Slashdot Mirror
Pure Science Becoming Less Popular Than CS
An Anonymous Reader writes "An article (free login required) in yesterday's New York Times (Business Section) says that the number of college students in the physical and biological science is decreasing because of the "easy money" available in the field of computers. It also says that the computer industry's growth will slow and that the next big boom of technology jobs will be in biotechnology. Interesting stuff. " Of course the real reason is Turing machines. We really just dig drawing out turing machines on chalk boards and arguing about NP problems.
Small request. Please remove Negroponte from your list and add him to the "Vapid Glory Hound" list.
Thank you.
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
In other words, CS != MIS . My university offered degrees in both. You didn't learn about Novell in the CS curriculum, and you didn't study the principle of mathematical induction (in three separate courses!) in the MIS curriculum. But have you read the classifieds lately? To most managers (MBA DEFINITELY != CS), a CS degree is a computer degree. I've seen jobs for NT admins, VB programmers (I am one, so don't get your knickers is a knot), HTML writers, and even tape monkeys, where one of the REQUIREMENTS for an interview was a CS degree.
I would also note that programming is not necessarily computer science, if you believe that CS is a scientific discipline. Most programming is more along the lines of engineering. You have to study physics to become a civil engineer, but building bridges does not make you a physicist. I don't think you're doing REAL computer science unless you're researching clever new algorithms in conjunction with others in the field who are studying the same kind of problem that the algorithm applies to. (I think the people who write 3-D engines for Quake etc. are doing computer science.) If you're writing a Visual Basic front end to an Access database, or even an HTML front-end for a Perl interface to a MySQL database, I don't care what your degree says; you're not dong computer science. At best, you're a computer scientist in the sense that all those waiters in LA are really actors.
"Computer science courses teach skills and techniques, but they don't teach critical thinking the way physics does,"
Now that's a great quote. It's probably true at some universities. At a certain university, there's lots of debate among undergrads about the "theoretical vs practical" teaching of computer science. Basically, there's complaining that, though the introductory classes teach component engineering, function specifications, algorithms &C, they should actually be teaching us how to use Visual Basic so that we can get internships the summer after our sophmore year.
Fortunitally, some students prefer to learn real computer science.
Also Ms. Corning comments later in the article point to something that was brought up 20(?) years ago in a book called Mindstorms (Pampert?) about the Logo programming language. This teacher(Ms. Corning) seems to think that computers are a fancy full-color chalk board. Mindstorms warned that we shouldn't try to use computers to program children (ie fit computers into the current education model, at least in the US) but when children learn to program computers, they'll learn geometry and other math at the same time.
"Computers can teach information, but they don't teach a way to ask questions or conduct experiments where you don't know the correct answer ahead of time,"
Again, what kind of computer use is this quote assuming? It's the same comment as above: Computers shouldn't program children. It takes a different kind of _teaching_ to integrate the really powerful uses of computers into the education of a child.
I'd argue that a computer can be used to learn basic scientific principals, or the scientific method. If children were encouraged to be creative with the computers, and to solve problems (as in LOGO) they would discover the scientific method with only a little bit of direction.
But as long as education is thought of as "the road to a career," students will go for easy money. That's what they had 12-16 years of school for, right?
Then again, I speak only from personal experience with education. Perhaps some of you out there have been encouraged to be creative and think for yourselves.
peace,
ijones
I think there's a big distinction that needs to be made here. Right now there's alot of jobs in the computer industry but how many of them are really CS? Coding HTML is not CS. Getting your MCSE is not CS. Being a Unix sysadmin is not CS. Running an NT mailserver is not CS.
True CS involves alot more of a high level understanding of what's going on. True CS involves people who are solving problems at a very high level, who are re-thinking the norm and who are applying their background in math and science to solve a problem, not people who are rebooting servers when the pager goes off.
I know alot of people who work answering the pager and maintain unix/nt/cisco systems as their job. They're all really smart people, but what they're doing probably isnt CS. In fact most of them dont have a degree in CS if they have a degree at all. I'm not even sure if what I do really has all that much to do with pure computer science, but I'm pretty sure I have a solid background to fall back on if it were to come up, which is why I dont worry. What worries me is people coming out of assembly line CS programs who dont have any idea what real Computer Science is about, and just want to get paid.
-Rich
I doubt that this is truly the intention. But...
The professors teaching these courses (both faculty and grad students) would rather be doing research, or working on papers, or something else entirely.
Instead they are forced by the administration into nursing snivelling freshmen who are required to take the course, but the mojority of whom couldn't care less about the actual material.
After about a semester or two of this, they (teaching staff) give up and go through the grind, all the while taking their frustration out on the students. The few students who have potential and interest, suffer, and many turn away. The ones who didn't care to begin with, care even less.
