Ask Slashdot: CS Degree Without Gen-Ed Requirements?

davidjbeveridge writes "I'm interested in getting a CS degree. I've been programming since I was 13, and like many of us, taught myself. I am familiar with a number of languages, understand procedural, functional, and object-oriented paradigms; I'm familiar with common design patterns and am a decent engineer. I learn quickly. I work 2 jobs and I have a life. I want to get a CS degree from an accredited school (a BS, that is), but I have no interest in wasting any of my precious time taking classes in English, Philosophy, History, Art and the like. While these fields are useful and perhaps enriching, they will not contribute to making me better at my job. Moreover, I attended an excellent high school that covered these fields of study in great detail, and I feel no need or desire to spend more time studying these things. I want a BS in Computer Science with no general education requirements. Any suggestions?"

Comments

US-only problem?

[jawtheshark]

I guess this is a US-only problem. When I started my computer science degree at the University of Antwerp, it was pretty much only computer science. We had a few credits in economics, but that was really just general economics and that's it.

However, what are you expecting from studying CS? It's most likely not what you think it is. It's basically math, automata, algorithms, computability theory and stuff like that. If you plan to be a computer programmer and only that, you already have the skills required (even though, you probably make certain avoidable mistakes by if you don't know about computing theory).

If it is to have better chances to get a job interview, I can understand...

I don't regret having a computer science degree, it was very interesting, but it's not a course "how to become a better programmer".

Anyone considering computer science, should ponder the words of one of the greatest computer scientists of all times: "Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes", Edsger Dijkstra.

Re:US-only problem?

[Restil]

What percentage of the degree is taken up with Gen-Ed? If it's just 1 or 2 courses, then maybe it's not that bad.

About a third. With a 4 year degree, the final two years will be entirely related to your subject matter. Of the first two years, even of the general education courses, some of them will be computer related, and therefore relevant.

If you really want to get technical about it, beyond the computer related general education courses, all of the math, science and English courses relating to writing are also at least somewhat relevant. A lot of computer science is math related, especially the subjects of discrete math, and some venturing into probability/statistics, etc. A course in ethics could certainly find application in a computer science career, and understanding the workings of government shouldn't be written off either. All told, the number of completely unrelated courses would be very few, and you might find that a class in something completely unrelated to your major could actually be a welcome change of pace when you're burning out with 4 other classes.

-Restil

Re:US-only problem?

[pthisis]

Many decades (or even over a century) ago, it wasn't like this. A kid finishing 8th grade (about 12-13 years old) had roughly the education of a typical high school graduate these days.

This is just wrong. In the area of math, you can look at studies like http://www.maa.org/features/faceofcalculus.html that show that the level of calculus education in high schools has tripled over the last 30 years, and has actually reached the point where a majority of incoming freshmen math students have already taken calc; in 1950, that was almost nonexistent at the high school level (let alone 8th grade). The state of science education in US middle schools and high schools was even more pathetic prior to the 1960s; a combination of Sputnik-inspired funding efforts and the legal demise of prohibitions on teaching of evolution and the like were among the key movers in stimulating science education. More generally, the AP program didn't even exist until the late 1950s.

One enlightening thing to do is to flip through math assessment tests like the American High School Math Exam from 1950 through present; the difference is pretty stark. In the 50s and 60s, the limit of difficulty is the kind of "a train leaves Chicago going X miles an hour while another leaves Los Angeles going Y miles an hour" questions that are more common for 7th graders (or even bright 5th graders) today.

And that's ignoring the fact that in 1960 over 60% of the population didn't even make it to high school graduation, compared with about 20% today; see for instance http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe50s/life_12.html

Re:US-only problem?

[atriusofbricia]

This illustrate a problem: People think that CS degree is a degree training programmers - they are simply wrong.

Which also illustrates an ongoing problem in many parts of the world. The believe that a degree, any degree, is necessary and an absolute requirement for a non-doctorate field.

Not to say that it is worthless, but why would a programmer need a degree? So they can start out life tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars in debt?

Re:US-only problem?

[dotfile]

So if you meet an American who never went to college, you can't consider him "educated" at all. We have to go to college just to have a modicum of education.

