5 ms·

I agree that a programmer doesn't need a degree in CS, but to have a CS degree doesn't mean you're a programmer. A topic earlier showed that 26 of the ACM Turin

I agree that a programmer doesn't need a degree in CS, but to have a CS degree doesn't mean you're a programmer. A topic earlier showed that 26 of the ACM Turing Award winners had degrees in mathematics, and a lot of the theoretical CS is math anyways. If a student in college wants to acquire a CS degree, they should be exposed to fundamental ideas in CS, not just what they'll need to be a professional programmer.

jackpirate 15y ago
A topic earlier showed that 26 of the ACM Turing Award winners had degrees in mathematics The field of computer science didn't exist when they went to college. They invented it, hence the awards.
- pzb 15y ago
  This is really the root of the problem. Computer science/programming is immature as a profession. There are not clear, broadly accepted rules for what roles exist and what requirements there are for one to fill the role. Looking at building houses (just the construction side, not the mechanical systems), we have: - Architect - Structural Engineer - Architectural Technologist - Carpenter plus construction employees not officially certified. Each of these has a specific test, both written and practical (apprenticeship), and specific roles in the building process. In software, we have no standardized tests, so companies substitute "BSCS" for "Software Engineer" in the requirements. And there is only ever one role officially defined; there is no separate "Software Programmer". Internally every companies has "Software Engineer I", "Software Engineer II", etc however this is rarely exposed in job postings and requirements and is never standard between companies. The software industry could solve all this hand-wringing by creating a set of standardized roles, testing to create Certificates of Qualification for each, and getting HR departments to require these. And it would be possible, even with an established industry. Canada has added several new Professionals over the last decade, working with the existing industry to define the job, requirements, and build a phase-in plan that allowed the industry to continue operating.
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    I am horrified by the idea of a body moving at government-speed dictating the norms I have to follow when my competitors move at internet-speed. Disclaimer: I am a professional engineer trained to design and build computers rather than program them.
    - saraid216 15y ago
      Wouldn't your competitors have to follow the same norms?
      - rbanffy 15y ago
        Only if they were under the same government.
  - ijuhygfghj 15y ago
    It's nothing to do with quality of work or education. The professional engineers have Canadian government stitched up - in almost all local and federal govt jobs only a PEng can supervise staff. You can work for the Canadian space agency and have as many physics PhDs as you like - but you will have to be unionised employee and managed by an engineer. There is a even a campaign to remove the current exemption that university profs have, which allows them to supervise PhD students. If a CS course doesn't qualify for PEng then nobody is going to take it.
derleth 15y ago
> a lot of the theoretical CS is math anyways It's a specific field within mathematics, with its own emphases and body of knowledge, much like how podiatry is distinct from general human physiology. Really, though, all mathematicians specialize once they reach a certain level, for the same reasons all physicians specialize. It's just that you only happen to know the name of one of those specialties.

jackpirate 15y ago

A topic earlier showed that 26 of the ACM Turing Award winners had degrees in mathematics The field of computer science didn't exist when they went to college. They invented it, hence the awards.

pzb 15y ago
This is really the root of the problem. Computer science/programming is immature as a profession. There are not clear, broadly accepted rules for what roles exist and what requirements there are for one to fill the role. Looking at building houses (just the construction side, not the mechanical systems), we have: - Architect - Structural Engineer - Architectural Technologist - Carpenter plus construction employees not officially certified. Each of these has a specific test, both written and practical (apprenticeship), and specific roles in the building process. In software, we have no standardized tests, so companies substitute "BSCS" for "Software Engineer" in the requirements. And there is only ever one role officially defined; there is no separate "Software Programmer". Internally every companies has "Software Engineer I", "Software Engineer II", etc however this is rarely exposed in job postings and requirements and is never standard between companies. The software industry could solve all this hand-wringing by creating a set of standardized roles, testing to create Certificates of Qualification for each, and getting HR departments to require these. And it would be possible, even with an established industry. Canada has added several new Professionals over the last decade, working with the existing industry to define the job, requirements, and build a phase-in plan that allowed the industry to continue operating.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  I am horrified by the idea of a body moving at government-speed dictating the norms I have to follow when my competitors move at internet-speed. Disclaimer: I am a professional engineer trained to design and build computers rather than program them.
  - saraid216 15y ago
    Wouldn't your competitors have to follow the same norms?
    - rbanffy 15y ago
      Only if they were under the same government.
- ijuhygfghj 15y ago
  It's nothing to do with quality of work or education. The professional engineers have Canadian government stitched up - in almost all local and federal govt jobs only a PEng can supervise staff. You can work for the Canadian space agency and have as many physics PhDs as you like - but you will have to be unionised employee and managed by an engineer. There is a even a campaign to remove the current exemption that university profs have, which allows them to supervise PhD students. If a CS course doesn't qualify for PEng then nobody is going to take it.

derleth 15y ago

> a lot of the theoretical CS is math anyways It's a specific field within mathematics, with its own emphases and body of knowledge, much like how podiatry is distinct from general human physiology. Really, though, all mathematicians specialize once they reach a certain level, for the same reasons all physicians specialize. It's just that you only happen to know the name of one of those specialties.