4 ms·

You lost me at "performance at Maths A-Level is the best indicator of performance at degree level Computer Science". I'm a crap to mediocre mathematician, like

by ses 16y ago

You lost me at "performance at Maths A-Level is the best indicator of performance at degree level Computer Science". I'm a crap to mediocre mathematician, like many people I'm just not a natural. After dragging myself through the Maths part of a foundation course I got a reasonable result for it (my original Maths AS-Level was appalling). But in comparison my Computer Science achievement has been extremely good. I think you can be a fantastic software developer without being a fantastic mathematician. I put this down to other attributes more important to programming success such as perseverance, a dogged willingness to learn and problem solving skills. I agree mathematicians can make great algorithmic thinkers capable of solving very complex academic problems, but in terms of development, software engineering, solving business problems and shipping software, I don't think it necessarily helps.

ig1 16y ago
Statistically it is, hence universities using it for selection purposes. But that only means that someone who did badly at A-Level Maths will do badly at degree level on average.
dpritchett 16y ago
development, software engineering, solving business problems and shipping software These aren't exactly what Computer Science programs focus on. There's a lot more theory (algorithms, data structures, etc.) and less practice in my experience. Working through the MIT algorithms book (CLRS) will be rough without the requisite math background. My MIS program was much more focused on the things you listed than my CS program was.
- araneae 16y ago
  The bigger issue here is that programming and computer science are related, but not as much as you might think. It's like saying that if your main goal is to be a proficient writer you should study English literature in college. There are lots of kinds of writing and writing is useful in any field, and besides which studying English literature might make you a slightly better writer, but you shouldn't necessarily major in it if that's your goal. I think it's a real travesty that somehow "programming" got parked under "computer science" and hasn't made its way as a staple into other programs.
aplusbi 16y ago
I think the point is that of the information available on students, math performance is the best indicator for cs performance. Obviously there are outliers (such as yourself). However I don't think there are any reasonably objective statistics for many of the other qualities you have mentioned.

by ses 16y ago

ig1 16y ago

Statistically it is, hence universities using it for selection purposes. But that only means that someone who did badly at A-Level Maths will do badly at degree level on average.

dpritchett 16y ago

development, software engineering, solving business problems and shipping software These aren't exactly what Computer Science programs focus on. There's a lot more theory (algorithms, data structures, etc.) and less practice in my experience. Working through the MIT algorithms book (CLRS) will be rough without the requisite math background. My MIS program was much more focused on the things you listed than my CS program was.

araneae 16y ago
The bigger issue here is that programming and computer science are related, but not as much as you might think. It's like saying that if your main goal is to be a proficient writer you should study English literature in college. There are lots of kinds of writing and writing is useful in any field, and besides which studying English literature might make you a slightly better writer, but you shouldn't necessarily major in it if that's your goal. I think it's a real travesty that somehow "programming" got parked under "computer science" and hasn't made its way as a staple into other programs.

aplusbi 16y ago

I think the point is that of the information available on students, math performance is the best indicator for cs performance. Obviously there are outliers (such as yourself). However I don't think there are any reasonably objective statistics for many of the other qualities you have mentioned.