Very few people make it through the meat grinder of introductory science courses with their spirits and interests intact. These go on to become graduate students, all the while remembering how the majority of their peers in the 100 level courses, didn't give a crap.
It's an unfortunate vicious cycle.
Interestingly, everyone is also required to take Literature, History, and the like, where classes are much smaller due to the very interactive style of teaching that must be used. You'd think that the administration would have figured out the correlation between class size and student interest by now.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
"They" will define science to include themselfs. "They" always do. (yes "they" in quotes means something. It means those conventionally outside of the definition).
No matter how hard you argue it to me, I won't budge. Computers were man made. They will never be a science. And the recent invention of "natural science" vs. "science" is a nice way of saying "we screwed up the term, now we have to make 'natural science' mean what 'science' alone use to mean." Let me tell you, there isn't much "natural" about some of the best cutting edge chemistry or physics, yet, it's based in extending natural laws. Computers are manmade.
Define it how you want, but the study of computers (or the human THOUGHT process of the human mind for that matter) has always been seen as "outside of the field of science." (granted that linguistics is based in studying mans thought process, but, some will argue that mental processes of man are soo borderline, they are not science).
I frankly give up on these SlashDot types that want to prove to me Computer Science is a science, because someone in the computer field once postulated a theory that is difficult for all of them to grasp. I will once again state, "I can apply the scientific method to drinking beer. Theory, experiment, new therory, and on and on. That does NOT make drinking beer a science."
Frankly, linguistics is an art. And, of that, they should be proud. It's one of the most highly evolved, technical, elaborate, insightfull, and exciting of all forms of art. But none the less, it's an art, because it's primarly about _language_ which is NOT a science, it's something manmade.
And furthermore, to avoid potential "slippery slope" arguments, because there is something in the study that is "natural" no more makes it a science than the fact that I can build a chemical structure to form a work of art. Science is applying the scientific method to gain insight into the natural world.
Now, it's not like there is anything wrong with one field or another. It's just that someone has to make a distinct "line in the sand" and say study this and that's art, study that and it's engineering, study this other thing and it's science, study this next thing and it's medicine. So, why fight so hard to say your field is on over the line you want it to be?
I'll tell you why, It's because "science" has been portrayed by way to many people as the "elite" field of study. And frankly, it's NOT. I know many an artist I would rather work with in a chemitry lab than some so called "scientists." Someone has to take a step back and realize, without the ballance, there is no way for society as a whole to evolve. It took the artists, engineers, and all to evolve "science" to where it is today. And likewise for the other fields. Where would a great painter be without some "scientist" developing a better, longer lasting, more bright paint? Where would the scientist be without the tools the engineers have provided? Where would the engineers be without the principles that scientists layed out and the creativity that artists came to the table with? They would all still be back far beyond the uglyness of the Dark Ages.
Linguistics is about the structure of Languages, which turns out to depend on the structure of the human brain. That's a natural physical structure. Read Chomsky for details ..... Excuse me, but the human brain? Well, yea, it's natural, but would you say that everything that the human brain can come up with is "natural?" Well, if that is the case, then EVERYTHING is a science.
CS is about number theory at root, Godel's theorem being the prime example. That's a relation between numbers which was unknown before Godel's proof, and in many ways Godels method was an experiment on the behaviour of numbers. ..... Well, first of all, no one has proved that "math" itself is a science. Albiet arguable, I would probably be much more likely to call mathamatics itself a science. But the "Application" of math to something is clearly an application, and therefore engineering. Tell me, if the application of science to the "man made world" isn't engineering, what is engineering?
Why try so hard to make someone (me in this case) believe that Computers in any sence can be called a science? The only valid point you can make is that my "definition" of science is dated, and the word has evolved to mean anything that you can apply the scientific method to. If that is the case, then sure, Computer Science is a science, and so is just about everything else in that people study, including my study tonight on beer drinking. At least that argument you can win.
Frankly, I believe that by dilluting the meaning of words, and redefining them to suit your needs is the "de-evolution" of mankind. Because something is "hip" or "in" doesn't mean that we should make everything that way. That's the problem with the USA today, everyone wants "what's best for the majority" and "what the people want" because it's a democracy. And, you completely erase the premise of freedom by replacing it with democracy. Democracy is just a pretty way to say "mob rule" and does not by construct ensure freedom. Yet, people want to call everything under the sun "science," they want to call everything a pretty word, no more "wasp, fag, gay, whatever." Once apon a time, the words all had meanings to be proud of, and then people used them in inapproprate ways. Rather than dealing with the fact that there was a definition to the words, we in America either redefine them, or invent new ones to take thier place that haven't been used negitively. "Black" at one time was a way to distinguish race, now it's a "insult" and they are to be called "African-American," and you black only is a color you can buy a car in. "Gay" at one time meant happy, then it was a slam on the "partying good timeing homos" and now they are something else (who knows a "PC" term to call homosexuals today that doesn't imply a negitive sterotype?).
