No! Computer Science is a subset of Mathematics. It is computer math.
You are wrong.
I'm certain that I am not.
I'm not sure why you are so adamant about posting the same incorrect thing repeatedly,
I'm not sure why you are being so stubborn about your own false preconceptions about what things are, but the posts I have made contain the truth of the matter, not by what human resources designates these disciplines as, but by the academic institutions that offer their study.
but even those "selling" CS degrees claim it to be a subset of IT.
This might be true in admissions, but the admissions department is not the computer science department.
Every science is a subset of math. Biology is a subset of chemistry. Chemistry is a subset of physics. Physics is a subset of math.
While true, it would be more correct to say every science is reducible to math, as biology is reducible to chemistry, chemistry to physics. But computer science litereally is mathematics, and the notion that it is merely the study of computers is simplistic and deceptive, as the word "computer" has become to mean in common day language that thing on your desktop you use for posting wildly innacruate slashdot posts. To a computer scientist, a computer isn't necessarily anything that uses power or has a keyboard.
But you are asserting that a chemist working on die fabs *can't* be in "IT" because math isn't a subset of IT. It's an irrelevant point thats simply wrong.
I have asserted no such thing, but I can tell you now that chemist is not working in information technology, but as an industrial or computer engineer working in, at best, computer engineering, and at the least manufacturing, neither of which is any subset of IT or computer science.. These disciplines are distinct from one another... quite distinct from information technology, which is specific and explicit to the use of computers. This is neither incorrect nor irrelivant if you wish to be accurate. If accuracy in understanding is not your goal, then there is little point in discussing anything with you.
CS is an intersection of IT and math. If it was so pure math, then there wouldn't be a need for a separate program for it. I know a few mathemiticians who did go into IT. Cryptography is an IT field that is pure math.
Again, information technolgy has little to nothing to do with computer science. Prior to about 2000, most, if not all, computer science programs were indeed entirely contained within a university's mathematics department. The popularity of the study warrented creating a new department for it, and, apparently, certain applied disciplines warrented moving a new study known as software engineering into engineering departments. Cryptography is not necessarily an IT field. You are confused. Cryptography, proper, predates information technology by about 10K years. There are cryptographic applications in information technology, but this incidental fact doesn't allow the practical field of information technology to swallow theoretical field of study of cryptography entirely any more that it allows information technology to swallow mathematics. You are deluding yourself into making contradictory statements which amount to "everything is a subset of information technology." The reason we have different names for these distinct disciplines is so we can tell them apart. The modern trend for the ignorant to use malapropisms to describe what they wish things to mean due to internal preconceptions about what things should be no more changes the meaning of these words or what these disciplines are than you are doing by continually denying the facts in this matter.
Organisms that belong to different subspecies of the same species are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring
Here, then, Lonesome George was a subspecies anomaly. He got more action than any slashdotters with a 4-digit user identifier, but I suppose that really isn't saying too much.
For one, human hearing is more sensitive at specific frequencies
yes, this is absolutely true
(e.g. speech and crying babies, and probably any resonant frequencies of our skull).
no, I don't think any of these are examples.
Human speech ranges from 300 Hz to as high as 3.4 kHz, but most commonly and generally hover between 800 Hz and 1200 Hz. Humans don't perceive 1kHz as being louder, but 4kHz always sounds louder and sounds at this frequency tend to cause the listener ear fatigue.
A baby's cry is closer to that 4kHz loudly percieved and tiring frequency, but at around 3.4 kHz at its highest, it's below it enough that I'm nearly certain that's not the reason a baby's cry sounds louder. I believe the reason we hear a baby's cry as louder has more to do with the evolution of the hypothalamus and less to do with the actual frequency of a normal baby's cry. If we pitch shift the frequency of a baby's cry, or even reduce the sound pressure, it still stands out against a background of random noise, such as sounds of lots of people talking or a cacophony of wild animal sounds, because we have evolved to recognize the timbre of this sound, which is more distinct than its natural frequency range. The hypothalmus allows us to filter perceptions... but filtering out a baby's cry is universally accepted as being nearly impossible (I'm sure it can be done, but the mere fact that most find it unsettling or irritating and before long will seak to quell it speaks volumes).
