Slashdot Mirror
Programming As a Part of a Science Education?
An anonymous reader writes "I'm a fairly new physics professor at a well-ranked undergraduate university. When I arrived, I was surprised to discover there were no computer programming requirements for our majors. This has led to a series of fairly animated faculty curriculum conversations, driven by the question: to what extent should computer programming be a part of an undergraduate science education (in particular, physics)? This is a surprising line of questioning to me because in my career (dominated by research), I've never seriously even questioned the need. If you are a physics major, you learn to program. The exact language isn't so important as is flow control, file handling, basic methods/technique, basic resource management, and troubleshooting. The methods learned in any language can then be ported over to just about any numerical or scientific computational problem.
Read on for the rest of the reader's questions and his experiences dealing with faculty who have their own ideas.
The reader continues, "I'm discovering the faculty are somewhat divided on the topic. There is even a bizarre camp that actually acknowledges the need for computer programming, but turns my 'any language' argument on its head to advocate the students do 'scientific programming' using Excel because it is 'easy,' ubiquitous, and students are familiar with it. They argue Excel is 'surprisingly powerful' with flow control and allows you to focus on the science rather than syntax. I must admit that when I hear such arguments I cannot have a rational discussion and my blood nearly boils. In principle, as a spreadsheet with simple flow control in combination with visual basic capabilities, Excel can do many things at the cartoon level we care about scientifically. But I'm not interested in giving students toys rather than tools. As a scientist raised on a heavy diet of open source software and computational physics, I'll hang my head in shame if our majors start proudly putting Excel down on their resumes. However, in the scientific spirit, perhaps I'm missing something. So I ask Slashdot, to what extent do you feel computer programming should be a part of an undergraduate science education? As a follow-up, if computing is important, what languages and software would best serve the student? If there are physics majors out there, what computing/programming requirements does your department have? My university is in the US, but how is this handled in other parts of the world?"
It depends on what you feel they MUST learn.
Certainly Excel can be a powerful, and useful, tool in data analysis. But I agree, I would never call it programming.
For simulation, however, I would expect you need something a bit more powerful. Perhaps you can teach all the students how to use Excel to analyze experimental data, and design a separate course for simulation design, which would, in turn, use a far more featured language/toolset.
The big danger with trying to teach a "real" language is that you spend the whole semester teaching students with no aptitude for the work the basics of structured programming and they still won't have time for the numerical analysis that is important to them as scientists. Structured programming is as natural as breathing to a geek, but it would be a bit more of a struggle to somebody without the right mindset. I don't see any way of forcing two required semesters of programming on every student. Just not room in the schedule for it.
However, keep in mind that the purpose of college is not to get those students employed, it is to teach them to think. Your brighter students are going to figure out that as a practical skill, most of them will need to know how to program, and would possibly sign up for "Programming for Theoretical Science Majors" as an elective The not-so-bright students... well... they will struggle in the real world, just as they always have.
SirWired
learning to program in excel / vba DOES do what you CLAIM to want (flow control, file handling, basic methods / techniques, troubleshooting), so why is your blood boiling? preconceived notions? and yes, excel IS surprisingly powerful (those who don't think so aren't leveraging its capabilities). someone who can PROGRAM in excel / vba (versus just manipulate a spreadsheet) will be perfectly capable of programming in perl / python / fortran with very little additional work if the need arises.
(i'm an aerospace engineer, and for work, i program in c, fortran, java, vb, and yes, excel / vba,depending on the need)
Bottom line: IMHO no special effort to add programming to a physics curriculum should be necessary. However, there are obviously classes where programming is essential to the physics content and for those you would horribly disserve your students by candy-coating the computational aspects.
Require programming as a pre-requisite where the class requires it, and if that means that none of the reasonable degree tracks are possible without it then you have your answer.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
The GSL is mostly C. It's useful for students to take a numerical methods class and recreate the basics and to understand the limitations. Once they know, they can use libraries like GSL to get real work done.
Excel is not only a joke for real problems, it's a real problem to grade.
I am a experimental physics postdoc. Nearly everybody i know uses Matlab/Octave (theoreticians Mathematica). For simple (not heavy number crunching), matlab/octave is the de-facto way to exchange numerical programs. You get without much trouble results and a plot within a few minutes. And your students will learn what vectorization is, if they use matlab long enough. (if you can write you operation in a vectorized form, you can also do heavy number crunching). The documentation of matlab is excellent, and there are a lot of toolboxes which actually solve detail work (they have their price). You can use instrument control and DAQ toolboxes to control experiments directly. The matlab support is responsive and not arrogant at all (reporting bug is more a "thank you, we'll look at it" experience instead of a "what the fuck are you doing to trigger this bug? dont do it."). One big problem about matlab is that it spoils the programming style a little bit, but after all, these are physicists. The ones who can not program when they enter university will never learn it fully.