Call me a "Mick" and see if I care. Honestly. Call me a "Mick" to your hearts content. And I will only stand up and be proud. Call me a "scientist" and I will probably agree that I was educated as one in chemistry, but am much less likely to accept that label, because the work I do involves so much art (and flat out creativity), and management skills (which aren't a science), and I will say that label is misleading. I will say, "why yes, I am a Mick, if you think that makes me 'inferior' I can only hope to prove you wrong." Call me a "scientist" and I will say it's a broad label.
But if you want me to stand up and say "your right, next time I meet someone who writes computer code that has one time studied a 'theory' I will call him a 'scientist' not a programmer." I just can't accept that.
How many programmers or even computer engineers will stand up in public and say "Oh, I am a scientist?" That is not what scientists are, and they know that, and they understand that if they said they were scientists in public, the people they said that to would not expect them to be "programmers." The computer people who want to put the label "science" on their profession are doing themself a dis-service. They are saying to the world that "we are bound to natural principals in our work" rather than "we are creative and invent many things" like they could say if they called themselfs engineers or even if they said they are artists.
The day I meet a hacker that calls himself an artist is the day I find a whole new respect for the person saying it. That would emply not only are they "applying something that is manmade to a real world application as engineers do" but they are saying "I am taking it to a new level, somewhere that has no bounds, that's creative beyond conventional thinking, and something that will revolutionize the world like the renasaissance."
This reminds me of an old proverb. One which emplys that we all wish we could do something "greater" than we do at the present, but in the end, it's only a circle. It goes "Artists wish they were scientists. Scientists wish they were mathematicians. Mathematicatians wish they were artists.
Than craming Prologue, completing NP (All I know is that I'm not NP complete), while spreading sugar in my cLisp, and figuring out how to make a date with Perl.
^ ~
Besides, who ever got into pure research for the money?
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
Many former geophysics grad students have been tempted away into pure computer science. A Stanford professor wrote some career advice for his students: "There are many good opportunities [in comp sci] because the computer world is always changing, and that puts young people on an even footing with older people... Are you planning to stay young forever? Math, Engineering, and Geophysics have their eternal verities: Fourier analysis, Maxwell equations, elasticity, finite differences, operators, eigenvectors, adjoints, conjugate-gradient solvers, expectation and covariance, moveout corrections, acoustic imaging, the list goes on and on. Learn these things and learn them well, because they can serve you for a lifetime."
(Reality reasserts itself sooner or later.)
Not to worry, though - there are enough "weed out" courses in CS as in most majors. Just because the public sees big bucks in a computer field doesn't mean Joe Schmoe is cut out for the job. Let 'em waste two years and a few thousand bucks before they realize they did, after all, want a degree in Business.
(PS I'm slowly working on a Master's in Biology, so I don't feel threatened by any need for Biotech people anyway :)
Not entirely true,
Just about any enterprising teen can cook up a batch of crystal meth in their sink. And if you get reasonably ood at it, the field can be quite profitable.
If a kid tries to learn about anatomy, he's likely to be put in protective custody, and told to "stop doing that". God forbid you try to dissect a dead animal out of curiosity: You're branded as morbid and taken to counseling - after all, Geoffrey Dahmer used to do just that as a kid.
An insightful kid, with an interest in how people think, is more likely to be seen as a wise-ass, and punished to being to prying, rather that encouraged to read up on Freud, Jung, Skinner and the rest.
An introspective, even brooding kid with the makings of a great writter or poet, is probably on drugs, or at least has emotional problems, and must be helped in 'dealing' with his 'issues'.
If you show an interest in physics as a child, you're likely to become an auto mechanic. Figuring out how things work, and rebuilding carbs, just doesn't impress the Dean of Admissions. Pity.
So all that's left is to dabble with computers, since while everyone thinks you're wasting time and playing games (like a normal kid), you're actually learning something useful, develop a love for it, and go to college to get the papers.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
My neck is sore. I kept nodding my head saying "yes" while I read your post. :)
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
That is, until he realized that his hobby, fixing computers, could be a better career bet.
Bingo. I find this article, and others like it, interesting, because many people seem to act surprised that students may want to consider career opportunities in selecting a career. This shouldn't be surprising at all, because that's what American society is heavily slanted toward: money == happiness. Well, I don't think that's the case, and I'm glad that I stayed in school for a bit longer to earn a dual English/CS degree rather than just English...or just CS for that matter. But I'd be a liar if I said that the CS half of my degree was more important in the job market than the English half...or if I said that enough salary to live comfortably was never a consideration along the way.
