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?"

Comments

Regarding the purpose of a higher Ed degree...

[JymBrittain]

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.

Re:Regarding the purpose of a higher Ed degree...

[Coryoth]

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.

The issue I have with evaluating everything in terms of "but will it get me a job?" is that, as you say, over your lifetime you'll probably make a few jumps in career path, so the skills you invest in now might not be what you find yourself doing in 5 or 10 years time. Add to that the fact that, especially in the IT field, there is a lot of churn in what are considered the "right skills" and you could easily find that the job skills you spent time learning are not much in demand by the time you've finished learning them.

That's not to knock vocational courses - they can be very useful and help give you the skills to get things done. Your life shouldn't revolve around your job however, and not everything should be devoted to that end. The best vocational courses are the ones that are unashamedly so, are usually short (a few weeks or months for the whole course) and something you can pursue when you need it. University courses are supposed to be about learning because you want to know and understand. Some of that may be useful for finding a job simply because people who understand some concepts may well be rare, and in demand. Some of that may be useful in a job because you have a good grasp of underlying concepts and understand what you're doing rather than just mechanistically repeating a process. Employment is shouldn't be the point of learning such things however, it should be a small side benefit. If you want a job, take some vocational training. If the job you want requires you to understand things for which you need a university degree then either that's something you want to learn regardless just so you can understand it yourself, or you need to seriously consider your career goals.

In the end the ability to learn new things efficiently, and the skills involved in such learning are the most valuable job skills you'll get. You'll rarely end up doing a job that is precisely what you trained for, so the ability to learn and adapt is highly beneficial. Those are things no university, trade school, college, or otherwise will teach you, it's something you have to learn for yourself. Of course any sort of education can give you practice.

Jedidiah.

Re:Regarding the purpose of a higher Ed degree...

[apoc.famine]

And from what I hear, one of the most useful classes you can take to get a job after completing a CS degree is Hindi.

Re:Regarding the purpose of a higher Ed degree...

[sd_diamond]

Those are good points. I would add to that by saying that the greatest value of a scientific/technical college education is not just the specific knowledge and skills that it teaches you, but the fact that -- if you do it right -- it teaches you how to learn new things. And this, really, is the most valuable job skill of all. Whatever cutting-edge software or hardware you become familiar with in your university education are almost certainly going to become obsolete in your lifetime -- even abstract concepts like theories and algorithms can always be superceded by better ones. What will really make you irreplaceable to an employer is the ability to read (and understand!) the literature and keep yourself educated on current equipment and techniques.

So in that sense, Zambonini has it completely backwards. Because courses like Theory of Computation, Numerical Analysis, Artificial Intelligence, and so forth require students to gain an understanding of complex, advanced theories and algorithms. Whether they actually use the specific things they learn is really not that important; what matters is the meta-learning.

Answer to your question...

[jawtheshark]

If you want to learn about computer science (which is for a big part just maths), you're in the right program. However, computer science doesn't teach you to be a software engineer, or a programmer. It teaches you the sience behind it all, the foundations of "how this stuff" works. (Which is mostly theory, by the way) It isn't all that useful for your job, but an academic degree doesn't make you ready for "a job". It makes sure that you can handle what comes after that. The ability to adapt, to learn and research on yourself when your job requires you to do so.
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.

Re:Answer to your question...

[Etyenne]

The problem with your position is that the job market have come to expect CS degree from programmers. Vocationnal school degrees, while being more down-to-earth in their approach, are considered inferior by the vast majority of employers. So, if you want to make a living programming, CS degree is considered a must. I know it make no sense in the real world, but would you rather get to begin your career on a lower rung because you choose the most appropriate curriculum for your career path ? For most people, the answer is no, thus we are collectively trying to retrofit computer "scientists" into programming roles.

