Slashdot Mirror
Computer Science Curriculum in College
Ludwig Feuerbach writes "As it's back to school for university students, including Computer Science undergraduates like myself, I look at my course schedule for this semester and I have courses with titles like: Theory of Computation, Numerical Analysis, Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and History of Economics from Plato to Keynes. The first 4 courses are required in my CS program. I had thought nothing of it until I read an opinion piece by Dan Zambonini, who stresses the type of courses I'm taking are, essentially, useless for getting a job. He lists several CS courses useful for a job. Is he right? I tend to think that an university education should stress scientific topics over vocational ones, but since I'm just planning to get a job after I grad, am I in the right program?"
for a job, then go into CIS.
it is oriented at getting the student to learn how to use computer systems found in business, how to create tools for those systems and how to manage and build on those systems.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
The types of classes you prefer will depend, essentially, on what you see as the purpose of a higher ed degree or some would even argue the purpose of an education. Some would argue that it is to prepare you for a job through the acculumation of a set of skills or a knowlege set. Others would argue that it is to prepare you for a lifetime of learning. In this day and age, odds are unless you're in a position where you can call in rich, you'll take more than one career zig or zag in your lifetime. Yet another group are those that see the purpose as a mixture of both. In the end, your choice as to the purpose of education should be one of the fundamental questions you get a personal grasp on before you even apply to an institution of higher learning.
Sometimes the stuff you learn there seems completely and utterly unimportant for day to day usage. Still, often you suddenly get into a situation where no other non-CS guy can't find a certain bug because they lack the understanding of the background. I've been in the stuation myself where I was able to fix a bug that resulted out of the use of floating-point numbers. The guy that implemented the routine just didn't know about the mathematical boundaries of floating point numbers. It's just an example...
If you just want to become a programmer, just follow some evening courses... That's all you need... Programming isn't all that hard, but don't come complaining to me because the sorting routine you wrote is too slow and don't know why.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
A degree is an academic certification and as such it should not cover topics simply because they're trendy in CS related jobs at the moment. It should teach a curriculum that gives CS students a good background in a wide range of topics and above all else it should be interesting and set up a good basis for more advanced academic training.
It is not surprising that sometimes what is good course academically is not necessarily a good course from a business standpoint. As a professional programmer I think that CS graduates are typically no better than someone with no degree at all. I understand that this is a pretty damning thing to say considering the majority of slashdotters probably have a CS degree but in reality the CS degree gives you nothing in terms the ability to write good code.
In fact, a CS degree typically makes for a more dangerous coder due to their belief that the few programing projects they did on their course makes them a professional programmer. It also trains the wrong instincts. Academic coding is about producing beautiful programs - business coding is about being pragmatic. Often they have a hard time rejecting these academic instincts.
I liken programming to playing chess. Anybody can learn the game in a day but to become a master takes dedication, a willingness to learn and a lot of time. I've stressed the "lot of time" point because I think this is a key problem with CS students. You get the typical line out of them at an interview "I didn't learn C# in Comp Science but I could learn it in an afternoon.." I'm a young guy (22) and I've been programing professionally for nearly four years and I can tell you that this is simply false. Make no mistake about it, I'm still no coding grand-master and probably wont be for another ten years. When somebody says that they can learn a language in an afternoon it doesn't make me think they're lying, it just makes it blatantly obvious how ignorant they are of intricacies of writing code.
In conclusion.. I think that having a CS degree is no real advantage over having a physics, chemistry or maths degree. What a degree shows you is the person in-front of you applied themselves to a long term project and got a result. The same conclusion can be drawn from a person sat across from me without a degree but three years of experience. Really, both routes are equally valid and I hold neither higher than the other.
Simon.
The classes you have to take are required for the degree, and the degree is very important. On the other hand, some people have great success just learning how to program on their own.
I'd say there are more successful people in the programming world with degrees than without, though, so I'd stick with the courses your college requires.
If you really want to stand out when you're looking for a job, use your spare time to write a well-designed app that you can show to potential employers.
You are learning to think critically and hone problem solving skills. CS is not computer programming alone. The biggest problem in computer design is and always will be applying the best solution to a problem within the constraints allowed.
I stopped university and got a 'lower' but much more practical degree. This actually meant I was on the market sooner, and by the time I would have gotten my university degree, I was making the same amount of money as somebody who gets out of university.
And guess what? I already had work experience...
University is something you (should) do for the love of science, not for just getting a job.
Mike
I use to be proud of the fact that I held a CS degree, but that changed when CS became more about job training than a science. If you want a real CS degree, then become a math major.
This seems like a common question. There will be plenty of people who think that college should provide vocational training and plenty more who think that college should teach you "how to think independently".
I'm personally more in the second camp. I think that there are vocational schools for those who want to learn the vocation, but those skills will need to be constantly updated. I think that what you learn in college (as opposed to vocational schools) should be applicable to more fields than just the one that you learn and that you should be able to apply the lessons beyond what the curriculum specifically teaches.
Essentially, if you want to learn the theory of how databases work and know how to write a database you're taking the right sort of classes. If you're wanting to become a DBA, you should really go to a vocational school.
I don't know about American Universities but here in Germany the theoretical courses are the only ones that have long-time-useful information. The practical courses focus mostly on technologies that will be outdated when I leave college. They also usually focus on details that won't stick in my head after the test because they are easily re-discoverable via Google. The theoretical courses are the ones that enable me to read about new stuff and actually understanding what it does as they are the timeless background for all of CS.
Linux is not Windows
I've been a software development manager for a long time and I've hired a lot of people. Fundamental development skills are essential. This includes knowledge of data structures, algorithms, C/C++ and another 'major' language (c/C++ is a must have), a basic understanding of micro processor archithecture (this means some ability to debug in assembly, at least a little), good written and verbal communication skills (e.g. can you write a decent bug report?, can you lead a decent code walkthrough?). Funcatinal knowledge of operating system fundamentals such as memory management, scheduling, I/O (Syncronous, async), and networked I/O (TCP/IP) are also important. Again, I don't expect folks to be able to write a kernel, but they do need to at least be able to use more than one thread to do I/O or handle UI while doing something else, or open a socket and do a little client/server work. Note that economics isn' bad, but it should be micro, not macro. Even entry level devs need to have some inkling of business trade offs.
Jibe!