So, ultimately, the paradox of post-secondary education, apparently (judging by the clamor in the article), is that that level of education is twofold in purpose: to widen and deepen oneself intellectually, and to greatly increase one's future earnings potential. Not many fields of study offer both of these, at least IMNSHO. I attended a large public university, where the two largest schools were the Liberal Arts College (which included the 'traditional' sciences) and the Engineering College (where Computer Engineering and Computer Science were taught, although CS degrees were awarded only by the Liberal Arts school). The vibe I got from a lot of the engineering students I attended classes with was that they were viewing university as a pricey trade school. (To be fair, I didn't get a vibe of intellectual expansion from all of the liberal arts students I ran into.) But the way the curricula were set up did little to counter this attitude. Get your degree, get your job, and get out. Where fault for that attitude lies, I cannot say.
But I can say that it disgusted me to be in a classroom where most people were seemingly interested in the piece of paper from the registrar's office than what it (ostensibly) represented.
Having said that, however, I think that one crucial angle that the article missed was that it's not necessary to work at a job that deals directly with one's favorite intellectual pursuits in order to have a satisfying life. To expect otherwise is ridiculous. That's what hobbies are for.
Don't know how widely this is true, but where I went, pre-med was a third year commitment, up until which time, you studied general sciences.
So, in effect, pre-meds were in the same science classes as everyone else, through their second year, all the while getting their other electives (hist, engl, math) requirements out of the way, so they could hit the ground running in the pre-med classes junior year.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
It is true...
Thinking back to my CS courses, we started as freshmen with about a half-dozen women, had maybe 3 sophomore year, and only one finished the degree work.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
They [...] just can't do some of the very very basic math. [...] we already know 1/3 of them are (pardon the expression) idiots, what about the other 1/2rds?
:-)
Umm, you were saying?...
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
right after I hit "submit" I saw that. Typo, should have been 1/3rd. Happerns wherein yoy try to tpye too fast. ;-)
In fact, people who do true CS could still do their job without writing a line of code.
True CS:_________Not True CS:
Knuth..........................Me
Negroponte.................CmdrTaco
Dijkstra.......................Gates
Date.............................Jobs
Turing..........................Torvalds
...
Still not sure where the likes of Kernighan and Ritchie come in, but I'd give all of the Ancient Gods the benefit of the doubt, and say that they're as close to True CS as Programming can get.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Also mentioned in the article was how many public high schools are dropping sciences curriculum.
This is bad, as young students that go to these schools will have no opportunity to pursue their interests in the sciences. They are being channeled into "popular" money-making fields (CS).
If you do not have any background in the sciences, it sure makes it a heck of a lot harder to get started in a career in it. College, IMO, is a little late. Same goes for learning foreign languages-the earlier, the better.
Our country is filled with tons of inadequately funded public schools, many do not even have enough money for technology, art, or music departments (mine had none of those).
Our country is based entirely upon technology, which is a byproduct of science. We need huge numbers of skilled, intelligent people with background in the sciences to run our infrastructure. Such as: oil drilling, mining, engineering (structural, civil, etc), geology (to name a very few). I don't know anyone who is any of those, bar engineering.
We may not notice the immediate effects of fewer people pursuing the sciences, because there are older people in these positions, but what about 20 years down the road? Will we have reestablished the necessary numbers of people in these positions to run our country smoothly? Or will we have to hire people from outside-Europe, Japan, etc, to do it for us?
One last point: I don't know about you, but it seems that fewer and fewer of the mainstream populace can even understand basic scientific ideas/principles. I bring up the Galileo mission, and they look at me funny. Benjamin Franklin wrote how science and democracy go hand in hand (got this out of Science as a Candle in the Dark: by Carl Sagan). Large populations cannot possibly make logical decisions about their world in a democratic nation if they don't even grasp the fundamentals of what makes everything tick! If someone doesn't understand the harmful effects of pollution, are they going to vote for environmental legislation, or are they going to listen to the lobbying/advertising efforts of corporations such as DOW Chemical?
Food for Thought.
Zilfondel
Speaking as a white male, that smacks of genderism. It's about as descriminatory as saying that only girls take home-ec, and only boys take shop, which is untrue. Besides, the trophy-wives can always major in Philosophy. That way they can be assured of sitting on a couch and eating bon-bons for the rest of their life. [duck, run and hide... just joking folks]
:)
Programming, in this day and age, certainly makes it possible to stay home while still bringing home the bacon. Best of both worlds.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
This is very interesting to read about, but I am of the opinion that you can't make people into scientists by giving them classes. It's just not going to happen.