Some people sugggested MIS as a better academic path for programmer. I don't know. At my University, the MIS curriculum involve a lot of business bullshit such as marketing or finance. I know these are good to know from the organizational point-of-view, but if you expect to produce decent programmers, you need to keep some focus.

Actually, I think there is no good path for those who want to get into programming in the current academic model. It's even worse for IT. What would a prospective system administrator take as degree ?

Re:Answer to your question...

[llefler]

Some people sugggested MIS as a better academic path for programmer. I don't know. At my University, the MIS curriculum involve a lot of business bullshit such as marketing or finance. I know these are good to know from the organizational point-of-view, but if you expect to produce decent programmers, you need to keep some focus.

It depends a lot on what type of job you are looking for. I would guess that the majority of programming jobs are for managing in-house applications. Companies writing software to manage their own business. In those jobs, it's just as important to understand the business as it is to know how to write a program. Maybe more so, since advancement above a certain level will generally be into management.

In various classes over the years, I have taken Cobol, RPG II, Assembler (s360), BASIC, C, C++, and Java. And over my career I've mostly worked in Delphi. OTOH, everything I learned in accounting and economics applies pretty much the same today as it did 20 years ago. With computer curriculums you have to be careful and make sure you are focusing on teaching how to be a programmer and not how to use a particular language. That's why classes should focus on data structures and SDLC. And sadly, proper GUI design is nearly universally ignored.

Re:Answer to your question...

[jfortier]

In Canada, a college is usually what an American would call a "community college", so its primary focus is instruction with a vocational focus. University means just what it means in the US, a higher-education institution that has a strong focus on research (and obviously the extent of that focus varies from place to place). The term college is sometimes also used to refer to the units of a university, such as St. Mike's College at the University of Toronto or St. Paul's College at the University of Manitoba, so you have to get some of the meaning from the context. Without context, the first meaning is usually understood.

The easiest way to see the difference is that if you tell a Canadian "I'm going to college", he'll probably look at you a second and then either think to himself or say, "Oh, you mean university".

Re:Answer to your question...

[the morgawr]

The reason that most schools don't offer software engineering (and, incidentally the reason that I don't recommend majoring in CS) is that the field of software problems where you don't need domain experience is very small, and for the most part un-theoretical. MOST people would be better off getting another degree and minoring in CS. At most schools the CS degree is not the best investment for your money.

For example, an electrical engineer specializing in embeded systems and with a CS minor is a much better candidate for many jobs then a guy with just a CS degree. Let's face it, it is much easier to teach the advanced CS stuff to yourself then it is to learn an entirely new field, and most of the good software jobs require some special field of knowledge.

My advice on what degree to get is to get the hardest degree you can survive in your field of interest. In the long run that will put you in a better possition in the job market, because there will be fewer people in the harder degrees compeating for the higher paying jobs, and if you can't find one of the higher paying jobs you can always out compeate someone who got an easier degree.

The choice of degree matters less than attitude..

[Ckwop]

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.

Maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

not useless

[OffTheLip]

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.

Common Question

[wsloand]

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.

Practical Courses tend to be write-test-and-forget

[Taladar]

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.

He is pretty much right

[Foredecker]

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.

Jobs aren't all.

[matman]

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.

Re:The choice of degree matters less than attitude

[the_2nd_coming]

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.

Education vs. training

[mi]

The point of good education is not so much to learn stuff, but to learn how to learn stuff.

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.

Re:BS degrees are more vocational

[Norweed]

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.

Learning A Language in an Afternoon

[CyborgWarrior]

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.

Re:Learning A Language in an Afternoon

[Viv]

I would also point out that either of those is likely to be a roughly O(n) operation, so neither selection is obviously rediculous, and the use of them took very little programmer time to implement. If they become a bottleneck, identify them as such, and choose a better algorithm.

I'm far more likely to get bent out of shape if a programmer who works for me chooses to use a bubble sort algorithm to sort a 5 million record database, or if he spends three weeks trying to find an algorithm to optimally solve a 3SAT equivalent problem. (unless, of course, he actually succeeds in the second case!)

