5 ms·

Computer science isn't supposed to teach you how to program, and it's kind of silly to judge a whole subject by the first year. In fact I think you would be mak

Computer science isn't supposed to teach you how to program, and it's kind of silly to judge a whole subject by the first year. In fact I think you would be making a mistake to focus on the practical courses rather than take as many theoretical and foundational (e.g. advanced algorithms, Theory of Computation, Compilers) courses as you can. A good CS student, who understands the coursework and doesn't cheat, should easily become a good enough programmer just from completing coursework in a mostly theoretical program to get hired basically anywhere. Programming is something you learn incidentally because it's intertwined with what you're doing anyway; and to be blunt, most practical programming is rather mundane and simple compared to a rigorous CS curriculum. I see it as like if I were hiring for something as generic as "writer". It's easy to have a generic "writer" produce a small sample for you on the spot, similar to a CS interview. Of course you can always practice writing directly itself, but I would imagine someone who had completed a lot of coursework in linguistics, classics, literature, etc. would on average be very well-prepared if they were a good student. But you could still practice and teach yourself on your own if you wanted to

lmm 7y ago
> Computer science isn't supposed to teach you how to program Perhaps, but it's still the closest thing the industry has to a "programming education"; I think it's the first thing employers look for, rightly or wrongly. > it's kind of silly to judge a whole subject by the first year How many of my limited days on the planet am I supposed to sink into something before I'm permitted to pass judgement? At some point Stockholm Syndrome would take over. > A good CS student, who understands the coursework and doesn't cheat, should easily become a good enough programmer just from completing coursework in a mostly theoretical program to get hired basically anywhere. Programming is something you learn incidentally because it's intertwined with what you're doing anyway; That's not what I saw happening (unless you count the official lectures/colloquia as "cheating"; certainly I saw cases where the meat of the answer to a supervision question was spoon-fed to us directly). The people who could program at the end of first year were the people who could program at the beginning or who "got it" immediately. I never saw people struggling with a new concept but then gradually being taught it (which is something I did see happen a lot in the mathematics course), and a frightening proportion of the students I was friendly with were coming out of that first year knowing seemingly nothing, certainly not being able to program or talk coherently about algorithms or computability. I suppose it's conceivable that those students were somehow getting something out of the system design type courses, but it seems implausible. I understand there was a shake-up in that CS department a few years after I graduated, so maybe I went through it during a bad time. But the students who graduated there in the meantime aren't going to get a do-over. > I see it as like if I were hiring for something as generic as "writer". It's easy to have a generic "writer" produce a small sample for you on the spot, similar to a CS interview. Of course you can always practice writing directly itself, but I would imagine someone who had completed a lot of coursework in linguistics, classics, literature, etc. would on average be very well-prepared if they were a good student. But you could still practice and teach yourself on your own if you wanted to I'd suspect the overwhelmingly important part of writing is actually writing; I only know one person who I'd call a great writer, and hanging out with him the thing you notice is that he writes the way other people check their phone. All the things you list can enhance writing, certainly, but if you don't actually write then any amount of knowledge of linguistics or classical literature is meaningless (at least in terms of how it affects your writing ability).
- learc83 7y ago
  >How many of my limited days on the planet am I supposed to sink into something before I'm permitted to pass judgement? More than the first quarter of it. I took at least a year of math classes, and I don't feel qualified to pass judgement on the math department. There's a huge difference between intro and upper level classes. Just like there's a difference between Calc I and proof heavy upper level math class. That being said I think the overall pedagogy is better in the math department, but then again they've been doing this for a lot longer.
  - kyuudou 7y ago
    What's that saying, takes about 10,000 hours of study, practice and application to master anything, regardless of what it is.
- commandlinefan 7y ago
  > am I supposed to sink into something before I'm permitted to pass judgement I don't have a medical degree, but I still trust medical science. Why? Because it achieves positive results, and people I trust for other reasons trust them.
  - lmm 7y ago
    Ok, but is that true of CS teaching? The best programmers I've worked with have mostly not had CS degrees (tended to have degrees in maths, physics, or that sort of area).
    - learc83 7y ago
      >The best programmers I've worked with have mostly not had CS degrees (tended to have degrees in maths, physics, or that sort of area). There's no you were rigorous enough in tracking this for this statement to be useful to anyone. The people who don't fit the mold stand out.
      - commandlinefan 7y ago

lmm 7y ago

> Computer science isn't supposed to teach you how to program Perhaps, but it's still the closest thing the industry has to a "programming education"; I think it's the first thing employers look for, rightly or wrongly. > it's kind of silly to judge a whole subject by the first year How many of my limited days on the planet am I supposed to sink into something before I'm permitted to pass judgement? At some point Stockholm Syndrome would take over. > A good CS student, who understands the coursework and doesn't cheat, should easily become a good enough programmer just from completing coursework in a mostly theoretical program to get hired basically anywhere. Programming is something you learn incidentally because it's intertwined with what you're doing anyway; That's not what I saw happening (unless you count the official lectures/colloquia as "cheating"; certainly I saw cases where the meat of the answer to a supervision question was spoon-fed to us directly). The people who could program at the end of first year were the people who could program at the beginning or who "got it" immediately. I never saw people struggling with a new concept but then gradually being taught it (which is something I did see happen a lot in the mathematics course), and a frightening proportion of the students I was friendly with were coming out of that first year knowing seemingly nothing, certainly not being able to program or talk coherently about algorithms or computability. I suppose it's conceivable that those students were somehow getting something out of the system design type courses, but it seems implausible. I understand there was a shake-up in that CS department a few years after I graduated, so maybe I went through it during a bad time. But the students who graduated there in the meantime aren't going to get a do-over. > I see it as like if I were hiring for something as generic as "writer". It's easy to have a generic "writer" produce a small sample for you on the spot, similar to a CS interview. Of course you can always practice writing directly itself, but I would imagine someone who had completed a lot of coursework in linguistics, classics, literature, etc. would on average be very well-prepared if they were a good student. But you could still practice and teach yourself on your own if you wanted to I'd suspect the overwhelmingly important part of writing is actually writing; I only know one person who I'd call a great writer, and hanging out with him the thing you notice is that he writes the way other people check their phone. All the things you list can enhance writing, certainly, but if you don't actually write then any amount of knowledge of linguistics or classical literature is meaningless (at least in terms of how it affects your writing ability).

learc83 7y ago
>How many of my limited days on the planet am I supposed to sink into something before I'm permitted to pass judgement? More than the first quarter of it. I took at least a year of math classes, and I don't feel qualified to pass judgement on the math department. There's a huge difference between intro and upper level classes. Just like there's a difference between Calc I and proof heavy upper level math class. That being said I think the overall pedagogy is better in the math department, but then again they've been doing this for a lot longer.
- kyuudou 7y ago
  What's that saying, takes about 10,000 hours of study, practice and application to master anything, regardless of what it is.
commandlinefan 7y ago
> am I supposed to sink into something before I'm permitted to pass judgement I don't have a medical degree, but I still trust medical science. Why? Because it achieves positive results, and people I trust for other reasons trust them.
- lmm 7y ago
  Ok, but is that true of CS teaching? The best programmers I've worked with have mostly not had CS degrees (tended to have degrees in maths, physics, or that sort of area).
  - learc83 7y ago
    >The best programmers I've worked with have mostly not had CS degrees (tended to have degrees in maths, physics, or that sort of area). There's no you were rigorous enough in tracking this for this statement to be useful to anyone. The people who don't fit the mold stand out.
    - commandlinefan 7y ago