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?

[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: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: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.