Fact is, someone with real study in CS is less likely to make the above mistakes than someone with just programming experience. And programmer time costs way more than processor time.

No kidding.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:if you want more vocation, plus a better chance

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed 110% - Information Systems work IS the "steady-eddy/bread & butter" end of this field... & there is ALWAYS work in it.

No two corporate entities structure their data or use EXACTLY the same data (unless part of same company) typically, so custom information systems work (e.g.-> custom databases & such + reporting apps etc./et all) will always need to be designed & redesigned or added onto (or even modded/improved for changing conditions).

Another REALLY useful (imo) course, is "DataStructures" if it was not included in said list from the URL document: It teaches you a great many things & patterns of thought (such as which types of sorts to use, when, & with what datatypes & sizes of sets to sort thru, as one example of what you acquire/learn from it).

How much of it do you REALLY use in IS/IT/MIS work? Not much, but it is a GREAT course for anyone into computing imo!

* :)

APK

P.S.=> The reason I agree SO strongly with the init. poster & his comment of:

"for a job, then go into CIS."

I assume he meant information systems work/databasing in general (often called "data processing" as well)... I have made more than a decade worth of money from it, for the very reasons I state above:

Sometimes, there is NO "canned/prebuilt/turnkey" instant solution out there for various enterprises out there or their data - you HAVE to build them, for them! apk

Re:no

[briaman]

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.

Two years or Four years

[wk633]

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.

Re:no

[WindBourne]

He is in the right program. A good Computer Science has a good to great theoritical underpinning. Look, the design paradigms will change. So will OSs. And the languages. and the DBs.

While 2 years ago, there were tons of CSers unemployed, so were the EEs and the CEs. Now, I do not know of any CSers that are unemployed. I do know of a LOT of CISers and vocational people who are unemployed. I also know a number of them have moved on to other professions because the industry has shrunk.

Basically, the CS/CE gives you the ability to do anything in the software world. The CIS/Vocational gives you the ability to do just what you learned. And back in the 90's, the CIS world was learning mainframes with Cobol, RPG, and PL1. Is that were growth is? nope. Has not been for sometime. Can these people move easily to Microsoft (where the most jobs are currently), or Linux (where all the growth is)? Nope. They do not have the underpinnings to make the jump.

Re:The choice of degree matters less than attitude

[sribe]

...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.

Make sure you learn how to WRITE!

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

Make sure you include a couple of courses on report writing and writing for buisness.

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.

CS degrees are mostly useless.

[supabeast!]

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.

Re:no

[Raven15]

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.

Re:if you want more vocation, plus a better chance

[oc255]

I would agree with the usefulness of a Data Structures Course. It just so happens that I started a Jr Development (Java mostly) position recently and I was not a CIS/CS major (career change from SA/Unix).

I find myself trying to create a data structure/tree like a family tree or a directory structure. Each node has multiple children, a node can have no children, a fast way to find a path from a child to the root, etc. And in wondering how to create such a tree I find the usefulness of textbook knowledge, specifically the jargon. I'm reading like crazy about red/black trees, linked lists, doubly linked lists, binary trees, what a map is compared to a list, etc etc. It goes on and on. And I'm sure a course would have covered this or at least given me the knowledge to see quickly if the standard Java libraries have this structure already built.

Many of the Java books I'm reading have wording like, "if you remember from your CS class what a binary tree is, here's how to implement one in Java ..." The theory background would have made this a lot easier/faster, rather than jumping right into a specific language.

I definitely envy those who took any kind of data structures course.

Re:The choice of degree matters less than attitude

[CardiganKiller]

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.

Dan doesn't get it

[daVinci1980]

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.

Touch Typing?!?

[mkcmkc]

Parent is right on, and Zambonini is all wet. I was going to joke that he should put "touch typing" in his list of courses that degree programs should require, but incredibly, it's already there.