I've always had an amazing shock of recognition when reading stories about scientists like Conway (inventor of the cellular automata Life) and the value systems of these people. It amazes me that there are so many people who _don't_ want to sit around thinking about interesting things- that there are so many people more interested in answers than questions.
I'm designing a game- been working on aspects of it for years now. It'll have to happen at its own pace, there's too much of it to rush and I cannot simply opensource it and expect anything useful to happen- most people want quick fixes, not real answers. I _do_ intend to release the result under the GPL, I just don't think open source is going to magically be _creative_ for me.
In designing this game, I have often had to soak up lots of information from various places. A form of player-codable AI in it (halfcompleted) derives from assembly language, but in a bizarre way tailored (CS) to allow as many AIs running simultaneously as possible, and to face people with realworld consequences behind buzzwords- for instance, you could get the AIs to preemptively multitask, but as they are for embedded (imaginary) systems, there are arguments for doing a cooperative arrangement and handling timeslicing on a routine-by-routine basis. Genetic algorithms could (and will) be used to devise different sorts of AIs- which imposes its own constraints on the design of the AI. I've even downloaded and printed (in 4-up tinyprint) a massive online textbook on astronomy and cosmology just to get my game-universe convincingly plausible- and at the same time, CS fights with this to strike a balance between that which would satisfy scientific accuracy (for instance, spiral galaxies) and that which would execute fast enough to make all this reasonable to attempt (simple spherical galaxies, power-of-two divides) in the particular way it's being attempted.
A lot of people wouldn't even bother, and a lot of commercial developers would never have the opportunity to fart around playing with galaxy distribution. To some extent, science is about truth over convenience- and it's very easy to cheat and shortchange truth. There's even a level where it's like artistic truth- subjective, but recognizable.
I only know that I've always devoured scientific information just for fun, out of curiosity- and that it has affected the way I implement things. It's sort of like buzzword compliance versus really pulling things together- my secret weapon in this (besides having the time to do it, and being willing to _take_ the time to do it right) is that implementing well is just plain better- it's like well-crafted art- having a scientific backing (or learning enough of one to cover for your lack) can make a project like my game a hit rather than a failure. It's a lot of work, but when enough goes right, untutored users begin getting a sense of rightness even when they don't understand what they are seeing.
Science is worth it, but it's like being a (benevolent) hacker: it's not something you take classes in, a lot of people wouldn't even want to. Those who want that have a _hunger_ that can't be deflected even by lack of schooling- give them information and stand back.
I was mostly being facetious, but point well taken.
However, being a knowledgable kid, with an interest in science, still carries with it the stigma of GEEK!, while computers are actually the COOL thing to be into these days...
Before my girlfriend got to know me, and what I do, she would (without knowing any better at the time) ask "can you hack?"... You really could see the italics, too.. It was like some secret thing that I could do, that was ooooh-so-scary and impressive.
Knowledge of computers is no longer a 'geek thing' in the derogatory sense, but playing with a chemistry set still is - unfortunatelly. We here know better, but we here are a minority.
We're sort of like the first black sports stars. The first black running backs and batters. We're respected for our skills and talents, but we're still part of a discriminated against minority.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
All I know is that my university seems to work pretty hard at lowering the number of people who end up in the hard sciences. Seems like a lot of first year science courses are geared to "weed out" undesirables, undesirables in this case often being people who would be perfectly capable of pursuing the degree, just not at the pace and depth at which the first class is taught, often in huge lectures with little access to useful assistance. A number of people that I have talked to have seen this to be the case, especially at large schools. People who, if attending a different college, could go on to become, if not nobel prize winners, at least useful members of industry, are shuttled into social sciences or the liberal arts. The impression that at least one person who I know got was that professors are interested in the top precentage of students, those who can assist them in their research and who will require the least attention. Sure, you produce more outstanding research assistants and super scientists that way, but odds are you're going to loose some very good people too. Combine this mentality with the fabled high pay and recent publicity of the computer field, and it's no wonder universities are hurting for geophysicists and mechanical engineers.
While I have few friends who are studying sciences in order to become a (research) "scientist"... I do have many friends studying the sciences in order to become a doctor.
Money driven? A lot of them.
I think computer science has replaced a lot of the traditional sciences for many people because here is a field where you do not need to get a master's or a Phd in order to enter the work force in their desired field. Plus (right now), the pay is a lot better.
I know plenty of people who started out as chem or physics majors in college, and either switched to computer Science half-way through (it was more interesting and easy for them), *or* ended up working in a computer related field because they simply could not find a job as a traditional scientist.
Eventually it will even out... but I definitely have not noticed a decline in those people wanted to become doctors.