You, sir, are so far off base it's not even funny. One could just as well say, "If you meet an American with a college degree, you can assume that he or she is a pompous, egotistical jackass." While certainly true in some cases, it's not an accurate generalization and would be a stupid thing to say.

If you meet an American who actually studied and applied him or herself during high school, he or she will be reasonably well "educated", whatever that means. Not all American public schools are pathetic, and some are quite good. As with most things, the education you get depends on how much effort you put forth. There are plenty of us without college degrees who are not exactly the knuckle-dragging morons you seem to think.

Re:US-only problem?

[PopeRatzo]

here in Europe you're supposed to get your general education in high school

The author says he's been programming since he was 13.

If that's the case, then he needs "English, Philosophy, History, Art and the like" more than he needs a CS degree.

If he's doing it all just to be able to get a job, then he needs "English, Philosophy, History, Art and the like" most of all.

I wish him luck, too.

SOL

[Cpt_Kirks]

A BS covers general education and major course work.

Your best bet is an AS degree. Then, come back later and get your BS.

Hah, good luck.

[Anonymous Coward]

Go take your gen eds like the rest of us. Do you think we enjoyed them? No.

Re:Hah, good luck.

[HornWumpus]

Not only that, my general ed classes had girls in them.

You underestimate the value

[bokmann]

I think you underestimate the value of those things. Most of these classes aren't strictly about history, english, and the like, but enhance your overall mental ability - such as the ability to write, comprehend, and reason, which frankly, is generally missing from those in our field.

If you don't have those things, that's fine, but that's not a BS or a BA, thats a trade school education.

Re:You underestimate the value

[CMonk]

+1 I don't think this person is looking for a college education, I suggest they seek out a vocational school. This will be funny when a google search before a job interview pulls up this post. I don't hire engineers that aren't interested in learning.

Re:You underestimate the value

[emolitor]

Absolutely correct, if you don't want an all around education what you want is a vocational school and there is nothing wrong with that. However you will need that all around education to qualify as an engineer.

Given a choice most employers also prefer that you have that all around education. As someone who has hired 100+ engineers for his company I can tell you that a well rounded education is often what sets candidates apart.

Re:You underestimate the value

[haystor]

Being able to read/write/reason are all fine and good. But I'm not sure the effort and annoyance of those classes yields a payoff in those areas. You get very little feedback other than a handful of grades. All that for a ton of time and $1-2k for a class. At a whole lot of schools, these classes have become little more than perfunctory checks on writing and attendance. They seem wholly designed to make sure a certain amount of money is extracted from each student. The liberal arts ideals which mandate these classes are simply dead.

Re:You underestimate the value

[tripleevenfall]

This is my reaction too. I wouldn't want to hire someone who is always looking for shortcuts.

Re:You underestimate the value

[Idbar]

Furthermore, if he knows programming already does that make him a CS? As far as I know, there's more to that, such as algorithms and proper techniques. If he things he knows all he should try to explore new areas as well. Let's say, electrical engineering and learn some circuit design as well.

I'm not CS, but somewhat feel like people that know programming they should get an immediate degree without learning the basics. Programming is probably only one course of the degree and to me, it's not all you need to know to become a CS.

Yes, it's expensive to go to school, but some people really underestimate what they can learn in school.

Re:You underestimate the value

[nuggz]

There is a benefit to those non core courses.

You might not see it now, and some people never do, but it's there.

One thing that the more technical people have trouble with and I think turns them off is the softer nature of some of these courses.

History is important becasue it shows the effects of technology and consequences, it's also quite big on the important of context. Things that are right in one situation are disasterous in others. There are strong cases for many of the fields.
I have to say I've found some of those basic courses like philosophy, psyche 101 etc much more useful in the real world than some of the grad level math courses. I think those that discount them are missing the difference between "higher eduation" and "job training".

Re:You underestimate the value

[definate]

Holy shit!

What you're saying is almost EVERY University outside of the United States is just a trade school.

You see, everywhere else in the world, university is the place you go to learn and specialize in your field. They don't baby you, they don't teach you to "write", "comprehend", and "reason", that's what your high schools, and lower educational facilities are for.