CS is your time to master theory and basics--the entire rest of your life will be spent learning languages X, Y, and Z, and the latest trends...

Mike

Re:The choice of degree matters less than attitude

[Dachannien]

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.

Take the theory, but don't pass on the practical.

[mpechner]

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.

Re:if you want more vocation, plus a better chance

[halcyon1234]

Having been to both University and College (Canadian terms. US equiv is, I believe, College and Community College?), I can say that I can't see not having both.

Although it is true that CS is a highly academic and theoretical field, almost all of its applications are (appropriately enough) applied.

So, what are some of the most common arguments?

If you don't know how to actually program a computer, an employer won't care if you know the theory behind machine code

Essentially true. Unless you get some plum "sit around and think about computers" job, most employers will want you to be able to actually DO the job they hire you to. However, on the flip side of that:

An employer doesn't want someone who has only been trained to use Language X. They want someone who wholly understands the concepts of programming and can adapt to any situation as the company grows.

Again, essentially true. Unless you are doing a temp contract, most employers will be looking for a Programmer (or some buzzword, like Solutions Analyst)... not a C++ Do..Until Loop Programmer.

But, as you can see, both of those requirments seem to contradict each other by seemingly presenting an either/or case. Either you know Programming OR you know C++.

And the same applies for just about any field in CS. (Either you know Network Administration, or your know Cisco Routers. Either you know Web Mastering, or you know Apache. Etc, etc.)

I first completed a college diploma, and learned how to build a network (Cisco style), how to set up and maintian websites (Apache style), and how to run databases (MySQL style). Although there was a spattering of "theory" in each course (usually consisting of the introductory lecture to each course), it was all "hands on".

I graduated and transferred over to University. By Year Two, I felt so detached from actual computers. I was learning a lot of facinating theory stuff, but really wanted to do something with it. Of course, "doing stuff" was a 4th year course. ;)

So, after getting most of the requirements for the Bachelor degree, I decided to switch back to college. In Ontario, colleges have been allowed to grant Applied Degrees.

Having experienced a good chunk of the cirriculum, I have to say that this is a great solution. It's a nice mix of theory AND practicality. Personally, I'd like to see the Universities lean more towards an Applied Degree, with all the serious intensive THEORY courses offered as 3rd/4th year electives... and as Masters. (I firmly believe that Masters should be near 100% theory. You SHOULD get a Masters in Network Science, not a Masters In Cisco IOS).

Re:no

[antarctican]

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...).

he does have some points...

[burnin1965]

As someone who works with both CS grads and vocational grads I'd have to say that what Dan believes is missing from the CS studies is also missing from the vocational studies as well. And the only outcome of the vocational studies is a graduate who has no understanding of the basics, has a difficult time adapting to platforms outside their study focus, and are missing the same key career tools as the CS students.

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:

- Basics of good code architecture: Loose Coupling, etc.
- The importance and tools of Planning: Spec'ing,, UML etc.
- Economics, Business Studies, Costing Projects, Commercial pressures
- Project/Time Management
- Security
- Testing, Debugging, Performance, Re-factoring
- Problem analysis
- Health and safety (nutrition?)

Re:no

[danhirsch]

I couldn't agree more. Allot of software companies hire CIS grads...mainly because they are cheaper than full CS grads. What happens when a software company retools and moves on to new languages? Either the employees 1) Move on to other companies or professions out of frustration with having to learn a new language, 2) Get canned because they are no longer in need, or 3) Ante up and push through to learn a new language. Unfortunately, 1 and 2 are usually the direction things go. CS grads on the other hand have the theoretical knowledge to move between languages with a fair amount of ease. CS grads are the ones that don't rely on the fancy gui's or pre-built code snipits and controls to do all their work...they know how to do this in code....while many CIS's do not. For me...I can look at pretty much ANY modern language and tell what its doing...get a syntax reference book, and start editing. CIS grads that I know...would just freak...because they were taught more business skills instead of theory. I don't discount the CIS degrees, I just don't think they are very practical for the true-blue programmer or shall I say "engineer". I have recently been struggling on whether I should push through and get a masters in computer science or take the easy way out (for me at least) and get a masters in CIS. I keep having to remind me of these facts...over and over... CIS curriculum teaches "Java" or "VB", while CS curriculum teaches "Data Structures" and "Operating Systems". Sure..languages (c++) are taught in these classes..but the focus is on language structure...not the language in particular.