Although, based on grammer and spelling, I would have failed "slashdot 101" about 100 times over. I guess I never have got the hang of "proof reading." Plus, I'll be the first to admit, I frequently hit "submit" and never hit "preview" because I to have been influanced by the "get a lower post number" thing. The spillover thing if there are more than 30 posts, I hate being on the "second page" because. K, yea, I am not that far away from a "first post" idiot. Seeing as how this time it caught up with me I will make this promise:
After this post, I will TRY to remember to do a preview before I do a submit, and not worry about being "down on the second or third page."
It would be cool if Malda hacked ispell into the preview feature, wouldn't it? ;-)
Science has historically been attempting to understand _nature_ or something that is already there by applying a "scientific method" of theory, test the theory, new theory.
If anything, Computer Science is more Engineering, it's just "data engineering" insted of manipulating something physical.
I think that you might be "over valuing" the "science" label. Political Science is NOT a science... But it doens't mean that politics are not important in the world. Linguistics are not sciences, and it doesn't mean communication isn't important.
Just because the "powers at be" choose to label it science, doesn't make it a science in the traditional sence. If anything, what it shows is that they are redefining the term science, not that the study of computers fits traditionally know methods of science.
That being said, I don't mean to put any less value on the studies of Computer Science majors. I have a great deal of respect for (most) of them. But I don't think it fits the mold of what most people think of when they think about the word "science." Computers weren't "always there" and then at one point mankind decided to study them and try to understand how they work. They were engineered. And, as as much, I would agree that "Software Engineer" is probably a good term.
The labels "Software Engineer" and "Computer Engineer" might be better to more accurately reflect people who develop software and develop hardware respectivly.
Why fight it, engineers make more money in general anyway. Which, in fact, also seems to be something the CS community has more in common with Engineers than Scientists.
There are a couple of main issues here.
First, some background. I just graduated from the (or one of the) top CS schools in the nation, with a dual degree in CS and ECE. (And I busted my ass to do so, so please forgive any cockiness that develops, it's a pride thing). Around a hundred graduated this year, with the CS department as their home department.
How many double majors were there for CS/ECE? 1. CS and Mathmatics? 15. What about double majors in CS and Chem? 5. CS and Bio? 6. There was even one guy who in three years managed to pull a CS degree, a Pysch degree and a hard science degree.
And how many of the rest of the graduating class had a hard science as a minor? I know quite a few CS people who have entered into biotech based upon the merits of their minor degree. You wouldn't believe the number of *art*majors* with a CS minor.
My roomate was a physics major. Granted it was a small department, but he was the only one not to go on to grad school. Why? He realized that he was a better computer scientist than a physicist. More power to him.
What does this mean? I think that it means that the really bright *scientists* realize that having a full knowledge of CS will greatly aid them in their research.
I do not feel that biotech and other hard science research will be suffering by this movement. Why? Because the real scientists, the ones that are bright enough to make the breakthroughs in for things like nonotech livers and curing AIDS, WILL STILL BE IN THE FIELD. All they may have done is increased their knowledge, and by doing so are better suited to achieve their original goals.
Does it really matter if Joe Schmoe got-an-A-in-high-school-bio picks CS over Bio or Chem? Would he really have made a difference in the field anyways?
So there's a glut of CS majors. Fine. The people who enter CS for the purpose of learning CS will have better skills and understanding of what is going on. They will always be able to design and implement faster, smaller algorithms. They'll get the sexier work.
Sig:
Barbeque is a noun. Not a verb.
I did my undergrad degree in physics. 105 people enrolled in the 'top level' course that year, a significant fraction nominally intending to major in physics. 35 people ended up taking the final, and (I think) 23 of those passed. maybe 13 ended up getting the degree. Numbers for the front-line engineering disciplines (Engineering Physics and Applied Math) were similar though less dramatic. So, certanly the 'weed them out early' is a real effect, but I dispute the notion that there is an evil agenda attached. I really believe that it is usually an honest process of setting expectations - being a nice guy and trying hard is only so valuable, and preserving the illusion that you can be successful in advanced research (the point of pure science, after all) for a couple years until you finally bail out too late to switch disciplines doesn't help anyone. I cruised through first year with A's, but struggled somewhat to get my degree. Advanced 'hard' science is truly a very difficult pursuit, particularly considering that getting an undergrad degree in these fields is of questionable value in itself - you pretty much have to go for the PhD to get anywhere. Do you not think it's better to divert people who might struggle to a c+ degree in physics (or something), (at which point they're screwed because nobody wants a mediocre undergrad physicist) towards being an A student in CompSci? (happened to me and to many of my friends, who had no regrets) I'm sure we all run into people every day in the course of our lives (usurally our bosses) that are in way over their heads and are completely unsuited for their jobs. How do you react to it, particularly when you have to explain something to them for the zillionth time, or have to cover for their mistakes? Do you see how there might have been a benefit if they had been subject to a similar weeding out?