But scientists are going to need to do increasing amounts of computer use as computers pervade and inform the sciences, and that means doing their own programming, including writing real programs and writing scripts to bash input or output data for other programs. So they not only need to learn some syntax, and some scripting languages, they need to learn basic data structures, efficiency issues, debugging, and one of the most important lessons from my CS100 days - "Never trust input" "Ever" . That means they need at least two semesters of programming.
As scientists, even if they don't ever end up doing much more programming than feeding input to other packages and interpreting the output, they need to be able to do it in ways that will run in finite amounts of time and produce correct output - and learning not to trust input is as basic as learning not to connect the 110volt power to a 5 volt device or use fire near flammable liquids.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I think you have made the case for an applied math course in numerical analysis that contains about 2 hours of class lecture time in computer applications.
As far as requiring physics majors to take a programming course, I think that is ridiculous. I went through a PhD level applied physics program including writing a simulation of chemical reactions occurring on the surface of space shuttle heat shield tiles during re-entry and never found anything more than spending a few hours here and there reading language syntax. The applied maths literature is full of pidgin code for the algorithms that is easily translatable into the language of your choice. The courses in algorithm analysis and numerical methods are the rest if what you need. A formal course would have been both a terrible bore and a waste of time that should be spent on something more useful like quantum electrodynamics.
I assume that Physics majors at your university are required to take some level of math classes.
Excel is not sufficient instruction in programming any more than Algebra is sufficient instruction in math. So if someone suggests that all students need to learn is Excel, you may ask why the students are required to take more advanced math classes.
paintball
If I had mod points ...
I cannot agree more. After a master in high energy physics where I learned C++/matlab(or octave)/gnuplot/latex/... I decided to continue my career in medical physics.
I was shocked by the omnipresence of Word and Excel. I am sorry, but there should be corporeal punishment for people publishing scientific papers with figures made by Excel.
Now, with a good undergrad training in programmation we would avoid such abberations
"Sometimes the appropriate response to reality is to go insane" -PKD
I once had a friend who built an instantiation of LIFE in Excel. Using macros and stored VB code in each cell, he was able to have every cell look up the context of every other adjoining cell during each generation, and the cells would turn on and off accordingly.
I'm not saying it can't be done in Excel. I'm saying just because you're versed in Excel, doesn't mean it's an expedient, or even appropriate tool for managing complex data structures, critical physical concepts, or large multidimensional problem sets.
For straight forward engineering and archtectual applications, it might well prove to be an excellent resource. It just seems a little like going next door via the polar route to try ways of making problems fit an inappropriate tool, vs finding an optimal tool in the first place and having it available for problems requiring greater flexibility, and less application related operational overhead.
Of course, when what you have is a hammer...
Every physics graduate should have a grounding in numerical methods. This requires some programming, but the critical point is that the numerical methods drives programming not the other way around.
Every physics graduate should have the ability to find and use Numerical Recipes by Abramowitz and Stegun. Doesn't matter if they're using the C version, Fortran or whatever. This means you need to teach some programming, but more importantly the skills to understand the recipes.
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice; in practice there is.
I know Matlab has really low (or no) cost for educational use, but could you guys please switch over to GNU Octave (matlab clone) or SciLab/SciCos (similar but different & has a Simulink equivalent)? That way, after school people can keep using low cost tools in industry. My department spends a ton of money for those tools simply because the people who make decisions don't know about good/cheap alternatives. And guess where these guys learned Matlab. Yep - back in school.
With one of my professors, it was "You can use any language you want as long as it can do the job it's required to do and your TA is willing to accept it". That approach worked really well for us. The TAs were very flexible. In fact, I would tend to think the job of grading projects was much more interesting because of all the variations in the student's work. Remember, you've said it yourself, this is not supposed to be a class on syntax. At my school at least, they didn't teach us the languages, they taught us the concepts (and you were supposed to learn the computer languages on your own, and of course, every Professor had their favorite pet language they had been developing/using for the last twenty years).
For the lecture itself, I think the choice should be left to the Professor teaching the class in question. If the Professor is an expert in Logo, let him use that -- if that's what he wants. If the Professor is an expert in pseudo-code and wants to use that -- let him use that. If the Professor is an Expert in VBA, let him use that if that's what he wants to use. Hopefully, your faculty is made up of smart people. If they're smart, just let them use the tool of their choice -- they'll probably do a far better job with them (than giving them some pre-assigned tool). An chances are, the students will gravitate toward the common tools already used in the industry.
The thing is, VBA may not be considered a grown-up language to you, but I can almost guarantee that if you run into a Physics Professor who's an expert in VBA -- he/she will be able to do things in it that you couldn't even dream was possible. So I would advise you against going down that road of trying to prove them wrong, I'm pretty sure you won't be able to. So let that Professor teach in VBA if he wants to, but don't let him force you to teach in a tool you don't want to teach in.
Just like they say "Don't give a programmer a soldering iron", giving physicists something like C is probably giving them more than they need for most number crunching.
Engineering is the art of compromise.