Re:no

[nine-times]

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.

What are you talking about? I'm a Helpdesk Manager, and I already get treated worse than the janitor.

"Getting" a job

[EEBaum]

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.

Re:The choice of degree matters less than attitude

[jwiegley]

Disclaimer: I am a university professor in CS. So, clearly, I believe in the value of a university education. But I'll try to explain why...

"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.

I think your statement here sums everything up nicely in favor of university degrees. You don't have such a degree, you can't learn new languages fast, can't recognize that ability in others and after four years you're still not an expert at the one language you do know and use daily.

Aside from the exaggeration of "[one] afternoon" which I agree is insufficient. You believe it's impossible because you yourself are unable to accomplish it due to your limited vocational training. Then you falsely project your own limitations on to others. As other posters have replied: yes. with a well grounded backround in theory and fundamentals it is possible to pick up yet another language in a very compressed period of time. (Though some of us benefit from an advantage in age over you.)

I have been proficient in the past with Fortran, Pascal, Modula-2, LISP and various assembly languages. I am currently proficient in Perl and shell and an expert in C, C++ and Java. (not trying to brag, a lot of /.ers have similar, or larger, skill sets and will relate to the rapid shifts in technologies that result in such sets.) The last job I took up required teaching advanced data structures in Java; a language I hadn't touched before the first day of class. Within one week I was productive in the language, within two proficient and within a month I was expert and using most of the advanced features of the language. I can't count the number of times my employment positions have put me in such a position where the programming requirements of the job have changed abruptly. I have always been ready to adapt to the challenge in a very, very short time frame and I believe this is due to my university-based education. I'm not afraid to change jobs or be fired because I know I can adapt and be valuable and productive in any new environment.

Here's two more examples:

1. Never during my education in CS did I expect to become a programmer and systems administrator for a Nortel phone system. But it did happen. I was ready for it and saved my company a lot of money in consulting fees because a dedicated technician didn't have to be called in to fix little issues.
2. Second example: One of my students obtained a job with an aerospace company and it was my responsibility to monitor them for a year to make sure everybody was happy with the arrangement. I asked what they were working on and they replied "debugging HPL programs. I've never even heard of HPL! How am I suppose to know this?". I said "neither have I. How are you doing at it". They said "Fine."

They were "fine" because they had the necessary theory fundamentals squared away. I would trust this student to pick up anything new and previously unknown in a short time period. In general, I would trust university educated people to have this adaptability more than vocationally trained peopl.

I'm really sorry for all the excellent, creative problem solvers you turned away because of your bias towards a single answer. "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer (in any context) and doesn't, in itself, indicate an unworthy candidate. "I don't know; but I can learn it real fast" can indicate a truly flexible, useful person. Your loss; not the candidates.

Do you want a job or a career?

[LazyLawyer]

I got my CS degree in 1984. It's still useful, because they taught me theory, The languages they used (Pascal, PL/1 and LISP primarily) aren't.

My enthusiasm got me jobs. The degree only helped.

When I went to law school, almost everything I learned was theory. When I started the practice of law, I knew virtually nothing about actually running a trial. Now, I'm writing the book, and a publisher pays me for it.

Much of what I learned from the practice of CS and of law could have been taught at a trade school. 95% of the time, my work would be competent.