The human skull has been shown to resonate at frequencies between 500Hz and 7.5kHz... so that's pretty much where we hear everything... we certainly hear below 500Hz and above 7.5kHz, but that's such a huge chunk of our normal hearing spectrum that it's unlikely there is any particular frequency we hear louder because of skull resonance.
I don't understand why people think Apple will have anything to do with NFC when they have already been setting things up for quite some time to use Bluetooth 4.0 for the same applications.
Why have both? All Apple needs to do is push stores to offer bluetooth 4.0 compatible equipment, which should cost about as much as NFC handling equipment... and it's not even like Bluetooth is not a standard.
I don't necessarily believe its how Apple sees it, but IMO, from the very start until today, Bluetooth is all hype, a cool word for a technology that had a narrow window of usefulness that is somehow clinging to the perception of relevance. Except for wireless peripherals like mice and keyboards, every other implementation is a poor match. I have yet to hear or hear of any Bluetooth headset that do not make the audio of your cell call sound about half as good as landlines from the 1920's, and the experience is always worse than that for the person at the other end of the call. The idea that A2DP provided high fidelity stereo audio wirelessly from your device sound files was, to put it simply, bullshit. At the time when it could have mattered, file transfer was painfully slow, and if that bandwidth has increased to useful speeds, it is already superfluous as faster wireless protocols have become nealy ubiquitous. Bluetooth was a trendy logo and a name that has somehow inserted itself into the collective consciousness as necessary technology, and yet it still fails to deliver anything that is anywhere near acceptable beyond the simple wireless input peripheral.
I mean, that type of statement COULD be construed as false advertising? Or am I completely wrong?
Perhaps the distinction is irrelevant to the average end user, but technically, a trojan horse is not a virus, as it doesn't insert itself into other files, but is itself a disguised file. Once there are true OS X viruses in the wild, then it could be false advertising. I'm not sure it matters to the charge of false advertising what the advertisement copy is ever "construed" as, but has more to do with what it actually specifies in regard to what was intended regarding what the product is.
To answer your question, the Mac Plus was an AIO or all-in-one computer. I'm not sure if you are old enough to know or remember what a cathode ray tube [wikipedia.org] is, but the Mac Plus used one as a display, and it generated a substantial amount of heat, requiring a fan to cool the machine.
Yeah, these were a real joy to work on. Remember all the warnings about not opening your TV due to the dangerous voltages, etc? All of that was right next to the floppy drive/memory/motherboard you were replacing. The first couple of steps in the service manual after opening the case were to discharge various parts of the display so that you didn't accidentally electrocute yourself.
Right... and couple that with the way the motherboard was tucked in and connected... discharge the CRT, remove the disk cage and disconnect the scsi connector, remove any PDS cards, disconnect mobo from the power/analog board and removing the board wasn't fun or easy and putting it back and reconnecting it all wasn't any easier. Doing this a few times in a row to find a bad RAM stick was, to say the least, a frustrating exercise. But to this day I still think the compact Mac was one of the most attractive machines to ever to sit on a desk.
replying to my own post to efficiently respond to the four other responses: thanks for posting, all of you, the distinction is now a bit clearer for me, and I now realize it is not just an ego boost or merely marketing but serves some purpose
Arguing that most people who call themselves software engineers are actually programmers is a worthwhile discussion, but arguing that the field of software engineering does not exist is no different than saying computer scientists are no different than standard programmers.
I'm not sure that's true, equating one argument to another. But I, personally, am unaware of the distinction between a programmer and a software engineer. If there is a difference, please say so. I first heard the term "software engineering" around 2001. The operating system UNIX was programmed by Dennis Ritchie, amoung others, in 1969. Was that really software engineering? or was it programming?