Once you're working you'll realize that getting the job isn't where you stop setting goals. You'll want to do a good job and make insightful decisions. You'll learn that you want to contribute to the field that you're working in, beyond hacking out whatever the business tells you to. You'll want to contribute to society. For these things, the better your understanding of your field and the world, the better you'll do - that's why you're going to university.
Now, you can do all of these things without university, but you've got to be very driven and interested in what you're doing. Interest and ambition to contribute more than just labor is the biggest factor in my experience. Jesus isn't remembered for being a carpenter. Ghandi's not remembered for being a lawyer.
you had me until it came to the part about learning a new language. I am sorry, but once you know how to program, learning a new syntax, especially one that is so close to one that most CS students have had experience with, is easy to do.
yes, you still need to learn the library but the language is trivial.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
In the decades of your career you'll work on totally different subjects and will have to learn new programming languages and techniques. Knowing how to learn these "new tricks" is what distinguishes an educated person from a trained one.
Learning theory while using "academic" languages, which nobody uses in "real life" will be very useful... You will be able to pick practical things up quicker and there will be no shortage of that later in life.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Not at all. You don't goto a University to learn about things that will nescisarily help you in the real world. You learn how to THINK. My computer science degree didn't directly teach me anything I needed to use in the real world, however, it did teach me how to THINK like a computer scientist. And the math part of the curriculum has paid dividends. The only people I ever really saying that a CS degree is worthless are the ones that don't have one.
I disagree with you on the point that you can't learn a language in an afteroon. Every programming langauge has its own set of syntax rules and functions. You can take an afternono and learn the basic syntax of the language, memorize a couple of the functions that you will use often, and find the best resources for help about the language. After that, your learning process will be just learning as you code. You said yourself it's going to be another 10 years before you would consider yourself really good at it. You aren't going to get there by just sitting and examining tutorials. You learn it by actually programming it and doing google searches / resource searches every time you come across something you need a tip on.
So while learning it in an afternoon won't make you a killer coder right away, it is enough time to set you up to be able to code just about any app and learn as you go. If you already know other langauges, then it will be fairly easy to apply the rules of good clean coding to this new language as you go.
If you can't say something nice, make sure you have something heavy to throw.
If you don't know what computer science is, then you're lost already. Studying the science of computers means you are going into a field of science dealing with the fundamentals of computers. No, it doesn't translate into a typical job, but it can be used for lots of jobs. CS plus other practical classes can give you an incredible edge. If you are trying for just getting a job, stay out of CS. In fact, PLEASE stay out of CS if that is all you want. CS is being deluted by that kind of attitude. A computer scientist advances computer theory and ideas, not just their paycheck.
AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
>I tend to think that an university education should stress scientific topics over vocational ones
I'm glad people like you still exist... you wouldn't believe the number of students who whine to me that computer science courses are "useless". They want courses like "How to program for Windows XP" and "How to install network drivers"....
The analogy isn't quite apt, but I'll use it anyways: taking a computer science degree to become a line programmer is liking taking a physics degree to learn how to operate a microwave oven.
Again, not apt (much hyperbolized, in fact), but you see my point. Computer science is supposed to be about _science_... it's not a how-to-program course. Programming just happens to be one of the tools computer scientists use (just as some physicists use microwave emitters in their research).
Honestly though, a CS degree _will_ give you an excellent foundation from which to learn job-specific skills. Once you understand programming languages and algorithms on an abstract level, it should be a piece of cake to learn "trendy new programming language #37" when your employer requires it.
The notion that someone should be calling themselves a "software engineer" while not understanding the Church-Turing thesis is absolutely horrifying. There are very real mathematical limits to what can be accomplished with computing... and some surprisingly simple tasks simply aren't computable, ever. Any serious programmer should know how to identify when they may have been asked to do something that is provably mathematically impossible. Of course, I doubt they teach the theory of computation at your local trade school.
Dan Zambonini would have us turn a Computer Science degree into a Computer Technician's diploma. The man hasn't the foggiest understanding of what computer _science_ is. He probably also thinks that astronomy degrees should concentrate exclusively on building and maintaining telescopes.
Don't let his shocking, and deeply depressing, ignorance make this important life decision for you. If you like science and you are enjoying CS, stick around. With a good foundation you'll be able to pick up particular job skills surprisingly quickly and with very little effort. If, instead of foundations, you learn only specific skills... it will be harder to adapt when the required skill set for your job changes.
What I wouldn't give to see the animated corpse of Dijkstra impale this Zambonini chap with a GOTO statement and a telescope.
I've got degrees in Physics and Math; and have never, ever taken a Computer course. I've also done a heck of a lot more than the author has.
What the author doesn't recognize is that one of the reasons you should take courses which aren't job related is to make yourself well-rounded. That is, capable of handling anything which comes up, instead of just being technically proficient in a few TLA's of the moment.
He completely fails to understand that the computer training you received in College will typically be obsolete in 5 years. However, if you've received an Education (instead of training), you can likely adapt to handle the new stuff as it develops.
Somebody who can actually think can pick up anything. Someone who just has job training is going to be in trouble unless they know how to adapt.
The only constant in this universe is change. You're best off preparing for it.
Whatever you do - don't abandon your course. The most common computer job is that of IT Support and Administration. This does not require a degree, any clown with an MCSE can work at this. It's what I do for a living so I know what I'm talking about here. I also know that jobs in IT are becoming less attractive as the number of potential employees rises and the number of available jobs declines due to better remote administration facilities and outsourcing of services. Over the next few years the postition of IT Support Engineer will reduce in standing until it reaches equality with that of building maintenance engineer. IT systems will be so common and transparent that they will largely be used without thought on the part of the users. In order to escape this you need a value added qualification. One that demonstrates the ability to think in a critical manner, perform research and produce technical reports that are accurate and comprehensible to a target audience, from lay people to experts. These reports are needed by companies and organisations so that their boards and committees can make sensible business decisions. A degree is absolutely the right qualification for your long-term employability. Nothing prevents you from getting an MCSE too.
==========
Error in module creativity.dll : Unable to create witty comment.
Abort / Retry / Ignore ?
There seems to be a disconnect between what CS is and what most curriculums offer. It seems that the submitter is getting a solid CS background when he might be looking for a degree in Software Engineering.
This seems to be a common occurance. My alma mater offered a CS degree which was actually more of a software engineering degree. Sure they offered courses in AI and more scientific branches, but I learned more practical programming than anything
I believe this confusion comes from the fact that colleges are pushed to churn out students that can get jobs instead of get their PhD. Sounds like it's time for seperate degrees.