Why should a university be trying to teach you, what you should have already learnt? If you don't have these skills, then you're going to fail, or at the most pass very poorly.

The only students who need to learn how to write, are the international students, and they usually do courses beforehand.

As for reasoning and comprehending, well fuck me, if they need to teach you this sort of thing at that level (beyond that which is required for your specialization, eg, the ability to understand programs), then your universities must be remedial universities.

Re:You underestimate the value

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, more likely, you decided at some point you were too good to benefit from engaged instruction at the college level, so you decided to blow it off and convince yourself that you're already a superb communicator instead. In the process you missed a potentially enriching experience and lost any sort of endearing humility in the process.

For you, it seems like It's about being more confident even when you're talking out of your ass.

"We autodidacts" have taught ourselves long ago that education is never solitary.

Re:You underestimate the value

[cratermoon]

In my very limited experience as a senior programmer (but not a manager) given opportunities to interview and provide input on hiring decisions, I would never recommend hiring this guy.

Oh sure, there's probably some entry-level position on a short-term contract gig where he could contribute without much fuss. But as far as I'm concerned he'd be a liability in any full time position with possibility of advancement and significant contribution in development efforts of high business value. Someone who only cares about what he thinks is the important stuff will never be the motivated life-long learner that can advance in his career.

Sure, businesses these days are more than happy to ignore the larger picture in pursuit of the quarterly returns and the stock bump, so a real hiring manager would probably be fine with this -- they'd consider it "motivated, task-focused, and results-oriented". Said business would get the blinkered, half-working, user-unfriendly software that instead of doing what it should be doing only does what the programmer thought it should do.

Re:You underestimate the value

[definate]

As someone who works at a large international company which works with many people from around the world, some of the least "educated" / skilled people I've worked with, have been American. When put next to, british, australian, french, and german engineers and accountants, even the ones who've come from fancy american universities, seem almost retarded in comparison. (I said engineers and accountants as they're the ones I primarily come into contact with)

While I wouldn't say everyone, but it's become a bit of a joke at our various head offices. We get candidates who have studied for 4-6 years (sometimes more), and yet it's almost like they've only done introductory courses.

Perhaps you should focus less on Gen-Ed, and more on your specialization, at university. Gen-Ed is to be done on top of your specialization, not as part of it.

Me thinks you're mistaking correlation for causation.

Re:You underestimate the value

[HornWumpus]

Not only that he describes himself as a 'decent engineer'.

He's not even a CS yet, but he's already an engineer.

No shortage of ego in the original poster, that's for sure.

To the original poster: All incoming freshman CS students that will ever amount to anything already know how to program. CS is not programming school. Engineering even less so.

Re:You underestimate the value

[Ed Bugg]

I don't think that the person isn't interested in learning, he just doesn't see the value in learning outside what he feels he needs. The grandparent post is more spot on, he doesn't see the value in the other courses. Of course when he has a job in the profession and he's told that he needs to write a document on requirements or a system design, he'll sit there and tell himself "Well if only I had an example to work off of." If only he had those courses in Writing and was forced to write the papers and thesis' all the different types of writing assignments that college level courses make you grind through, he'd have the experience. He wonders why he'll need a class in Speech, when he just wants to be shut in a dark room, downing Mountain Dew like it is going out of style. Then when trying to do a presentation to a group or a conference, he'll wonder why people are loosing interest in what he's saying, or he'll wonder maybe there was a better way of arranging the material.

I never saw the value of many of the classes I took in college, while I was taking them. But between then and now, I've had projects and requests in which the experience and the things I learned in those classes came in handy. It's not to say I could live without them, but it sure made things easier that I already knew them at the time and didn't have to learn it at the drop of the hat, or that what I learned previously gave me a different perspective that allowed me to build a better system.

My 2cents, time learning something is time spent well.

Re:You underestimate the value

[f16c]

Reading, writing are for communication. After a couple of decades in electronics and engineering development I can tell you the engineering documents written by illiterates are a major source of rework, specification missed targets and general mayhem over the years. Engineers have to be able to read and write, communicate with both words and math and make things work on paper even if they brass-board before producing initial prototypes. Some of this is because producing a single wafer worth of parts just for testing can run into tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. I spent a lot of time as an engineering technician editing and cleaning up engineering information documents used by other engineers who's work was supposed to interface with what the first engineer was building. Documentation had to be concise, clear and accurate. I also ended up reading the IC data sheets to them when their brass-boards didn't work quite right and it was usually missed because they were just too busy.