I believe that it is very important to distinguish between computer scientists, software engineers, and programmers.
I know the difference between computer science and programming, and I mean no disrespect, but I do not know the difference between a programmer and a software engineer. If you are inclined to do so, please enlighten me.
I didn't ask for your help. But since you are open to the idea of unsolicited advice: insults fail to diminish the argument you are opposing. When you reach for insult, because you cannot come up with rational disagreement, you only draw attention to the strength of your opposition. Fallacy makes your argument weak. When you scrutinize irrationally you will only appear self-condemned.
I have to agree with parent... software engineering sounds suspiciously like the product of marketing, as there is nothing material to the result or the work. It's just a more ominous sounding term than "programmer," but only serves to dilute the meaning of the word "engineer," the way "sales engineer," "desktop engineer," or "Slashdot comment engineer" does. Programmers rule, are generally very bright and everyone knows it, and I don't know from where the need for this additional magnificence comes.
In the sense that an engineer is actually someone that designs, builds or maintains engines, machines, or public works, i.e. works with physical things, software engineering is, I believe, a dubious term invented to inflate the already important job of and boost the esteem of programmers, the way the term desktop engineer boosts the importance of the job of and the esteem of IT support technicians, or the way the term sales engineer boosts importance of the job done by and the esteem of salesmen or salespersons. While computer science certainly includes the discipline of programming, a programmer isn't necessarily ever doing any computer science, and I have never understood exactly what they allegedly are engineering (magnetic fluctuations on spinning disks? electron gauntlets?). Should we also refer to our barbers as hair engineers? Are journalists really news engineers? What I think happened is at some point in the mid-1990's computer science enrollment was down, and engineering was as popular as ever, and the computer science departments used a bit of clever marketing to increase enrollment for their programming tracts.
While your ad hominem is mildly amusing for its transparent attempt to compensate for your own perceived deficiencies, what is far more satisfying is that ultimately you agree with me: computer science is mathematics, and not IT.
Nice catch... I knew the first two Macs were fanless, and that Apple introduced a fan into the compact Mac, but wasn't sure if it was the Plus or the SE that was the first with a fan. Now I know.
If that's the case, than GGP probably won't find any job at a finance institute.
They usually just buy their computer hardware from IBM or HP and they don't design their own CPU's.
Ok, a computing machine isn't necessarily a computer in the vernacular sense of what IBM or HP sells, and computer scientists don't design CPU's, per se; that would be computer engineers... different animal. A computing machine, as givin in the wiki definition, could be a complex modeling application.
Most use economists (and some quants use mathematicians) to design their algorithms.
That leaves little room for somebody mathching the description you gave.
I apologize if I mislead you. To be more clear, a computer scientist is, simply put, a specialized mathematician, one who perhaps constructs algorithms to model complex systems, perhaps like those that might be useful in financial analysis or predictive finacial models, but who certainly has comprehensive knowledge of statistics and the discrete mathematics of permutations and combinations.
I applied for a job once where I had moved and was taking a shotgun approach, including jobs I may not have liked or that I wasn't qualified for, little did I know I found both in the same crappy position. In 2001, with 10 years IT, I applied for an entry-level help desk position for a bank. I got a call from HR asking me to justify my experience as computer science equivalent. Apparently, the job required a minimum of a CS degree *and* 5 years experience. I had the opportunity to argue that 5 of my years in IT were CS equivalent so that I'd be eligible to progress my application to the hiring manager for consideration. I laughed and instructed HR lady to discard my application.
I feel your pain! HR everywhere is diminishing the value of CS grads by requiring CS degrees for positions that have nothing to do with CS, and inexplicably scrutinizing technicians without such degrees. This is the fault of ignorance of what computer science is, and the fallicious assumption that a CS degree is required to be qualified to work in IT.
What I do in IT now, with my BS in psychology and an MBA is computer science. And yes, it's also IT.