If you just want a job, go to a 2 year college and cram in as much as possible off his list. Do some stuff on your own if you have to. Fast, cheap, you'll be in the job market right away.
On the other hand, if you find yourself asking deeper questions in class, and instructors either not able, or not willing to take the class time to answer, maybe you should go to a 4 year after all.
I've used very little of my B.Sc directly in the last 12 years. But I can't count the number of times that something I learned has been very important to what I do. I also have a better perspective. People without a broad background tend to focus on solutions in their knowledge domain. People who understand how big the domain is can look outside it.
XML? Good grief! What do people like me who finished school before XML even existed do? Cry that we missed out? Or just learn it on the job, like every other new technology that appears after graduation day? The cutting edge is a moving target. If you try to aim for it, you'll be out of date by the time you finish. If you build a strong background, you'll be sharpening the edge.
Sure, there will be employers out there who expect to already have experience in some obscure specific software they use. But there are those willing to treat coursework as experience. 2 years in the workforce, and it will be irrelevant.
One thing I will say, is that you should round yourself out with some electives such as: business, economics, accounting, law, etc. A lot of people can write code. Not everyone understands the business reasons behind the code.
>I'm a young guy (22) and I've been programing professionally for nearly four years
Is it possible then, that you _yourself_ have done nothing above but make it blantly obvious how ignorant you are?
I'm much older than 22, I've been programming for 20 years and I'm a professor of computer science.
A moderately intelligent and resourceful student should be able to switch between languages with similar design in no time at all. Once you understand the basic concepts and structures of a procedural programming language, it takes very little time to learn a new procedural language.
Now, this doesn't hold when you switch across paradigms. Someone who is comfortable with procedural languages would not be able to make a 1-day switch to LISP or PROLOG. However, a LISP programmer could switch relatively easily to ML or Haskell.
What it comes down to is that a change of syntax is essentially trivial if the underlying semantics remain the same; only a change of semantics should require serious study. You don't understand this because you have probably never taken a proper academic course on programming languages and may not even understand the distinction between syntax and semantics.
It is exceptionally dangerous to conclude that just because _you_, with your extremely limited experience and knowledge, cannot do something... it must follow that others can't do it as well.
...the majority of slashdotters probably have a CS degree...
What planet are you from?
You get the typical line out of them at an interview "I didn't learn C# in Comp Science but I could learn it in an afternoon.." I'm a young guy (22) and I've been programing professionally for nearly four years and I can tell you that this is simply false.
Well, I'm an old guy (42), who has not just learned, but used in shipped products, over a dozen languages. And I can tell you that I learn and master new languages a whole lot faster than all you guys without CS degrees who keep shooting off your mouths about how little use CS degrees are. Learning a new language in an afternoon is indeed an exaggeration, but learning a new language is a whole lot faster when you understand the fundamental mathematics on which all programs are based, and the way they are commonly expressed through language features.
Many times your department or project will live or die based on how well you write your reports and memos. And your user base will love or hate you depending on your ability to clearly communicate - at their level and from their perspective - how to use whatever you are running.
BS is an excuse to make bad decisions about partying and sex.
MS is for recovering some dignity and respectability.
PhD is for copping a gravy teaching position.
Of the hundreds of tech workers I've known, I've never met one with a CS degree. I have, however, known many people in retail management with CS degrees. All those nice theory and science classes are cool, but they aren't job skills or job experience.
One of the nastiest problems in the IT industry is a near-total lack of entry level jobs. If you show up for an interview that requires a CS degree, but some 18-year-old who can code circles around you and has been working a help-desk for six months also shows up, he'll often get the job.
If you're going to stick with CS and want to get a job, here are a few resume builders to keep in mind.
- Do work study helping the sysadmins manage the networks, or at least helping inept students in lab classes.
- Find a good internship every single summer.
- If you program, do useful work on worthwhile open-source projects.
- Go ahead and get a master's degree immediately upon finishing up your BS. Then you become a serious computer scholar, and not just another kid who got a CS degree for the money.
Likewise, Computer Science Majors don't have super-specific classes. Instead, they teach you the things that you wouldn't think to learn on your own. Fundamentals that make all your work as a compsci major easier. Having a solid understanding of algorithms, what's slow, what's complex, and why has helped me produce better work many times.
If I were in charge of hiring and I had a developer position open, I probably wouldn't hire someone if their school curriculum consisted of the classes he listed. Tech and code come and go, but fundamentals last forever.
Besides, if you can't learn that stuff as you go, you're not suited to a career in computer science. Only motivated and fast learners need apply!
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
I'd agree with this. If you're only looking for bare-bones programming ability, check out a vocational course. If you're looking for more advanced abilities like algorithmic analysis, the experience to see abstractions, better data structures, and more flexibility, stick with a BS degree.
I'm certainly not saying that you can't pick those things up from a vocational course, but you'll be doing it on your own. It's always a tradeoff between time/cash and general well-roundedness. Personally, I got my BS because I wanted the flexibility.
The main point is that vocational programs will teach you how to code. A BSCS will teach you how to learn. It doesn't take a genius to figure out which is better in a rapidly changing field.
Think about it in terms of a spoken language. At the age of ten, most kids can speak well enough to express anything they want... how they feel, what they want, etc. They have complete freedom with the language; virtually no idea cannot be expressed with the vocabulary and rhetoric of a ten year old. Essentially what is being said is that a ten year old is on the same level as Hemingway or Dickens, because the kid, like these authors of immense literary genius, has the same freedom of language.
I'm only twenty-three, and I've been writing C/C++ code since I was in seventh grade... my biggest project so far has been in a team of three people and we put out maybe five or six thousand lines of code. I haven't had the necessity to delve into some of the lesser used aspects of C++, let alone the obscure. And I wouldn't dare call myself a master, or even a pro... I still see C++ code that makes my eyes cross for a few minutes. Five or six thousand lines of code to me is a good chunk, but probably chump change to any seasoned pro. I can still do anything I damn well please with the language... like the ten year old, but beyond that scope is being able to do anything I damn well please and do it well. That brings in a whole new level of ability to evolve... some of it language specifc, some of it simply a matter of being a good coder in general.
Code, like spoken language, is an expression of an idea. A language is created to express an idea, and in the professional world, immensely complex ideas. I learned why Python is so great in about thirty minutes and most of what Python can do in about two or three hours. But let's see how I fare against someone with a few years of experience in writing a simple program, say a client/server chat program. You'll see me stumble over my own ass more times than Jennifer Lopez.