Re:You underestimate the value

[Anonymous Coward]

I started wondering about the merits of the points in your comment. Then I realized you are an accountant, and accountants are morons. You should post that fact at the top of all of your comments to save slashdot readers some time.

Don't get a CS degree

[Anonymous Coward]

What you just want the piece of paper?

I spent a good deal in college CS classes, learning stuff that I already had a good idea what to do.

When it came to the real world I was quite prepared for anything computer related. It was every other subject that killed me. It was my lack of art classes that kept me from good design. My lack of English classes that kept me from good copyright. My lack of Business classes lead me to make wrong decisions.

Now I'm considering going back to school. But I'll stay as far away from CS as possible.

I once read somewhere that the things you don't know become your Achilles heal. Very true.

Go to school for an education. Not a piece of paper.

Don't think that coding is all you need

[porsche911]

Beware: If all you can do is code there's a great chance your job will end up in India. You have to have broader skills now to be competitive. Instead of taking classes in an area you obviously know well (i.e. coding), why not take more general business classes or in the sciences so you can use your coding skills as a tool to solve critical problems rather than being a coder waiting for a problem to get assigned to you? 99% of the people you will need to work with aren't coders and if you don't have any general skills you won't be able to work with them as effectively.

Good luck,
-c

Seriously - do the GenEd

[Penguinisto]

I know it seems like a big waste and such, but seriously... do the general ed. classes. The last thing you need to do is to end up so single-minded that you can't even see a wider world out there.

You know the big stereotype about how geeks can't function socially? Remaining willfully ignorant of everything outside your chosen craft is a big symptom of that.

You may *think* that your high school covered all of that, but honestly, they likely did not. Even if it seems like total crap, you'll likely learn things about art, philosophy, English, history and the like that a high school class could never cover.

I remember thinking the same thing you did a long time ago, while chasing an EE. Then I took the required history class, and gained such a passion for looking into the past, that I minored in it. All it took was a prof that really loved what he taught, and expressed it in a way that touched off an intense curiosity to learn more. The more I learned on my own and beyond, the more I fell in love with where we've been as a whole, and in exploring the past.

Hell, it even helped out in my eng. classes. Proof? Researching why RMS Titanic's electrical systems held out for so long in spite of all that seawater coming in made for one of the most kick-ass papers I'd ever written, and it gave me an incredible respect for electrical technology back then. I wouldn't have given a shit if I wasn't interested in history, and my classmates were too busy analyzing and making shallow papers on the tech-du-jour (mostly centering on what they thought about the upcoming 1993 NEC).

But - you know the biggest reason why you should diversify? My degree is in Electrical Engineering. I took a couple light classes in programming (C++, FORTRAN, PASCAL...), and thought it was a waste at the time, but I had to fill electives. I'm a Sysadmin, have been so for 15 years, and have done programming professionally on occasion. I haven't done jack in the EE field since 1996, and my last license renewal expired a little over a decade ago.

Your career will likely diverge too, and having more than a single-minded subject under your belt will help you greatly, as well as give you alternatives and avenues that you may have never thought of.

I kinda did this

[MobyDisk]

I was in a similar situation, here is what I suggest:

1) Take the Comp Sci AP test to get you out of the introductory CS courses and get you some credits from the start. The gen-ed courses weren't that bad to take: It may be the CS 101 classes that drive you nuts. "This is a for loop... this is a while loop..." and looking around at all the Art majors who think they can go into Comp Sci for the money and don't understand the concept of a variable.

2) Take any other AP test you think you can. Worst-case you lose money, best case you skip some courses. There is nothing wrong with getting a poor score on an AP test other than the loss of money. But talk to someone who has taken and/or teaches AP courses to get an idea of what you need to know. If you are still in high-school then taking the AP courses is the best approach.