Congratulations on merging two unrelated disciplines into a viable career.
CS is a subset of IT.
No! Computer Science is a subset of Mathematics. It is computer math.
OP's credentials vastly overqualify him for any position in IT,
Yeah, except for almost all of them. I'd trust a fresh MS CS to build a database language before I'd trust them to administer my database. They may know how it works and why, but they don't know best practices, regulatory requirements, and business processes. That takes experience, and is more valuable than just knowing how the dB works.
Then you, too, see that the disciplines are distinct. IT experience and IT training on specific systems is far more valuable to an IT career than an academic degree such as computer science, and computer science ought to be far more valuable to the science of financial systems than, say, a stack of Cisco certifications.
better paying computer related jobs in finance are not in fiscal analysis. They're in support technologies,
If the jobs are in support technologies, then those are support technology jobs regardless of where they are, not "computer related jobs in finance," if such a thing even exists, the description you give it is bound to confuse. You obviously understand the difference between finance and computer support, but I'm uncertain if, like others posting answers to the wrong question, that you see that computer science is tremendously applicable to the science of finance and the maths involved there. With two degrees in computer science, one would hope OP is well versed in statistics and discrete mathematics, as well as the calculus used in determining margins. I would guess his education and skills would be far more useful in financial prediction modeling than in building applications or in application support.
It is not my intention to belittle IT... just to clarify the OP's intent. You could be absolutely correct about the salaries, I have no idea about that, but if you work, say, as a DBA for a financial institution, you're still working in IT and not in finance.
I saw your irrelevant and pedantic reply on others as well. Are you an insecure CS major? computer science is IT work. Or are you saying " the scientific and mathematical approach to computation, and specifically to the design of computing machines and processes" is unrelated to information or technology?
You are mistaken. The posts I replied to are irrelevant because they were attempting to answer a question that was not asked. OP is not seeking an IT position. The distinction between IT and computer science is not pedantic, but considerable, and there is merit in understanding the difference. Yes, I am saying, as a systems administrator with 25 years of experience in IT, that what I do, and what my peers do, isn't science or mathematics, like, say, working in finance is. When I work for a bank or an investment firm, I don't say I work in finance... I'm still working in IT. OP's credentials vastly overqualify him for any position in IT, yet historically have shown to be applicable in modeling how investors allocate their assets over time under conditions of certainty and uncertainty, generally known as finance.
This will now be my fourth post pondering the same cognitive mistake. The OP isn't looking for an IT position. I'm not sure from where that assumption came. He has computer science degrees, and wishes to seek a career in finance. He is not a technician looking to break-in to another space that, of course, uses computers and thus needs IT support. I read the summary to mean: "I'm a computer math guy looking for a money math career." GP's post is germane, and yours is wrong-headed.
Many banks work through recruiting companies to hire IT folks out here.
I have personally worked with Robert Walters to find IT work...
If you read the OP summary carefully, you'll see he has not one, but two computer science degrees, and he is interested in transitioning into finance. Where, exactly, did you get the impression he'd be interested in desktop support, or server or database administration? I honestly fail to see how computer practitioners can be deluded into thinking that what they do is somehow science or mathematics.
Why is it that IT specialists think that they are computer scientists?
Information Technology (IT) is the branch of engineering that deals with the use of computers to store, retrieve and transmit information.
Computer Science is the scientific and mathematical approach to computation, and specifically to the design of computing machines and processes. A computer scientist is a scientist who specialises in the theory of computation and the design of computers.
In the movie Margin Call, based loosely on the 2007-2008 financial crisis, the character Peter Sullivan, played by Zachary Quinto, was a math guy (like all true computer scientists) that successfully crossed over to the finance world. Unfortunately, he was also the character that figured out what the man he replaced had figured out, which is that the global economy was going to collapse the following day. Are you sure you're up for that kind of thing?
Slashdot Mirror
No! Computer Science is a subset of Mathematics. It is computer math.
You are wrong.