It's true that the actual language is generally irrelevant to the idea. That's a moot point to this whole discussion though. When I speak or write, I don't think about the language; where I'm putting the nouns, my conjunctive whats'its, and God knows what else don't matter to me, it's mostly automated. Ask someone who doesn't write as well as me to write anywhere near my level (a ten year old for example), and they'll putter around for a bit... and it'll look awkward and forced. Ask me to write on Hemingway's level and I'll crank out maybe a crappy paragraph or two per week. The more I read of Hemingway, or any other seasoned author, the more I have no clue how they do what they do. The more complex ideas become, the more intracate the language used becomes. Little previously-unrecognized nuances can throw the whole idea down the shithole. Hemingway doesn't put an incredible amount of strained and wasted effort into his rhetoric, just like I don't, just like a ten year old doesn't. Each of us can express any idea, does this make us literary equals?
How will my code compare to one of the maintainers of the gnu C/C++ compilers.? That's the point of this whole thread right? The whole point of a CS degree in college isn't to teach you how to code, but the underlying ideas of coding in general, and hopefully the underlying ideas of that as well. A good undergraduate degree should leave you completely devirginized as to how anything digital functions, from basic circuitry to modular design. At least that's what I got out of mine. You don't get a Bachelor's or Master's degree to become a qualified expert... you do that in your job or Ph.D. program. You get the first degree(s) to become qualified to become an expert.
Just my two unprofessional pence though.
Just as one's choice of computer should be driven by the applications one needs to run, one's choice of education should be driven by what one intends to do with it. What do *you* intend to do with your degree? I would hardly call "theory of computation" and "numerical analysis" useless classes. This is what computer science is all about: the science of using computers to solve problems.
There are really three fields that comprise what lay people consider computer science to be. First, there is computer science, then there is computer engineering, and then there is computer technology. (Please note that there is no particular order to this ranking.)
The first, and most obvious difference is that computer engineers typically build hardware systems, while comptuer scientists typically build software systems. However, computer scientists are generally expected to understand the underlying hardware platform. Computer scientists typically know more about the theory of computation, the design of computer languages and operating systems. This is not to say computer engineers do not program. They do, however, most system level applications and languages are written by computer scientists. Computer engineers apply engineering principles to build computers and computer based systems. Computer engineers often design not only the hardware, but software also.
Thirdy, there are technologists. While scientists and engineers try to solve unanswered problems, technologists typically work on problems that are better understood. For example, a computer engineer might build a new network or a computer scientist might build a new software system, a technologist might use existing computers and software to implement something new. Technologists typically gain experience with existing systems and protocols, while scientists and engineers will work designing and managing new systems. As always, the line between technologists, scientists and engineers is often blurry because the state of the art in technology moves so rapidly. Technologists often work as computer scientists building new software systems, and engineers and scientists often work as technologists implementing new systems with available technology. Many, if not most people work as technologists in some capacity. Almost all work in the computer field rests on the work of others.
As an aside, I would say that the theory of computation is of great importance to companies such as Google and Oracle. I'm mildly flabbergasted someone would suggest numerical analysis is unimportant for computer scientists. Numerical analysis is the union of theoretical and applied mathematics toward solving problems with computers. Who could suggest that designing algorithms with a mind to how much memory they are going to use or how much time they are going to take is unimportant? Rounding errors and the stability of algorithms are both important topics within numerical analysis. Also, platform and hardware specific issues also factor into the analysis of algorithms. Maybe someone writing a script to run on a web server to talk to a database hasn't given much thought to concurrency and deadlocks, but his work rests on the work of people who have considered these problems, and more.
I read Dan Zambonini's article. It sounds to me he is describing more of a technologist degree, than a degree in computer science. I might suggest that he also take some resumes from graduates of technical or vocational schools, as well. Here in the U.S. (I realize the author's a Brit) people tend to slight vocational education, but the curricula offered by schools such as DeVry and I.T.T. are nothing to be sneezed at. I say this as a person who attended drafting school and learned pencil on vellum and ink on mylar. And for the record, I'm a technologist, not a scientist or enginner.
Thanks if you got this far.
Now that we've established that Dan doesn't know where to look for jobs in the game industry, let's talk about some of the other things he doesn't seem to get.
For one thing, the "programs" Dan is talking about are primarily things that I've discovered through years of experience (for example, real world Database Design), or things that I've picked up in a weekend over the course of my employment (for example, a second 'Big' language, a scripting/'agile' language or two, XML (and why it's actually a pretty terrible file format), and common protocols).
But they all share one thing in common: the courses that Dan are suggesting would be great at somewhere like ITT Technical Institute, or at Devry "University," but they do not belong at an academic institution--by and large. The things he is proposing are largely vocational. They'll make for an okay programmer, and probably only a okay programmer in one field. They do not make a well-rounded computer scientist, nor do they help you out when you decide that you don't want to do database design anymore, you want to write commerical shrinkwrap software instead.
My well-rounded CS education has allowed me to run the gamut of employment in computer science related areas. I started out in Telcom, moved to commercial shrinkwrap, wrote several video games for very large video game publishers, and now I design graphics hardware for the market leading graphics chip company.
Which of the courses there in Dan's suggested curriculum are going to allow me to do all of that? I'll give you a hint; they aren't there.
Without advanced mathematics (Calc II, Linear Algebra), I would've never been able to do graphics programming, which would've kept me out of the commercial shrinkwrap business (where I did image editing software). It would've further kept me from doing 3D grapihcs applications, which would've kept me out of the game industry as well as my current position. Without Advanced Data Structures, and Automata theory, I would've been unable to write code that was efficient enough for the high performance needs of the games I worked on.
In short (too late), Dan's proposed course load (of bullshit) would lead you to be a moderately acceptable programmer. You would be able to make a living, but you would always be one of the first to be laid off. Get a real education from a real institution of higher learning, and bring me good fundamentals. Because for pretty much all junior level positions, it's on-the-job-training. Without good fundamentals you will be unable to learn quickly enough to be of any use to an employer.
