8 ms·

You are making a very important point in that program content and quality can vary greatly between universities. However, you then go on to specifically recomme

You are making a very important point in that program content and quality can vary greatly between universities. However, you then go on to specifically recommend the kind of program that has less to do with classic Computer Science and more to do with Software Engineering or development. The person above you complained there weren't enough proofs in CS degrees, so they probably attended a program that was more focused on relevancy for the industry, while I and others attented programs very much geared towards academic research and theoretical CS, which contained a large amount of maths, often taught by math professors, and involved proofs in pretty much every course, even things like Intro to OOP. Both of these programs have their place, I'm very glad I attented a program that was very theoretical, since I was able to pick up job skills on the side, while the things I learned in my degree I would have probably largely not been able to teach myself.

throwawaygh 5y ago
> However, you then go on to specifically recommend the kind of program that has less to do with classic Computer Science and more to do with Software Engineering or development. No, I do not. Is that really how you would describe any of the specific institutions I mentioned? A good program should have some of both, and two equally good programs could emphasize one or the other more. All of the positive institution examples I listed have very rigorous theory requirements in their undergraduate curriculum, for example. > ...which contained a large amount of maths, often taught by math professors, and involved proofs in pretty much every course, even things like Intro to OOP. The problem is one of quality, not the "theory vs practice" axis. A mathematician can do a great job at teaching pretty much any CS course. But, also, within the last 10 years, a CS/DS major staffed largely by mathematicians or folks without terminal degrees has become a VERY predictable sign of a low-quality department. These two things aren't contradictory. Have you looked at the composition of CS departments at unselective regional institutions, or CS faculty ads for such places? If not, consider this exercise. Things have gone downhill fast in the past 10 years, and the current situation in CS for regional colleges and universities is very much "caveat emptor".

throwawaygh 5y ago

> However, you then go on to specifically recommend the kind of program that has less to do with classic Computer Science and more to do with Software Engineering or development. No, I do not. Is that really how you would describe any of the specific institutions I mentioned? A good program should have some of both, and two equally good programs could emphasize one or the other more. All of the positive institution examples I listed have very rigorous theory requirements in their undergraduate curriculum, for example. > ...which contained a large amount of maths, often taught by math professors, and involved proofs in pretty much every course, even things like Intro to OOP. The problem is one of quality, not the "theory vs practice" axis. A mathematician can do a great job at teaching pretty much any CS course. But, also, within the last 10 years, a CS/DS major staffed largely by mathematicians or folks without terminal degrees has become a VERY predictable sign of a low-quality department. These two things aren't contradictory. Have you looked at the composition of CS departments at unselective regional institutions, or CS faculty ads for such places? If not, consider this exercise. Things have gone downhill fast in the past 10 years, and the current situation in CS for regional colleges and universities is very much "caveat emptor".