I'm certain that I am not.
I'm not sure why you are so adamant about posting the same incorrect thing repeatedly,
I'm not sure why you are being so stubborn about your own false preconceptions about what things are, but the posts I have made contain the truth of the matter, not by what human resources designates these disciplines as, but by the academic institutions that offer their study.
but even those "selling" CS degrees claim it to be a subset of IT.
This might be true in admissions, but the admissions department is not the computer science department.
Every science is a subset of math. Biology is a subset of chemistry. Chemistry is a subset of physics. Physics is a subset of math.
While true, it would be more correct to say every science is reducible to math, as biology is reducible to chemistry, chemistry to physics. But computer science litereally is mathematics, and the notion that it is merely the study of computers is simplistic and deceptive, as the word "computer" has become to mean in common day language that thing on your desktop you use for posting wildly innacruate slashdot posts. To a computer scientist, a computer isn't necessarily anything that uses power or has a keyboard.
But you are asserting that a chemist working on die fabs *can't* be in "IT" because math isn't a subset of IT. It's an irrelevant point thats simply wrong.
I have asserted no such thing, but I can tell you now that chemist is not working in information technology, but as an industrial or computer engineer working in, at best, computer engineering, and at the least manufacturing, neither of which is any subset of IT or computer science.. These disciplines are distinct from one another... quite distinct from information technology, which is specific and explicit to the use of computers. This is neither incorrect nor irrelivant if you wish to be accurate. If accuracy in understanding is not your goal, then there is little point in discussing anything with you.
CS is an intersection of IT and math. If it was so pure math, then there wouldn't be a need for a separate program for it. I know a few mathemiticians who did go into IT. Cryptography is an IT field that is pure math.
Again, information technolgy has little to nothing to do with computer science. Prior to about 2000, most, if not all, computer science programs were indeed entirely contained within a university's mathematics department. The popularity of the study warrented creating a new department for it, and, apparently, certain applied disciplines warrented moving a new study known as software engineering into engineering departments. Cryptography is not necessarily an IT field. You are confused. Cryptography, proper, predates information technology by about 10K years. There are cryptographic applications in information technology, but this incidental fact doesn't allow the practical field of information technology to swallow theoretical field of study of cryptography entirely any more that it allows information technology to swallow mathematics. You are deluding yourself into making contradictory statements which amount to "everything is a subset of information technology." The reason we have different names for these distinct disciplines is so we can tell them apart. The modern trend for the ignorant to use malapropisms to describe what they wish things to mean due to internal preconceptions about what things should be no more changes the meaning of these words or what these disciplines are than you are doing by continually denying the facts in this matter.
Here, then, Lonesome George was a subspecies anomaly. He got more action than any slashdotters with a 4-digit user identifier, but I suppose that really isn't saying too much.
Awesome post... but I have a nitpick, sorry::
For one, human hearing is more sensitive at specific frequencies
yes, this is absolutely true
(e.g. speech and crying babies, and probably any resonant frequencies of our skull).
no, I don't think any of these are examples.
Human speech ranges from 300 Hz to as high as 3.4 kHz, but most commonly and generally hover between 800 Hz and 1200 Hz. Humans don't perceive 1kHz as being louder, but 4kHz always sounds louder and sounds at this frequency tend to cause the listener ear fatigue.
A baby's cry is closer to that 4kHz loudly percieved and tiring frequency, but at around 3.4 kHz at its highest, it's below it enough that I'm nearly certain that's not the reason a baby's cry sounds louder. I believe the reason we hear a baby's cry as louder has more to do with the evolution of the hypothalamus and less to do with the actual frequency of a normal baby's cry. If we pitch shift the frequency of a baby's cry, or even reduce the sound pressure, it still stands out against a background of random noise, such as sounds of lots of people talking or a cacophony of wild animal sounds, because we have evolved to recognize the timbre of this sound, which is more distinct than its natural frequency range. The hypothalmus allows us to filter perceptions... but filtering out a baby's cry is universally accepted as being nearly impossible (I'm sure it can be done, but the mere fact that most find it unsettling or irritating and before long will seak to quell it speaks volumes).