I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
Here's why. To be a senior-level programmer anywhere, you have to understand the following:
- "Computer Science fundamentals":
- algorithms (so your software can perform)
- database theory (so you can design well and optimize your software)
- More general modeling theory (so you can write specifications and participate in large-scale projects)
- Language theory (so you can write concise, intuitive software)
- Operating System theory (something difficult, but possible, to become exposed to outside of a formal curriculum)
- Good software development methodologies (regression testing, version control like CVS and SVN)
- Experience with a wide variety of different languages
- Much of "enterprise software development" involves integrating systems that are written in different languages
- good software developers can embrace and extend what's out there, and that often involves taking components written in one language and using them in another
- you want to be able to choose the best platform for a given project, rather than being limited by only being able to use certain languages]
- Experience with a wide variety of different platforms
- Understanding different paradigms (ASP / client-server / pure client, microsoft / open-source)
I would major in computer science, try to do as many projects as you can, build (and finish) as many products as you can, get exposure to web-programming, do a lot of database programming, if you can find an internship or a job doing general ledger programming, I would check that out.Honestly, most of the time I've wasted as a programmer has been due to not being previously exposed to the more "formal and academic" concepts that underlie what I do.
A few reasons here:
You should have a good sense of what sorts of platforms are out there and what it takes to launch a product on different ones.
Just, don't think you can become a successful programmer without a lot of work. It's a long, intense process to be able to program well, but well worth the effort.
It is best to complete the computer science curriculum. The courses you have listed seem to be relevant and they should teach you about some of the theory behind current computers. Unfortunately, I was not at a college that stressed the theory. I got out and I wondered why are companies not hiring me? Eventually, I went to a reputable college and learned the hard way the I did not know the topics/materials that I need to, in order to be productive.
Learn these topics well. Although they may not seem relevant now, they are some of the most relevant ones, if you want a rewarding career with computers. If you opt to take only the 'practical' courses, you can get by, but you will always be relegated to menial tasks. And, if you have any drive at all, wonder why you were not chosen for the more important assignments. You will think you can do them, and it is possible, but you will not be able to do them as well or in a timely manner as someone who has had, and understands, the basic theory behind it.
Example: I used to think javascript was difficult. I would try various things and sometimes it would work and sometimes it would not. Or it would only work in certain cases. At the time I did not know why. Now I realize that origionally I did not have the foundation I needed to understand what the books and examples were trying to tell me. I could not see what was wrong until I went to a 'good' university that had the knowledge to explain the theory and semantics in a way that I could relate too.
Dan Zambonini's opinions are worth even less than what you paid for them. They are the worst sort of trash.
On the surface, they give the appearance of having value. These are certainly all skills of immediate value in the business world. Useful resume filler for getting past HR droids.
But they are ALL TRANSITORY! In a matter of years they will become worthless.
The point to obtaining a higher educational degree is not to learn these skills. It is to learn how to learn. To be flexible so that, when something new comes along, you can pick it up in the blink of an eye.
Point of Fact: Five years after getting my B.S. degree in CS, I took a job writing C++ code. I didn't know C++. I had never worked in the language before. Yet I mastered C++ in a matter of days. Why? Because I knew C inside and out. I knew exactly how the code was being translated to assembly, and how it was being executed. I knew enough to write my own compiler. (Which I've since done...) I knew OO inside and out. I had worked in other, more esoteric languages [smalltalk, objectiveC, etc]. I had written software implementing Abstract Data Types in other languages. I was well versed on the concepts behind C++. Learning the language was a simple matter of reading The Annotated C++ Reference Manual to pick up the syntax and its nuances. In a matter of days I was outperforming all their other coders.
I went on to write the bulk of the software on that project. Team of 10 people, and I wrote more than half the code. What does that tell you about vocational training vs a solid education?
People with vocational training are useless. They make the absolute dumbest mistakes. Like being unable to figure out why this returns 0 (for all a<b):
double f (unsigned int a, unsigned int b) { return a / b; }
Hell, I've had people try to pass off: double * f() { double a; return &a; }
Or be unable to grasp the difference between O(NlogN) vs O(N^2) algorithms.
Classes like neural networks, computer vision, artificial intelligence, etc are NOT SUPPOSED to be teaching you real-world skills. They are supposed to be EXERCISING those real-world skills.
Nobody was born knowing how to walk. Or how to ride a bike. We all learned. And so it goes with coding. You're not born a great coder. You become one by writing a lot of code. By making a lot of mistakes. And by learning from those mistakes.
My most educational class, as an undergrad, was computer graphics. Not a whole lot of practical real-world knowledge there. But we had four large programming assignments. The last one built upon the 3rd. Taught me more about writing extensible code than anything else.
Look at Dan's list! "Real world Databases". WTF? I studied Algebraic Structures. Advanced Math: Algebra applied to set theory. Rings. Groups. That sort of stuff.
Again, no practical real-world knowledge. But when I came across databases in the real world, I was already well versed in applying algebra to sets of data. Algorithm complexity (indexing) I knew inside and out from my programming theory classes.
Learning SQL is the sort of thing that I picked up overnight. Literally, take the book home, read it, learn the syntax, and I was there.
Instead of worrying about what this uneducated ignorant loser thinks, try interning. Get a summer job. Take a semester off and work. That real world experience, coupled with a solid education, is worth far more than the computer equivalent of "I am speaking 3 languages. English the best."
Or to put it another way: 10 years ago, Dan's predecessor would have been telling you to learn "Basic". How would you fare today had you followed yesterday's "vocational training" suggestions?
Have you programmed in ML? Lisp? What about Prolog?
Maybe you haven't programmed in some or any of these languages. If you have, though, you'll probably know what I mean when I say that, compared to C/C++, none of them are exactly a walk in the park. They require you to think differently about not just syntax, but the entire form of your programs.
What if your only programming experience was ten years of (not Visual) Basic, and suddenly you were faced with learning Java? The concepts of object-oriented programming would be completely foreign to a person coming from a language that doesn't even have user-definable data structures.
When I learned PHP (no, I'm no master), I was able to draw on my knowledge of C/C++, which is syntactically practically identical but more importantly the same paradigm. Learning how to tinker around in it was a snap. On the other hand, learning a language like Lisp, coming from C/C++, was much more of a challenge - yes, the syntax was different, but I had the whole ample use of parentheses thing down quickly. It was the fact that Lisp flows as a functional language but stutters as an imperative one that gave me fits. You'll never be a good Lisp programmer until you resign yourself to the fact that when you try to fit Lisp in to the C++ mold, you get crappy Lisp programs.
