Slashdot Mirror
Treat Computer Science As a Science: It's the Law
theodp writes: Last week, President Obama signed into law H.R. 1020, the STEM Education Act of 2015, which expands the definition of STEM to include computer science for the purposes of carrying out education activities at the NSF, DOE, NASA, NOAA, NIST, and the EPA. The Bill was introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Rep. Elizabeth Etsy (D-CT). Smith's February press release linked to letters of support from tech billionaire-backed Code.org (whose leadership includes Microsoft President Brad Smith), and the Microsoft-backed STEM Education Coalition (whose leadership includes Microsoft Director of Education Policy Allyson Knox).
It is Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, I think comsci qualifies for the last three but not for the first one and I have a comsci degree.
You can't handle the truth.
Where does it say that "computer science must be treated as science, by law"? It declares computer science to be part of STEM. STEM does not simply mean "science" - science is only the "S" in STEM. STEM means "Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math" There's nothing inappropriate about computer science being taught in that grouping.
The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
If it is backed by those big names and billionaires, I am afraid what the real reasons are.
We are at a situation where we think that people who are not us are fighting our battles, because they (partially) are now the same as ours.
If Microsoft, Google, Apple or any other company gets something done ine politics, they do it for them, not for you.
Just think and go to https://www.isidewith.com/elec... so you can decide with you mind, not with your heart or balls, who YOU think might be right for your future.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Perhaps its different these days, but when I was studying CS back in the 80's, pretty much every accredited program in the US was either part of its Uni's Math Department, or its Engineering Department.
So perhaps people had trouble making up their minds if it was a kind of Math or of Engineering, but either way it should already have been covered in STEM.
theodp you jumped the shark with this diatribe. STEM doesn't mean "science". I don't need to be a billionaire-backed part of code.org to know THAT much.
It is Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, I think comsci qualifies for the last three but not for the first one and I have a comsci degree.
Computer science is largely a branch of mathematics which is generally considered a formal science.
There goes Code.org and Microsoft in cohoots with the NSF again. An outrage, I tell you!
(Old academic joke)
-Chris
it probably isn't a real science.
So they'll force the people (sic) who don't like it to study it, and prevent those who do like it from studying it and in the name of "Men and women are exactly the same" they will create a Brave New World of sexism :-(
Computer science pretty much is a science. Not your coding classes, computer technology training, etc, but real computer science is very much a science. Of course all courses include some coding and computer technology, and just as you'd expect someone with a Chemistry degree to be able to do the work of a lab technician some one with a CS degree will be able to code and operate computers -- but there is much more than that.
Would you prefer Computational Theory degrees? Works for me.
Computer Science is just a specialized field of math. Practical math even. Discrete or Set theories and how to move information around. It is the glue that combines different fields of study together. Everything from psychology to civil engineering to physics to understanding languages and other liberal arts. The only limitation on the field is what we place on it and our ability to understand. Computer Science is a misnomer for certain.
Computer Scientists are the architects of the world going forward. You wouldn't ask a carpenter to design a house for you. You'd ask an architect. Others may learn "how to code," but we study to understand how to do it better than others. We specialize in how to break down problems. finding logical shortcuts to produce an ever better solution to a problem, or even making problems solve themselves (AI obviously).
What makes programming so powerful and fun, is that if there is a problem that we can't solve, we can simply make up new rules. Physics are bound by natural laws and trying their best to bend them. Not being bound by them theoretically (not talking about hardware limitations, but logical ones) makes what can be done so much more interesting (things like Fez as a single example).
It depends on how it is taught . Some colleges teach it as a science and some teach it as a bag full of useful technologies . I am from India and paradoxically those who learn it as a science do well than those who learn it as a technology . why ? because it is taught as a science in elite universities and colleges where the calibre of students is much higher , they quickly pick up the things they have to learn once they start their job . Those institutes which teach the latest technologies take in low calibre students so companies don't touch them even though they come resdy made with all latest technologies and buzzwords like cloud, iot, big data etc etc
Rep. Lamar Smith will do anything to reduce the money available to study climate change. Don't forget, this is the same guy who sponsored SOPA. I guess he'll do anything billionaires ask of him.