3) Use community college to breeze through gen-eds. I decided on my final college and picked a community college to take my Gen-Ed classes. (I did it for financial reasons though). Pick the schools and classes so you guarantee a transfer. Then take nothing but gen-ed courses in the community college because they will be really easy. If you are as smart as you think, you might be able to do 2 years of gen-ed classes in 1 year. Most of those community college classes will be designed for slackers.

4) Grow up. Those gen-ed courses are actually some of the best parts of college. I am a geek to the core, but I loved discussing Descartes' meditations, studying economics, learning how the eye communicates images to the brain, and debugging why various wars started. If you think you can survive in the world knowing only what is in the computer you will be unable to accurately measure the world around you and efficiently apply what you have learned to your field. You won't be young forever so at some point you will wake-up and realize you aren't the best of the best of the best anymore, and you will want your niche in the real world. Computers are a tool - a means. True success requires more than just the means (your C.S.) to fulfill.

Re:All about the benjamins

[hedwards]

It astonishes me how many people don't understand that college is about learning to be a life long learner rather than setting one up in a particular specialty. If one wishes to ignore the breadth requirements, there are always apprenticeships and vocational training schools out there.

A school that produces a bunch of simpering morons that can't be employed tends not to last very long, as it's hard to get endowment checks coming in or new applicants when folks that graduate can't find gainful employment.

Re:get experience on your resume'

[pclminion]

Intelligent managers (managers that understand the position they are hiring for, as opposed to PHBs that are looking to fill an empty seat) will understand that experience can be more valuable than education.

And good managers will know (from experience) that hiring someone like this guy can be incredibly detrimental to a software team. Here you've got an idiot (seriously) who thinks he doesn't need to know something -- he already gets it. Dude, after learning about it in high school? Chances are, this person is difficult to communicate with, egotistical, combative instead of merely argumentative, and unwilling to think outside of defined corridors. He'll probable be hostile when asked to do something out of the ordinary. Quite likely, he's an asshole who will drown your entire team in bad feelings. He's a bad idea.

Re:University is ...

[Baavgai]

Someone mod this up! I couldn't agree. more. University is about education. More importantly, being reasonably conversant on a range of disciplines. The better ones, gasp, still try to offer that.

Focusing on one subject to the exclusion of all else is not a degree. It might be directly applicable to a given job, which makes the exercise job training. You might take subjects that you have no interest in or, more frustratingly, no aptitude for, but that's part of the ride. If nothing else, the reason such education is still valued in the modern world is that it proves an individual has at least the fortitude to tackle a spectrum of topics.

CLEP Tests

[ranton]

Just take the CLEP tests if those Gen-Ed classes really have no value for you. You can complete almost your entire first two years of schooling with those tests. I just finished up going back to school (harder to move up now without a BS degree), and I saved a boat load of time and money taking CLEP tests for Gen-Ed classes that I didn't finish in community college a decade ago.

For truly well rounded self educated people, they should be a breeze. If it is hard to pass them, then you really do need those Gen-Ed classes (those areas of knowledge really do have value). But plenty of people who actually like to read (non-fiction) have no need to waste their time in 100-level Humanities classes.

Re:No offense intended, but...

[anagama]

The spreadsheet is probably one of the most valuable software contributions in history -- it's used in sciences for data analysis, business for financial analysis, small clubs for keeping organized lists, small businesses as a data source for mail merges ... the list is probably miles long.

While a student at Harvard Business School, Bricklin co-developed VisiCalc in 1979, making it the first electronic spreadsheet[dubious â" discuss]. It ran on an Apple II computer, and was considered a fourth generation software program. VisiCalc is widely credited for fueling the rapid growth of the personal computer industry. Instead of doing financial projections with manually calculated spreadsheets, and having to recalculate with every single cell in the sheet, VisiCalc allowed the user to change any cell, and have the entire sheet automatically recalculated. This turned 20 hours of work into 15 minutes and allowed for more creativity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Bricklin

Dan Bricklin didn't become super rich, but he literally changed the world. I saw a documentary once in which an accountant or some type of professional said that the first time he saw a computerized spreadsheet, he cried, because it took out so much drudgery it could make his work fun again.