You're probably thinking, why the hell do I want to learn how to program in Lisp? I'll probably never use it. True, in a production environment, Lisp isn't anywhere near the most commonly used language. But college is about teaching you how to think more so than what to think. By learning Lisp while you're in college (or another language that doesn't fit into the C/C++/Java/PHP/etc. motif), you give yourself another way to think about how to do things. When you finish your degree and go into job training wherever you end up, that will help you just as much as the program design courses that give you the depth you need to get a leg up in the job market.
I've been out there with a CS degree for over 20 years. Yes, the theoretical classes are very important. A good mathmatical CS backgroud will give you a leg up in the long run. As others have said, it is important to learn the theory and why different approaches, OS's and languages exist. It will help you dig into the practical topics as programming languages, platforms and operating systems change. It will let you keep up with different philosophies of how to design a system, and maybe you'll understand why the flavor of the month is popular. Hopefully you'll learn to not be dogmatic.
Being dogmatic and a lack of flexibility has you using the equivilent of a hammer for everything. Very soon that will cause a career change and not by choice. Employers want people with a full tool belt. People who know how their tools work and why they use them. They also like to see that you change your tools as things evolve.
Where it is offered, takes classes where design or working within a team is required. It will give you an idea of programming within a team. People skills are important in the real world.
Do not pass on internships, involvement in open source or school projects. Anywhere there is a team of people writting code that will be used in a production environment by more than a few people. This will give you the leg up when you graduate. To say that you worked on code that is in production somewhere. Even if you can show you fixed a bug a month in firefox or apache. It shows you wrote peer reviewed code. You have code in production.
Use the internships to find out what you want to do. Try to get an internship with different companies each summer. Different evironments. Different types of projects. Different industries. Do not choose based on the cool company. Some cool startup doing something new might be cooler than google or microsoft.
you are not. Many CS graduates these days are jobless because of programs like this. Switch to a vocational program while you still have a change.
This post should win dumbest troll of the year.
I used to have this debate back when I was in school with people. In the school I began my degree there were two programs, a computer science program and a more "practical" computer information systems.
In Computer Science we learned the theoretical background, we learned how and why computers work as they do, and more importantly - how to learn. Language and skills were a way to re-enforce this theoretical base.
The CIS program learned the skills of the day. You know what one of their courses were? "Programming in Visual Basic" How many of those people taking that course 7 years ago do you think are still finding gainful employment programming in VB? And how many had to go back for skills upgrading?
I remember one summer on coop, two CS students, one CIS student. It was a help desk job, nothing exciting. But a call came in to help a user with Word. The response from the CIS person, "We didn't learn Word, we learned Word Perfect." So? If you had the theoretical background you could figure it out, find the relivant connections between the two.
As opposed to myself, my primary job these days is programming in perl. Do you think I was ever "taught" perl? No, we did C, C++, Java, etc. But I had the background to learn it on my own, because I learned how to learn, I learned how languages worked through courses such as "compiler design."
So are you in the wrong program? Depends, do you want a long term job or have to retrain every few years? People like Dan Zambonini are absolutely wrong, things like "learning XML" can be done from a book if you know the relivent background about languages and such schemas. I know that's how I learned (alright, working for the 'father of XML' for a few years certainly didn't hurt...).
Learning a language is pretty easy - if you've got solid background in algorithms and know a couple of languages (preferably at least one imperative and one functional) already. Start with finding the base datatypes, then the control structures (loops, functions, etc.) then the object model. At that point you've got enough to implement any algorithm you need. Odds are that's enough to start reading code related to the project you've been put on, and possibly some debugging. Once you start reading the code, look up the object definitions for the object types that are used. Odds are you'll find many places in the code where properties of the object aren't being used because the "developers" have been copy/pasting bad code all over the place rather than learning the objects that they're using, not to mention much business programming is considered finished when it works, not when it works right, works efficiently, or is sane to read - most business programming projects are far more spaghetti like than things allowed in a typical CS program.
I don't know that this method for aproaching a language was taught in my CS program, or if the program just gave me the mental tools to develop it for myself, but it does work. It has worked for me in several cases in the past, and I expect it to work many more times in the future.
You get the typical line out of them at an interview "I didn't learn C# in Comp Science but I could learn it in an afternoon.." I'm a young guy (22) and I've been programing professionally for nearly four years and I can tell you that this is simply false. CS major here with the same number years of experience (although mixed with part time and internships). I didn't do it in an afternoon. I did it over 3 nights. I read the APIs and learned the syntax. Where's the challenge?
EvilCON - Made Famous by
First off, i totally agree with most of your post. Teaching things too hard to learn on your own, stuff you didnt know to learn, etc.
Saying you know UML and all the buzzwords won't be as compelling to me as you actually having written something interesting which you can describe and explain to me in the interview what bits you think are nifty.
But knowing UML means the developer can work in a team and easily speak the same language (uml _is_ a language for describing software systems ) as the rest of the people.
He made be able to code like a god, but if he cant draw a simple diagram to express the idea in a common language all the developers will understand its useless.
The biggest thing CS seems to be 'not' teaching is the tools needed to design software. Use Cases, Requirements analysis, UML, Unit Testing. All of those things fit into the 'tools' category, and like a good artist, you have to know your tools.
Kyle
Since you're going to be reading Plato, you should also look into some Aristotle. He goes into the nature of education and the idea of liberal education. Note, that this is not liberal, like Michael Moore liberal. You should also read about John Dewey's ideas on education, for a more modern view. It's very interesting stuff, and your school probably offers a philosophy course that can help you with your question.
I see nothing wrong with the CS curriculum, however, a student should actively pursue the following weak points which Dan pointed out in his article:
to learn on your own time what isn't taught in your CS course, then it's time to consider another career.
Programming is hell if you don't love it.
As opposed to myself, my primary job these days is programming in perl. Do you think I was ever "taught" perl? No, we did C, C++, Java, etc.
:-). This hasn't exactly prevented me from getting gainful employment.
My undergraduate studies (which started in the mid-80s) basically taught me Pascal, Modula-2, and Oberon (guess which school I attended
On the other hand, I wouldn't be able to do my current job without Linear Algebra, and there are many days I wish I'd have paid more attention in all my math classes.
Sure, these courses may not be essential for getting a job. However, they're quite handy when it comes to keeping a job. Just about anyone who's read a tech book can code. Knowing how to write code that is computationally efficient, and knowing how common concepts work, will get you much farther. If all you've done is learned a bunch of languages but not the theory behind them, you have a lot more catching up to do when the next language comes along.