I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.
It must of been written by my Third Grade teacher... with her barbaric teaching styles
Sounds like she was more of a butcher than a barber.
Being a "Computer Scientist" I have to say that I consider my profession more of a trade more in line with a plumber or electrician. Sure there are more scientist computer scientists, but they mostly work in universities. If you are a computer scientist and disagree please say so.
when we graduate 2.5 times the number of STEM students than available jobs for them.
And H1B, L1 and other visas are used to supplant them from their jobs.
No wonder 11 million STEM graduates took their talents to outside of STEM, there is no hope in this area.
The meat of the bill is has to do with money, of course.
The billionaires want the government to fund whatever goofy experiments they have for STEM education. It's always about money.
...said no one ever.
I have a degree in astrophysics. I work in AI. I don't have an opinion about the issue being discussed.
no, I don't have a sig
So you're not really a computer scientist, but you could've been one if you wanted to. You're a tradesman with a degree. You're the equivalent of a plumber/pipefitter that has a fluid engineering degree. I bet you make more money than the "pure" computer scientists in academia, too.
Personally, I saved myself some time and only went for a 2-year degree with a focus on software development and business-need analysis. It hasn't hurt my career any because educational background doesn't matter once you have a few years of experience under your belt.
I've said this same thing to people so many times. They tend to get offended like I'm putting "us" down.
some kid sues for science class credit and graduation requirement fulfillment for playing wow.. it's on the computer, and you can craft and make stuff in game... computer + alchemy ... so that's computer science right? just add it up using common core math, you'll see.
politicians need to quit jumping on bandwagons. seriously.
Great, now we're going to have nutcases trying to force schools to teach "alternative" computer theories! "OK kids, today we're going to talk about Computer Science. Some people claim that software is translated to machine code which is performed by a microprocessor inside each computer, but others believe that a supreme being is monitoring everybody's keystrokes and doing all the math in his head'
Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. Math is not a science---it's a philosophical paradigm. There are also some very important differences between science and mathematics because of this. For example, in mathematics, a "absolute" proof can be obtained without empirical evidence.
The concept of a "formal science" is simply a long-winded way of defining an art or discipline. It doesn't make things into a science just because someone says it is.
Also, there is a good smell test to use: If you need to add "science" to the end of it, then it's not a science.
Mathematical science is not a science...
Computer science is not a science...
Seriously, *you* are inferring that the person you replied to is not being productive with their life? Take a look in the mirror.
So what you're actually saying is that you're not a computer scientist, but in fact a software engineer.
That's fine, but you're conflating your job with someone elses. Computer scientists are real people, doing a real subject, just because you aren't one doesn't mean no one is, and no, they don't mostly work in universities. They mostly work in large companies that break new ground in using computing and that ranges from BT to Barclays, Boeing to Google, and Exxon to NASA.
Whether it's figuring out how to optimise trading algorithms, working out how to ever more efficiently encode data across ageing copper networks, working out how to pack ever more guidance technology in ever lighter weapons systems, figuring out how to interpret the world's knowledge on the internet, making sure ROVs can be piloted into the most brutal operating environments to check drilling rigs, or firing shit into the furthest reaches of space we've been able to, you kind of need computer scientists.
Your job, you're describing, probably consumes some of the work these people do, but they've comforted you from the complexities of it all with well defined cushioned APIs with rounded corners so you don't hurt themselves on them.
The difference between software engineers and computer scientists is that software engineers simply sit sticking Lego blocks together in new and sometimes innovative ways, whilst the computer scientists do the material science and design required to create you those new types of blocks of material that isn't going to break or fail to stick together well properly in the first place.