The human skull has been shown to resonate at frequencies between 500Hz and 7.5kHz... so that's pretty much where we hear everything... we certainly hear below 500Hz and above 7.5kHz, but that's such a huge chunk of our normal hearing spectrum that it's unlikely there is any particular frequency we hear louder because of skull resonance.
Regardless of this, again, nice post.
I don't understand why people think Apple will have anything to do with NFC when they have already been setting things up for quite some time to use Bluetooth 4.0 for the same applications.
Why have both? All Apple needs to do is push stores to offer bluetooth 4.0 compatible equipment, which should cost about as much as NFC handling equipment... and it's not even like Bluetooth is not a standard.
I don't necessarily believe its how Apple sees it, but IMO, from the very start until today, Bluetooth is all hype, a cool word for a technology that had a narrow window of usefulness that is somehow clinging to the perception of relevance. Except for wireless peripherals like mice and keyboards, every other implementation is a poor match. I have yet to hear or hear of any Bluetooth headset that do not make the audio of your cell call sound about half as good as landlines from the 1920's, and the experience is always worse than that for the person at the other end of the call. The idea that A2DP provided high fidelity stereo audio wirelessly from your device sound files was, to put it simply, bullshit. At the time when it could have mattered, file transfer was painfully slow, and if that bandwidth has increased to useful speeds, it is already superfluous as faster wireless protocols have become nealy ubiquitous. Bluetooth was a trendy logo and a name that has somehow inserted itself into the collective consciousness as necessary technology, and yet it still fails to deliver anything that is anywhere near acceptable beyond the simple wireless input peripheral.
I mean, that type of statement COULD be construed as false advertising? Or am I completely wrong?
Perhaps the distinction is irrelevant to the average end user, but technically, a trojan horse is not a virus, as it doesn't insert itself into other files, but is itself a disguised file. Once there are true OS X viruses in the wild, then it could be false advertising. I'm not sure it matters to the charge of false advertising what the advertisement copy is ever "construed" as, but has more to do with what it actually specifies in regard to what was intended regarding what the product is.
To answer your question, the Mac Plus was an AIO or all-in-one computer. I'm not sure if you are old enough to know or remember what a cathode ray tube [wikipedia.org] is, but the Mac Plus used one as a display, and it generated a substantial amount of heat, requiring a fan to cool the machine.
Yeah, these were a real joy to work on. Remember all the warnings about not opening your TV due to the dangerous voltages, etc? All of that was right next to the floppy drive/memory/motherboard you were replacing. The first couple of steps in the service manual after opening the case were to discharge various parts of the display so that you didn't accidentally electrocute yourself.
Right... and couple that with the way the motherboard was tucked in and connected... discharge the CRT, remove the disk cage and disconnect the scsi connector, remove any PDS cards, disconnect mobo from the power/analog board and removing the board wasn't fun or easy and putting it back and reconnecting it all wasn't any easier. Doing this a few times in a row to find a bad RAM stick was, to say the least, a frustrating exercise. But to this day I still think the compact Mac was one of the most attractive machines to ever to sit on a desk.
replying to my own post to efficiently respond to the four other responses: thanks for posting, all of you, the distinction is now a bit clearer for me, and I now realize it is not just an ego boost or merely marketing but serves some purpose
Arguing that most people who call themselves software engineers are actually programmers is a worthwhile discussion, but arguing that the field of software engineering does not exist is no different than saying computer scientists are no different than standard programmers.
I'm not sure that's true, equating one argument to another. But I, personally, am unaware of the distinction between a programmer and a software engineer. If there is a difference, please say so. I first heard the term "software engineering" around 2001. The operating system UNIX was programmed by Dennis Ritchie, amoung others, in 1969. Was that really software engineering? or was it programming?