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
ok, first off, dont take this as me bragging, but, to illustrate a point, I will compare, me and my brother, since the background is similar.
Me and my brother are almost 4 years apart. We both grew up on computers, and we both used them a lot. My brother is in his 2nd year at a university studying cs. My brother did better in school then i did. I have not yet been to a school after highschool.
I recently said to my brother , "My friend is building a dual dual core opteron box" and he asked me, "what is an opteron"
I mention other hardware stuff and he was completely clueless as to what cache was, or a system bus. So, i will give him the fact, maybe he is a software guy, and not a hardware guy. I have a friend who makes 90k/yr programming at ms, and he couldnt install the heatsink on his p4. I had to do it. go figure. So i start talking about software stuff, and he is completely clueless about that. so, here is where i begin to worry. he doesnt seem to know a lot about computers, and after further probing, he really doesnt know much at all. and I wonder. we pretty much spent the same amount of time on a computer, why is he so clueless?
One word: Passion
I have a real passion for computers, you can hear it in my voice when i get über excited about the 2gb of ram I just installed. or the one kilo fanless heatsink i just installed. He doesnt. He just says, cool. I never hear him get excited about anything tech wise. I can code ok. SO, can my brother. only in java. Im a linux monkey, he is a windows mouser. So, who do you want? Someone in school? or someone who cares about what he does? Do you want someone who actively partakes in the programming community and is productive with his computer or do you want someone who as soon as the homework is done starts playing games?
I love my brother, but, I honestly dont understand why he is taking cs. But, this was to just illustrate a point. My brother is not the only person like this. I know many cs grads that need my help in fixing their computers. or how much they dont know overall.
My last roomate was a technical recruiter. Everyday he would come home from work and say, hey - i have the perfect job for you. We would always talk about tech stuff, and I could always answer his questions. without any problems. Funny how that works. anywhoo... there are plently of uneducated computer junkies that know a lot. there are also plently of uneducated computer junkies that dont know sh*t. there are plently(mostly, from what i have encountered) cs grads that dont know shit. there are also some who do.
My point is this---Education doesnt matter, the person who takes advantage of it, or doesnt. Do they grow from it and use the knowledge? or does it become statistical junk? Do they become an individual or do they become just another product of the wonderful education system of the USA?
It is trivial to do trivial things in any language. It is not trivial to do engineering in any language. "the 2nd coming", apparently believes syntax and libraries are the only differences between languages. That is wrong.
... but they are meant to be production languages so the seemingly trivial differences loom much larger.
Many people mistakenly believe Java and C# are practically the same. Unless you are talking Scheme vs Lisp few have as similar syntax. Yet there are many differences, and the implications of those differences for engineering in each language is much larger. Java and C# are the same if you are not doing engineering in them
Will a day of learning syntax help you understand the difference in how generics are implemented in Java 1.5 vs C# 2.0? Do you think the difference won't matter in how you should use generics in the language?
Learning a production language at university is a distraction, because you are trying to _learn_ useful long term principles. You are not trying to _apply_ them to a production system. Eventually will need to do that in a job, and the path from junior to senior engineer is the time to do that learning.
Don't take a class at school about C#, or Java, or C++. Learn it yourself, by making and maintaining a long term hobby project. Just don't underestimate how deep is the problem space around learning to be effective in a language.
The problem with University education is not the lack of learning production tools. A University is not a trade school. The problem is the lack of perspective given to students about what will be important if their goal is to be a software engineer. You don't need to learn at school all the details that come with experience. However, it is a disservice that most students leave school with the wrong idea about what their future path of learning needs to be.
Unless it's your mission in life to be on the government dole^H^H^Hpayroll working for a defense contractor or some federally funded science project, a degree may do very little for you in the long run.
...All of which begs a question: Why do you really want a degree? Do you really have goals in your life which can only be accomplished with a degree? If so, well great! Go for the degree!
If you already have computer skills & talent, you could quit college now and make as much money or more in the private sector immediately. By the time your classmates graduate, you'll already have some real life work experience and therefore a superior resume, and may even find yourself as the interviewer when they apply for a job.
This is basically what I did, and I was able to retire at 39 as a millionaire without ever having taken a single computer class in my entire life. Not one. Ever.
Had I taken the well-worn route of getting a paper degree and going to work for the government or some defense contractor, I'd still be an employee (though likely in top management) with little hope of retirement in sight, and it would have been far less likely to achieve millionaire status so young.
A degree is only useful to the extent that it says something about you. It's true a degree will open some doors especially in the short term, but there are other ways to open them, and an impressive work experience & a legendary reputation will open far more doors than any piece of paper ever can.
Can't a person have both a degree and experience? Sure! But as a practical matter you can only effectively work on one at a time. Once you have work experience, your degree will become increasingly irrelevant.
Or perhaps is it due to all that very impressive marketing of the educational system? Do you feel a need to get some paper degree to validate yourself? If so, then this marketing has been successful, and you're basically just deferring your REAL education - which will only begin when you start working.
antarctician is correct - dont confuse the different types of disiplines.
... model-checking, theorem-proving, AI & ML.
each is important, but each is different (yes, of course there is some overlap).
at the risk of over-simplification: scientists discover new laws; engineers apply them; technologists help both do their job.
so if you are not interested in knowledge for its own sake, then yes you should quit CS and switch over to a vocational track. there is a great sense of achievement and satisfaction in solving practical problems that make an immediate impact upon people's lives (bridges, damns, roads etc - these are not trivial things).
but if you want to actually want to understand the way the universe works - which includes man and machines - then you should not even blink for one momment at studying theoretical subjects.
most people are not suited by talent or temperment to be scholars of any kind (in the sciences or otherwise); they enroll in science (instead of engineering or MIS) for the same reason that many enroll in university instead of community college - because it is a status symbol. They really have no business being there. The entreprise of inquiry is not their passion. they should be at a good polytechnic school instead (where this idea is taken seriously elsewhere in the world, it produces amazing results).
So dont fret about it for a minute.
In fact, the one aspect that is really missing from your cousrework is lots of courses on logic, the most basic subject any educated person must study (whether in the arts or science) - you will need this in order to appoach all the important issues in computer science
If you want to start looking at cool stuff for your AI classes, then check out the debate in knowledge represenation as between those who believe in low-order representations like Genetic Programming vs mid-order representations like Bayesian networks versus high-order representations in second order monoadic logics used to model agent languages like BDI (belief desire intentions).