Now don't get me wrong, sometimes computer scientists fail hard at producing decent interfaces to their work. We've all seen shit APIs, but let's not pretend they don't exist, or they only exist in academia. Without them your nice JIT compiler and such that protects you from yourself and lets you get your run of the mill plumber quality stuff done wouldn't even exist.
There are really thee parts to what most people think of as comp sci - as I see it anyway.
1) Computer Engineering - The design and architecture of machines that do computation
2) Software Engineering - The design of computable algorithms for solving specific problems.
3) Information Theory - Analysis and classification of datums specifically the transmission, processing, utilization, and extraction of information from them. This usually feeds the 'specific problems' the Software Engineering guys are trying to solve.
Really only the last one is a 'science' in its own right. 1) has the sciences of physics under pinning. 2) Is really under pinned by 3 and other branches of mathematics. 3) Means mathematics most of the time but gets a little more science like in the 'scientific method sense' as you move into the quantum world.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
As a CS educator at the community college level, I wholehearted agree with this. At my former employer, CS was NOT considered part of STEM. I had a student who became disgruntled when she applied for a STEM scholarship only to be told CS isn't STEM.
Quantum algorithms: sounds like applied math and physics.
Of course, all STEM ultimately becomes math & physics at some level.
Scientology is either science fiction or an ontological truth espoused by Scientologists.
Either way, it's weapons-grade bolonium.
Thats low-level STEM. But many welfare-types cant get entry clerk jobs because they dont know how to run MicroSoft Office.
Except the assholes who say software is math, not technology, and therefore it (software) cannot be patented.
Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.
The link to wikipedia was for your convenience. The accuracy of my statement stands as computer science IS a type of formal science. This is to differentiate it from an empirical science.
Math is not a science---it's a philosophical paradigm.
Had you bothered to read what I linked to you would have understood the difference between a formal science and an empirical science. Mathematics and computer science largely fall under the banner of formal sciences though they often have a tight relationship with and are used in empirical science investigation.
The concept of a "formal science" is simply a long-winded way of defining an art or discipline.
Though I disagree with you on the "long-winded" assertion, at no time did I contradict this statement. So why are you bothering to argue the exact point I made? I never claimed mathematics was an empirical science so what is your argument?
Also, there is a good smell test to use: If you need to add "science" to the end of it, then it's not a science.
Which is nonsense like so many other rules of thumb. Environmental science, behavioral science, and plenty of other real branches of science use the word in the title. If it uses the scientific method then it is by definition a science. What words you use in the title of a branch of science is irrelevant. If it doesn't use the scientific method (astrology, homeopathy, creationism, etc) then it is by definition not a science. No other means of defining what a science is or isn't is meaningful.
I mean someone who have made money shipping code. Not someone who took an afternoon Code Academy seminar and wrote Hello World in BASIC or javascript.
I was born in the 1950s. Some of my college professors and bosses, though they were scientists, never could code. But I'd say everyone who went through grad school after me could write code, maybe not of production quality. Now there are politicians born in the 60s and 70s, I expect some of them could code. The one I know for sure who is Jared Polis, representative of Boulder County. He made his fortune from an early dotcom greeting card company. Can anyone in Obama's cabinet code?
1) Language developer says: Here are some tools that you can combine in different ways.
2) Asshole combines them in way intended.
3) Asshole patents intended usage so that no-one else can use it without paying a license fee.
The moment software becomes innovative is when you step away from the actual implementation and think of methods on an abstract level.
At that point it is math.
Fail! You need to prove that any abstracted code is math, not technology. Let's see the proof. Tip: if the abstracted code is man-made and not found in nature, it is still technology.
It's to prevent uncreative, theiving assholes from reducing the inventor's profit margins. That's not assholery, just common sense. It's assholery if the invention is a trivial, obvious combination of pre-existing elements.
I suppose... Honestly, I think that computer programming should be taught more like a trade in a trade school with apprenticeships. My training from the university was so academically focused, that I had to re-educate myself for working in the profession. The university professors probably never had to work a corporate job in their lives to have to solve any real-world problems.