I believe that it is very important to distinguish between computer scientists, software engineers, and programmers.
I know the difference between computer science and programming, and I mean no disrespect, but I do not know the difference between a programmer and a software engineer. If you are inclined to do so, please enlighten me.
I didn't ask for your help. But since you are open to the idea of unsolicited advice: insults fail to diminish the argument you are opposing. When you reach for insult, because you cannot come up with rational disagreement, you only draw attention to the strength of your opposition. Fallacy makes your argument weak. When you scrutinize irrationally you will only appear self-condemned.
I have to agree with parent... software engineering sounds suspiciously like the product of marketing, as there is nothing material to the result or the work. It's just a more ominous sounding term than "programmer," but only serves to dilute the meaning of the word "engineer," the way "sales engineer," "desktop engineer," or "Slashdot comment engineer" does. Programmers rule, are generally very bright and everyone knows it, and I don't know from where the need for this additional magnificence comes.
Sorry, I thought he's a software ENGINEER.
In the sense that an engineer is actually someone that designs, builds or maintains engines, machines, or public works, i.e. works with physical things, software engineering is, I believe, a dubious term invented to inflate the already important job of and boost the esteem of programmers, the way the term desktop engineer boosts the importance of the job of and the esteem of IT support technicians, or the way the term sales engineer boosts importance of the job done by and the esteem of salesmen or salespersons. While computer science certainly includes the discipline of programming, a programmer isn't necessarily ever doing any computer science, and I have never understood exactly what they allegedly are engineering (magnetic fluctuations on spinning disks? electron gauntlets?). Should we also refer to our barbers as hair engineers? Are journalists really news engineers? What I think happened is at some point in the mid-1990's computer science enrollment was down, and engineering was as popular as ever, and the computer science departments used a bit of clever marketing to increase enrollment for their programming tracts.
While your ad hominem is mildly amusing for its transparent attempt to compensate for your own perceived deficiencies, what is far more satisfying is that ultimately you agree with me: computer science is mathematics, and not IT.
Nice catch... I knew the first two Macs were fanless, and that Apple introduced a fan into the compact Mac, but wasn't sure if it was the Plus or the SE that was the first with a fan. Now I know.
Yet, you have the gall...
Just for the record, and excluding the Statue of Liberty, I am, in fact, gallophobic.
If that's the case, than GGP probably won't find any job at a finance institute. They usually just buy their computer hardware from IBM or HP and they don't design their own CPU's.
Ok, a computing machine isn't necessarily a computer in the vernacular sense of what IBM or HP sells, and computer scientists don't design CPU's, per se; that would be computer engineers... different animal. A computing machine, as givin in the wiki definition, could be a complex modeling application.
Most use economists (and some quants use mathematicians) to design their algorithms. That leaves little room for somebody mathching the description you gave.
I apologize if I mislead you. To be more clear, a computer scientist is, simply put, a specialized mathematician, one who perhaps constructs algorithms to model complex systems, perhaps like those that might be useful in financial analysis or predictive finacial models, but who certainly has comprehensive knowledge of statistics and the discrete mathematics of permutations and combinations.
I applied for a job once where I had moved and was taking a shotgun approach, including jobs I may not have liked or that I wasn't qualified for, little did I know I found both in the same crappy position. In 2001, with 10 years IT, I applied for an entry-level help desk position for a bank. I got a call from HR asking me to justify my experience as computer science equivalent. Apparently, the job required a minimum of a CS degree *and* 5 years experience. I had the opportunity to argue that 5 of my years in IT were CS equivalent so that I'd be eligible to progress my application to the hiring manager for consideration. I laughed and instructed HR lady to discard my application.
I feel your pain! HR everywhere is diminishing the value of CS grads by requiring CS degrees for positions that have nothing to do with CS, and inexplicably scrutinizing technicians without such degrees. This is the fault of ignorance of what computer science is, and the fallicious assumption that a CS degree is required to be qualified to work in IT.