If the big stuff (like AI) intrigues you, then you will relish university for the chance to think clearly & deeply about the way man constructs (himself and) the world - especially through his machines. One of the key issues you will come to terms with is the nature of representation in general; the issue of of REFLECTION will become an important subject for you as you try to understand everything from why meta-classes are crucial to how Godel's incompleteness theorem. Any system that can (not) describe itself in its own terms is (not) a powerful way of constructing the world. So you will truly have a momment of clarity when you learn learn how the meta-circular interpreter wroks in LISP; and the joy you will experience reading Sussman's classic textbook (MIT) will awaken your mind to the whole subject of language & thought are related.
most of all - have fun! dont be afraid to be wrong or stupid.
next to love, the carrer of the mind is the most important journey you will ever take in your life.
cheers: dlf
ps: sorry for typos - in a huge hurry.
So what do you want? A job or a career? How much do you want it?
I think that there is a deeper subtext to your post than you are emphasizing.
Look at your career: you earned a CS degree. You worked as an engineer. Then, you went to law school.
Granted, you don't tell us why you made that decision, and I'm not going to speculate. But I am going to generalize, and say that your story is becoming the norm, and not the exception. I know a huge number of people who have switched careers mid-track. And the funny thing is, I see a correlation with intelligence -- the smarter the person, the less satisfied they are with their first career.
Why is this the case? Who knows? But I think it's significant, and I think it speaks to the way that a student should treat his/her college education: Try things. Experiment. Learn ideas, not facts. Learn how to read. Learn how to write. Learn how to live.
I speak from some experience here -- I spent a huge amount of time as an undergraduate studying the technical, and very little time learning about books, music and culture. Today, I'm a technology burnout. I would much rather read, write, paint, draw, photograph or perform -- basically, anything but spend the rest of my life sitting in front of a computer. I wish I had done things differently.
Perhaps, had I balanced my education a bit better in college, I wouldn't be facing this problem today. Perhaps not. But either way, I would be much better prepared for the difficulties of life, had I spent a little less time treating college like a trade school for science and technology....
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
This is the right idea, it reminds me of something from Donald Knuth's website, when he is asked, "Why does Knuth replace MIX by another machine instead of just sticking to a high-level programming language? Hardly anybody uses assemblers these days?" anyone interested should read what he has to say under the heading "Why have a machine language?" at http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/mmix.htm l
The short version is programming languages come and go, right now Java is probably the en vogue language before that C++, before that C, and so on. The point is not to become dependant on any one language and learn the (as Knuth puts it) "timeless truths." Dont learn how to implement a concept, understand it, and once you gain that understanding you should be able to implement in any language that need be.
Most people think that you can just be sat down in front of a computer and taught to "program". What is the essence of programming? Is it the language? No. Is it the operating system? No.
It's the *CONCEPTS*! Computer Science teaches the concepts behind the programming and why you should do certain things. It teaches you to discern for yourself how complex systems act. People who have certificates have reduces this profession to something most people think of as a "vocation" which is a crying shame.
A vocation is something that people learn to do without much understanding of the science or technical justifications behind what they are doing? Do you think a mechanic knows the physics of how a car works down to the smallest level? No, he only knows that which he needs to get the job in front of him done. And guess what, when he needs to learn about a new car he has to go back to school to learn about it.
Computer Science gives you the tools you need to get the job done AND it provides you with the knowledge you will need in the future to adapt because you have a deep undestanding of how things work, instead of simple rote memorization.
Understanding the concepts is what give Computer Science and, indeed, any science or engineering discipline it's power over a simple "vocation."
Don't listen to the guy who wrote the article (I already forgot his name) he sounds like he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Later, GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
"People like Dan Zambonini are absolutely wrong, things like 'learning XML' can be done from a book if you know the relivent background about languages and such schemas."
Agreed completely. When the original RFC for XML hit the scenes, I downloaded it, and read it my own damn self, and later studied up on what to do with it. Who in the hell wants to waste their tuition on stuff like that?
The technology flavor of the month is the WRONG THING for a university to be teaching. If that's what you want, you can go to a community college, or some tech training school, and save yourself some cash. Theory lasts way the hell longer than specific technologies do. Any university that isn't giving you the fundamentals is wasting your money.
As an employer, I'm often hiring people for positions which require unusual skillsets. Because it's highly unlikely that I'll find anyone who has the full set of skills they need to do the job, I'm always on the lookout for people with strong theory and fundamentals. They will be more likely to be able to figure out the things they don't know than the guy who studied whatever was hip at the time.
Knowing the time complixity of sorting and searching algorithms, data structures, different programming paradigms (oo, procedural, functional etc.) is something you can always rely on next year, or 20 years from now, but is not something they will teach you at a community college.
What you need is BOTH. Finish your BS at a University, learn about algorithms, data encoding, database theory, AI, optimization, machine learning, HCI theory, data security, networks, then as your electives go to that university's evening college and take some classes on Java, C++, C#, Apache, MySQL, Oracle or whatever applied classes you need for a short term. This way you'll be set for short term and long term.
There is a reason that there are CS degrees out there, it is not just a big conspiracy to scam students and take their money. Some things you will learn will seem boring until one day it all "clicks". When you have to make a decision to use a HashMap or an ArrayList (warning: crazy java talk) you will remember about big-O, about Hashes, about data structures and other stuff like that. It will be helpfull, trust me.
The fundamental question is what kind of jobs did you mean? Did you mean "code monkey" jobs where you re-write someone's code in a new language, or creating web-pages, or mentaining a server farm? If you plan all your life to do just that, one particular thing then take just a couple of community college courses and you are done. But don't complain 5 years later that you are stuck in a dead end job and nobody will hire you.
Another thing your university career should show is how well can you learn. Your GPA is an index that says "This person can learn new stuff if he puts his mind to it and here is the proof". Don't listen to people who say GPA doesn't matter. It does! It shows that you can learn English, Economics, Calculus, Computer Science, Math, Basket Weaving (well maybe not this one...) if you want. I would want to hire you because anything I throw at you, you will learn. (Imagine the difference between an adjustable wrench and a fixed size wrench.)
I did. Having graduated from collage, I now realized I knew enough going in to do most programming jobs out there. Computer science is a branch of mathimatics. If you just want to program without learning anything, take MIS, and quit cha bitching.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.