Went to school for computer science. I program, and write APIs, and consume them as well, and I have written ASM, and even had to make a Java compiler in school. What does that make me in your eyes? Will I ever have to make my own Java compiler IRL? No.
Yeah, the tech companies are messing up k-12 to further their cheap worker agenda. Most people don't need to understand how computer work, neither do they care. Just like California sticking the history of gay rights into its textbooks. k-12 students have limited brain space they are willing to allocate, adults should be more selective on what to put in there.
Speaking as an outsider looking in, and based on the stories that frequently seem to come out of the US, or at least certain parts there of (creationism, global warming deniers, etc) how about treating science as a science first? :P
Well, if you want to redefine science to suit your needs, then, sure, it's a science.
By the way, what is your definition of science, and how is it different than any other philosophical paradigm?
By your reasoning, one could easily make a convincing case that accounting is a "formal science" unless you want to arbitrarily hold "formal sciences" to include just what you deign to be a science.
Anyhow, all empirical science boils down to Physics, and many physicists use Mathematics as a tool to assist in creating models in an attempt to make sense of their observations. Both Physics and Mathematics are paradigms, but one is a science, and the other is a discipline.
It's assholery if the invention is a trivial, obvious combination of pre-existing elements.
That would be the vast majority of patents. The loss created by those does not justify the non-provable benefit of the few that remains.
Well, if you want to redefine science to suit your needs, then, sure, it's a science.
Not my definition. A science is any systematic enterprise that follows the scientific method to build and organize knowledge. Nothing more, nothing less. If your activity does not utilize the scientific method then it is by definition not science. What we typically refer to as science is what I (and others) called empirical science.
You are getting WAY to wrapped up in the word science and failing to grasp my point. I'm not arguing that math is a science in the typical use of the term or under my definition above. I didn't invent the term "formal science" and it may not even be a particularly well chosen term. Someone else did that - I'm merely communicating what it is. I didn't invent the term "empirical science". Look up their definitions and learn the distinctions and you'll understand my point. If you can't be bothered then this discussion is pointless.
Correction - if you add "science" to something, it's fairly new and probably not yet mature. There are fields of science with old names (physics, astronomy, chemistry), and following that you put -ology at the end of something to name a science (biology, psychology). Somewhere in the Twentieth Century, we dropped the "-ology" suffix and substituted "science".
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Let me explain what's going on here and why it matters. Federal research funding for things classed as "science" is greater than for other areas. As a result, this classification is highly sought after. Another example is Political Science, which is currently classed as a science. Every so often a bill in Congress threatens to change that, and all of the academics pour into Washington, make a lot of noise, and eventually convince Congress to back down.
A machine is a machine, whether you build it out of metal or out of math.
Our current president has done tons of these symbolic acts to con people in data-mined and social-network-analyzed groups into thinking he cares about their causes and professions...... but none of these things has any real consequences. He is madly working to open the floodgates to foreign STEM workers in order to push-down the wages and benefits of the employees at all those silicon valley billionaire (and Obama supporter) owned companies so they can get even richer and have more stock options to offer him when he joins their boards in a couple of years.
I would love to see a machine (a physical thing) made purely out of math (an abstract thing). Hint: such machines don't exist.
They surely do, they are called programs.
Computer Science is, in actual practice, a branch of Engineering. I think that an engineering degree should be a prerequisite. The successful people that I know in computers and software, including me, have both degrees.
These days, one without the other is not enough.
On the other hand, there are plenty of people writing useful programs with no degree or a degree in something entirely different. But usually those are smaller programs.
Sounds like you might have studied Computer Science, earned letters, but science is science, and if you're not doing science in your job, your position is not as a Computer Scientist, but perhaps a "Computer Practicioner." In reverse form, a medical doctor, M.D., that works in 100% research is no less a medical doctor than a practicioner; they have the same degree. But one never sees or heals a patient, and that's all the other does. Maybe you're a computer doctor? Again, if there is no science, it can't be Computer Science.