3 ms·

10 years ago; I'd really like to hear a post-mortem of this decision. For context, MIT's previous EECS curriculum began with 4 required courses for all EE and

10 years ago; I'd really like to hear a post-mortem of this decision. For context, MIT's previous EECS curriculum began with 4 required courses for all EE and CS majors. This meant that EEs had to suffer through Scheme, and CS'ers had to suffer through circuits. I'm sure everyone has their own opinion on whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. Regardless, the EECS department switched to a new 7(?) "core" class format in which students choose 4(?), giving students the freedom to take more relevant courses to their interests/major. In this switch, 6.001 (scheme) was out and replaced with a more hands-on robotics-based Python lab class. I can't really say which approach is better, but I do think there's an important place for the more pure "thinking" computer science classes too, even if it's not the first class taught to freshmen.

brians 8y ago
I hire people coming from this program. I can no longer rely on students understanding control systems, having read Leveson's therac paper, having worked with a notebook-style REPL (I.e., something stressful to model exactly in your head, promoting confusion, leading to notes and comments and structure.) The near-total demise of Athena matters here too. I can and do hire people with all those skills! It’s still very possible to get them at MIT. It’s just not nearly the default, and since it’s way up in electives I’m at least as likely to find the best people carrying a degree that says 21W as VI-3. I don’t envy the VI admins. They have a problem akin to that of a suddenly virally successful startup. 400 people a year come in; about that many better succeed.