The reason why kids are so interested in computers is because of the opportunities that have in learning about them while still young. You dont learn anything useful about physics or chemistry until college. I was already programming computer games that my friends and I would play when I was in sixth grade. But now im a sophmore in college and I still am not allowed to do anything on my own. You cant just dabble with chemistry in your room like you can with computers. If you could we would have alot of dead potential chemistry majors. (oops, i spilled sulfiric acid on my shirt. oh well, ill clean it up later)
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
A) The first account you registered with.
OR
B) The well known Slashdot Generic Username/Password Combo.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
Being a grad student in biotech, that's great to hear. But I'm not sure I follow the prediction that computer jobs are going to decline under biotechnology jobs. Biotech is a very specialized field, whereas computers are a tool, that can be applied to many fields..... (just my .02)
-- Moondog
Engineers experiment all the time with new structures, but that doesn't make it science.
Science is understand "what is" not developing something new and trying to test it, that's engineering.
Read my post a couple steps above for a more complete explination. Basically, "the scientific method" can be applied to many things, but applying a "scientific method" doesn't make something a science. If it did, maybe one could be a "master of the science of beer drinking" as well. It's simply not the case.
You need to study something not created by man to make it a science. You need to study things that were not "manmade" and test, experiment, and tweek them. That's science.
Dictionary definition:
Science: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and it's phenomena.
Things studied that are man-made are considered "engineering" studies, not science.
Slashdot Science defender
When I was eight, my mom bought a Xerox 8086 to type up her English PhD thesis on. Besides learning WP5.1 (I still use it to this day, heh), I had fun playing games, and learning how to move around in DOS (3.1, I think). This is the machine that started me on computers.
At the end of the eighth grade, I bought a 2400bps modem for the old 8086, and started dialing BBSs, as well as using my friend's brother's dialup shell account at the U of S. At 13, I was introduced to the glory of the online world and of Unix.
Midway through the ninth grade, I noticed QBasic on my school's Netware network. After a friend taught me a few commands (PRINT and IF-THEN), I taught myself the remainder of the language over the rest of the school year. Having no previous programming experience, I found it thrilling to think that I could actually, in some way, tell the computer what to do.
Because of this, I signed up for all the comp sci classes available over the rest of high school. I learned BASIC, Pascal and some C; the languages weren't important, it was the sense of wonderment behind programming that held me. I could create. And if I had lots of error, it was my fault, not the fact that we weren't at STP.
Am I doing it for the money? Of course not. If I can make some money this way, it would be nice, but the reason I'm doing this is because I love programming, I love the feeling I get, and I love the sense of community and fellowship that can often be found in communities of programmers.
And that, friends, is why I chose to major in computer science. I'm doing it because I enjoy it, not because of the opportunities.
They must have caught on. I first noticed this a week or so back (and you can't create a new account for cypherpunk either). You can log in as ciferpunk/ciferpunk, though (according to the info given at account creation, a 70+ year old woman from American Samoa who makes $150,000 a year).
The "weed out" effect comes in two basic forms, from what I have observed, but it's definately there. Here's what I have seen.
The first form is the "wakeup call" where students get in over thier heads. Quite frankly, there is a historical trend that only 2/3rds of the students pass, and 1/3rd don't. No matter who is teaching, no matter how "hard" or "easy" they try to make the class, 1/3rd end up not completeing the course (some drop, some flat out fail). I believe they just don't come in prepared. I spend about 75% of my time in Chemistry labs teaching students basic Algebra, not chemistry. They usually have the dexterity to do the experiments, but just can't do some of the very very basic math. In this case, I think the blame is clearly to be placed on the High School from which they graduated. And, when they are screwing up the math, in general, they don't have the basic "logic" skills to understand the science behind the math. I mean, how hard is it to add up the molecular weight of Methane? Carbon=12, you have one. Hydrogen=1, you have 4. What's the weight of the full molecule. Uh... (12x1)+(1X4)=___. When they can't handle that, how do they expect to get anywhere? If you make it apples and oranges, they can do fine. For some reason, it's so ingrained in thier minds that "Chemistry is Hard" that when you replace apples and oranges with elements, suddendly they can't do Algebra!
There is no big "push" from the university to make us fail students. There is a push to make us "pass" students. In this vain, most Chemistry departments around the country have a "Chemistry Lite" class now, where they avoid math at all costs.