What I do in IT now, with my BS in psychology and an MBA is computer science. And yes, it's also IT.
Congratulations on merging two unrelated disciplines into a viable career.
CS is a subset of IT.
No! Computer Science is a subset of Mathematics. It is computer math.
OP's credentials vastly overqualify him for any position in IT,
Yeah, except for almost all of them. I'd trust a fresh MS CS to build a database language before I'd trust them to administer my database. They may know how it works and why, but they don't know best practices, regulatory requirements, and business processes. That takes experience, and is more valuable than just knowing how the dB works.
Then you, too, see that the disciplines are distinct. IT experience and IT training on specific systems is far more valuable to an IT career than an academic degree such as computer science, and computer science ought to be far more valuable to the science of financial systems than, say, a stack of Cisco certifications.
better paying computer related jobs in finance are not in fiscal analysis. They're in support technologies,
If the jobs are in support technologies, then those are support technology jobs regardless of where they are, not "computer related jobs in finance," if such a thing even exists, the description you give it is bound to confuse. You obviously understand the difference between finance and computer support, but I'm uncertain if, like others posting answers to the wrong question, that you see that computer science is tremendously applicable to the science of finance and the maths involved there. With two degrees in computer science, one would hope OP is well versed in statistics and discrete mathematics, as well as the calculus used in determining margins. I would guess his education and skills would be far more useful in financial prediction modeling than in building applications or in application support.
It is not my intention to belittle IT... just to clarify the OP's intent. You could be absolutely correct about the salaries, I have no idea about that, but if you work, say, as a DBA for a financial institution, you're still working in IT and not in finance.
I saw your irrelevant and pedantic reply on others as well. Are you an insecure CS major? computer science is IT work. Or are you saying " the scientific and mathematical approach to computation, and specifically to the design of computing machines and processes" is unrelated to information or technology?
You are mistaken. The posts I replied to are irrelevant because they were attempting to answer a question that was not asked. OP is not seeking an IT position. The distinction between IT and computer science is not pedantic, but considerable, and there is merit in understanding the difference. Yes, I am saying, as a systems administrator with 25 years of experience in IT, that what I do, and what my peers do, isn't science or mathematics, like, say, working in finance is. When I work for a bank or an investment firm, I don't say I work in finance... I'm still working in IT. OP's credentials vastly overqualify him for any position in IT, yet historically have shown to be applicable in modeling how investors allocate their assets over time under conditions of certainty and uncertainty, generally known as finance.
very vast majority of IT in the Finance world
This will now be my fourth post pondering the same cognitive mistake. The OP isn't looking for an IT position. I'm not sure from where that assumption came. He has computer science degrees, and wishes to seek a career in finance. He is not a technician looking to break-in to another space that, of course, uses computers and thus needs IT support. I read the summary to mean: "I'm a computer math guy looking for a money math career." GP's post is germane, and yours is wrong-headed.
Many banks work through recruiting companies to hire IT folks out here.
I have personally worked with Robert Walters to find IT work...
If you read the OP summary carefully, you'll see he has not one, but two computer science degrees, and he is interested in transitioning into finance. Where, exactly, did you get the impression he'd be interested in desktop support, or server or database administration? I honestly fail to see how computer practitioners can be deluded into thinking that what they do is somehow science or mathematics.
From an IT-persons....
Why is it that IT specialists think that they are computer scientists?
These are entirely different disciplines.
there are plenty of people [sic] of IT people in the business
I fail to see your point. OP has two computer science degrees.
In the movie Margin Call, based loosely on the 2007-2008 financial crisis, the character Peter Sullivan, played by Zachary Quinto, was a math guy (like all true computer scientists) that successfully crossed over to the finance world. Unfortunately, he was also the character that figured out what the man he replaced had figured out, which is that the global economy was going to collapse the following day. Are you sure you're up for that kind of thing?
Some of us still call it OpenVMS/2 Warp, thank you very much.
ROFL