If Bricklin had not been getting an MBA, would he have gotten the idea? I'm guessing he looked at hours of paper and pencil boredom recalculating cells, and realized that there was a better way to do it because of his computer background.

Moral: Bricklin's background in computer-science when coupled with exposure to an unrelated area, showed him a need and in the process, he changed the world.

Alternate Moral: If accountants and MBAs had stepped outside their study area and looked at computer-science, they could have changed the world themselves

Re:get experience on your resume'

[cratermoon]

You have the right of it, as they say. While it's possible to make a credible argument for focusing on learning the core set of skills for a career while minimizing time spent on associated topics in some circumstances, let's look at the actual words used.

I have no interest in wasting any of my precious time taking classes in English, Philosophy, History, Art and the like. While these fields are useful and perhaps enriching, they will not contribute to making me better at my job.

Phrases like 'my precious time' and 'will not contribute to making me better at my job' are huge red flags for a inflated sense of self-importance. Dismissing the entire range of liberal arts as merely 'useful and perhaps enriching' betrays a level of arrogance that has the potential to incite team-destroying conflict.

Re:All about the benjamins

[Archangel Michael]

I went to college, and that is not something I learned in college. What I learned at the University was that there were a bunch of colleges there that would not have a single student in them except for the general education requirements that forced a bunch of people to take stupid classes to fill out those GE Requirements.

And the sad thing is, that most of those liberal studies college degrees didn't require reciprocal cross training in hard sciences and math. And when they actuall did require it, it was hard watching all the future teachers struggle with basic math classes which would have been hilarious, except knowing that they were going to be teaching future students. And the most astonishing thing I can tell you, after working in education is that many (if not most) teachers don't actually want to learn anything beyond what is actually "needed".

I've found that most people who are into technology have a much broader discipline range in regards to learning, and that is caused by our general need to keep learning new stuff or get left behind in the "real world". I love learning, but only after having hated it during school.

This is nothing more than a classic example of "theory vs application". The difference between theory and application is that in theory, theory and application are the same, in application they are not.

You don't know what you don't know

[presidenteloco]

The original poster, and you, who call it tack-on garbage, are the very reason that general education requirements are tacked on.

Clearly both of you can't even conceive why studying, for example, literature and philosophy might be useful to the practice of top-level computer science or software engineering. Therefore you clearly need to come out of your tunnel and be exposed to the world.

When I was studying artificial intelligence and computational vision for my post-grad degree, the stuff I learned most from was the shelf full of twentieth century philosophy books on logics, epistemology, and metaphysics (and Zen). binary-encoded symbols in computers representing things and processes out there in the world is a wondrous thing, and also a thing whose complexities are not easily mastered without a good grounding in philosophy. How can you know about the limitations of your representations - they ways they are sure to fail or become too complex or be challenged as limited or invalid - if you don't understand philosophy?

And I've come to understand how much of peoples' understanding of the world and themselves is in narrative form, and what the significance is of what is left in, and what is left out of a "good" narrative, and how narrative is fundamentally about the guiding of attention and the selection of the sub-situations salient to humans' concerns and needs. Some of that knowledge has come through a lot of careful consideration of great stories in several forms of art and literature.
All of it is central to a conception of how to do good user interface in computing.

Re:You don't know what you don't know

[Roger W Moore]

Clearly both of you can't even conceive why studying, for example, literature and philosophy might be useful to the practice of top-level computer science or software engineering. Therefore you clearly need to come out of your tunnel and be exposed to the world.

While I agree with the sentiment University is not the place to force people to be exposed to subjects they may have no interest in. This should be done at school and then at University the option to have a broader education should be available but NOT required. As I said above, at University you have to take more responsibility for your learning and be more self-motivated this means not having courses forced on you unless they are subject related and giving students the choice (which is the flipside of responsibility). So if you want to take archaelology or philosphy then the opportunity should be there but not the obligation.

Your example about philsophy illustrates the point. Clearly you wanted to do it and enjoyed it. However it is hardly a requirement for CS: otherwise it would be part of the CS course program like calculus. The same goes for courses like english. All scientists need to be able to write clearly and concisely but this is something which should be taught at school, not university, in the same way that those doing english degrees learn basic maths skills at school.