom line. As a project manager I would take a BS with 2-years of good, real-world experience over someone with 3- to 5-years of graduate study any day of the week.
You apparently failed to notice that I did not limit the appropriate tasks to fixing bugs. However, even a graduate degree just is not sufficient experience to be architecting major projects, unless you're incredibly gifted.
We have a problem in this country of confusing management with expertise.
A MS or a PhD gets you an expertise in Computer Science not project management. Whole other skill set.
If you need someone to figure out HOW to make Google Maps work in the lab, get a PhD.
If you need someone to get that work uniformly over 3.5 million square miles of maps while an ungodly number of people hammer on it constantly, managing a team of programmers and other professionals, and trying to meet some kind of budget and timetable (does Google even have deadlines?) then you want someone with proven experience, and I'd actually recommend an old-school engineer.
The guy who ultimately gets it done won't be the expert at the underlying nuts and bolts, but will be the guy who can protect the expert at the underlying nuts and bolts so he can do what he needs to do, and everyone else can as well.