But that remaining 5% distinguishes between a tradesman and a professional. As a prosecutor, cross-examining the defence's psychologist or engineer, I have the advantage of knowing the basic theory behind their disciplines, because of the courses I took at university. I only tinker with writing software now, but I grok the new languages fast enough (when I get the chance to turn my mind to them).

I don't knock the trade schools. Enthusiasm to learn takes some people all the way through the theory they need to be pros. They don't need a university degree to be good.

And uninspired university graduates are so useless that should not be permitted to do anything important. I wouldn't hire them.

I remember that IBM used to hire only people with university degrees. Not just CS. Any degrees. IBM wasn't interested in what they learned at university. They wanted people who had the the enthusiasm/fortitude to slug their way through dry theory. A degree proved that the kid could work. Isn't that what an employer wants?

So what do you want? A job or a career? How much do you want it?

Re:Do you want a job or a career?

[Tim]

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....

Re:if you want more vocation, plus a better chance

[halcyon1234]

not a C++ Do..Until Loop Programmer.

There is no such construct in C++. Perhaps you're thinking of do..while?

Yes, that's it. (Another problem with learning too many programming languges. Too much syntax! =) )

When you look back historically to the great innovators in computer science, they came from disparate backgrounds, usually math, physics, engineering, or computer science. The commonality between these backgrounds is the formal scientific training. Formal scientific training, therefore, is obviously pretty important.

I don't think it's that cut and dry. One of the reasons why many of the innovators of computer science came from non-CS fields is because CS hadn't been invented yet. There were no computers to... um... sciencefy. Much the same way that Henry Ford didn't major in Car Mechanics. ;)

Although it's true that it requires a good amount of scientific method to be "a computer person", computers are becoming more and more reliant on non-math&phsyics expertise. Psychology is needed for good UI design (not to mention AIs). Physiology / kinesiology is needed for ergonomic design.

The thing is computers aren't a thing to do, but they are more a way of doing things. You can study pure math. But you can't really study pure computers. You can specialize in things like "using computers to calculate complex chemical reactions" or "networking computers for increased computational power" or "studying the effects of photorealistic 3d graphics on the psyche of farm animals"... but you can't really just study "computers".

It may be because, unlike math or physics or chemistry... there's really nothing to "discover". There's lots to invent and improve, sure... but there's no real ingrained "laws of computers" that are woven into the natural fabric of the universe. There's no Plank's Constant or equation balancing or Realtivity. There's nothing that's tangibly abstract (???) that's just THERE to explore, discover and derrive.

If you don't mind being eminently replaceable, go for a vocational focus, and then try to get into the business end of things, because the minute a new paradigm takes over, you will have trouble adapting, or at best, will probably not get the most out of the new technology or use it effectively.

Amen to that. This is exactly the difference between being prepped to do a job and training for a career. If you're only taught how to do stuff with IIS, and then one day MS dumps IIS for some stupid paperclip based web server, you're screwed. But, if you've learned how to use web servers in general, and understand the theory behind them, you're more likely to be not-screwed. (Of course, if you don't know how to actually USE any of the current technology, well, you're as useful as someone with their Masters in Automobile Theory who doesn't have a driver's license....)

Re:if you want more vocation, plus a better chance

[alicenextdoor]

It may be because, unlike math or physics or chemistry... there's really nothing to "discover". There's lots to invent and improve, sure... but there's no real ingrained "laws of computers" that are woven into the natural fabric of the universe. There's no Plank's Constant or equation balancing or Realtivity. There's nothing that's tangibly abstract (???) that's just THERE to explore, discover and derrive.

On the contrary, there's a whole theory of computation that is far from fully understood. Godel's incompleteness theorem, Turing machines, the Halting problem, computational complexity (as opposed to trendy modern SFI-style complexity), issues surrounding self-replicating automata...some of the greatest minds in science, never mind computer science, have spent serious time on understanding what is computation and what are its abilities and limits. I'm sure there's room for one or two new thinkers.