The second reason that students fail, or the other second part of the "weed out effect" comes from the medical school. They don't want people making it 4 years as a pre-med student, and not being able to handle medical school. And, a very large portion of the students in the basic sciences are pre-medical students. So, here is a class full of 250 students, we already know 1/3 of them are (pardon the expression) idiots, what about the other 1/2rds? Well, they contain the most mercenary students on campus. The type of kids who will give others the wrong answers to "make themselfs sit higher on the curve." They resent having to be in the class completely, because they are still believing "I'll never have to use this stuff" so they just want a grade.
It's not like we have a lot to work with there. One way or another, none of them want to be in the class to start with. Believe me when I say, the professors do thier best to "sell" how much fun the sciences can be. But when they clearly see that a BS in Biology won't get them a job, but a BS in computer science can get them $40,000 to start, how do you expect them to feel? Then, throw them into a group where 1/3 of the people they are with can't to basic math, and another large percentage are as arrogent as can be, and they get disgusted with the class after the first week.
Solution? I don't know, bring McGyver back on TV ;-) The media never portrays science as "fun" anyway. Sure, you complain that "hackers" don't get a fair portral in the movies or on the news, but at least they get some media attention. Scientists usually get made out to be evil, completely over the top "maddness-genius" types, or just plain boring.
If anyone out there is reading this and is looking at a carrer in science, I'll tell you flat out, "we need you." Qualifications are not the sterotypes. We need people with strong math skills, that's true, but more that that, we need people who are "artists" at heart, and can dream up the future, and make it happen. You have to be able to think "outside the box" and be very creative. To solve new problems, it really takes an artist that can apply logic to his work.
I don't think it is any harder now at the front lines of scientific research than it was before. The only difference is that now, there's more foundational knowledge to learn than there was, say, a hundred years ago. The methods and means of learning unknown facets of the Natural World, however, remain unchanged from whence they were when Galilleo turned his telescope to the stars.
Perhaps it is but a parabolic adventure, but the rewards at the end of the parabola are more than worth the effort to climb the steep slope. I just finished a Masters in Quantum Chemistry. It was incredibly hard work, but to actually understand what makes the universe work is a thrilling experience. Moreover, some of the most fascinating people in the world are in Academia. While most of us can't hope to match them, just having known them and having worked with them is a pleasure worth the effort of the study.
I knew a German at the University I attended who fits this mold. He was a great guy, and was also tremendously intelligent. He had a PhD in mathematics and was concluding his second post-doctorate. He was working on various projetcts with phycists, and doing some neat stuff with the EE department.
I had the good fortune to spend time with this fellow in the capacity of a student. He was doing me the good favor of tutoring me with my Quantum Mechanics, as I was struggling. On his own initiative, he went out and bought the textbook we were studying, and in three weeks covered the same material which the classs had spent the last three months trying to slog through. Then with infinite patience, he explained each concept to me until I understood it. Not only was he tremendously intelligent, but he was a fabulous teacher.
My expereiences with this fine mathematician, and the other people I knew at graduate school, showed me the marvelous way in which mathetmatics, physics, and chemistry entwine together. In no other environment could I have recieved such insight into the physical world, and how it works.
The foundation laid by the five years I spent studying chemistry for my B.S. were equally enlightening in their own right. There is no other way for most people to truly understand the Scientific Method. One can look it up, and learn what people say it is, but until you have a problem to apply it to, which will take possibly years of hard work in research, you will never truly understand it.
However, after all my experiences, I am now in an IT job. I am quite happy, but I would not trade my physical science background for the world. With my experience in Theoretical Chemistry (Quantum) I can now do theoretical research on Linux boxes. Thankfully enough, my switch from Academia to Coorporate has not ended my forays into the remarkable world of Chemsitry. As for the work I do now, it is challenging, and I've always had a passion for computers. But my true love has always been, and always will be, science. For it is in science that we may learn some of the most basic truths of the world which we have found ourselves. It is within science where we may find absolute truth.
Certainly, CS is not a mere way to learn to program well. Nor is it intended as preparation for an easy-money job (though all too often it is). CS is centered around mathematical fields, and concerns itself more with algorithms than with coding.
To be completely honest, knowing how to reduce a Nondeterministic Automaton to a Deterministic Automaton is not going to help most CS majors in the type of work they will be performing upon graduation. True, there do exist positions in which such knowledge is applicable, but most graduations are not doing programming of that caliber. Industry seems to be under the illusion that Computer Science trains people to work with computers. Will a CS education really help someone set up an NT service, or get Oracle running on Solaris? These are the jobs that await many CS majors. It is sad, but it is the truth. Is this a result of all the hype surrounding CS, that has made it appear to be the golden ticket to success that has attracted people who would otherwise have no interest in the field?