6 ms·

Lets face it: There is so much theory crammed into some CS degrees, bachelor and master degrees, that students do not get to code much. Real coding is often lea

Lets face it: There is so much theory crammed into some CS degrees, bachelor and master degrees, that students do not get to code much. Real coding is often learned by oneself in side projects or on the job. If students do not engage in side projects, how do we expect them to be proficient computer programmers out of university? However, I see this as a failure of CS education. Our work is with computers. If we do not teach, how to use the tool we work with properly, then we have failed. I know CS is not only developing software, but also a lot about the theory, but it should not exclude practice of working with the most commonly used tool, which graduates will use, the computer. Often even things are taught wrongly (do not get me started on "every noun is a class" kind of teaching of OOP), by people, who have not developed a single larger code base for decades. That said, the industry has at least in that regard caught up a bit, and realized, that fresh from university most people do not write good code immediately.

randomsearch 4y ago
Imagine what happens when that person doesn’t leave academia to have the opportunity to learn to code. They just stay on. And end up teaching coding.
nebulousthree 4y ago
Your argument is akin to saying "there's so much theory crammed into Astronomy that students do not get to look through a telescope much" CS fundamentally is not about computers. It's about math and the flow of information between theoretical machines. Computers just happen to be a physical implement. The idea that universities should teach to develop industry-fit individuals is just an extension of commodifying university education. Why not let the industry handle training for what they need their people to do, and let universities focus on their intended goal: create more university professors/researchers. What about moving the responsibility (and financial risk) off students' backs and to the corporations that want to exploit the knowledge gained in a degree through apprenticeship and learning to code through experience?
- int_19h 4y ago
  We don't do it because it means trade schools for developers. Which, in truth, is exactly what 90% of what we do in the industry needs. But it's not glamorous; it's not a degree. Trade schools are for proles, and we aren't proles, now, how could we possibly be?
- eloff 4y ago
  > Why not let the industry handle training for what they need their people to do, and let universities focus on their intended goal: create more university professors/researchers. Which would result in universities eventually going out of business. An outcome I'm not opposed to, provided what replaces them functions better at training young people for real life.
- zelphirkalt 4y ago
  > Your argument is akin to saying "there's so much theory crammed into Astronomy that students do not get to look through a telescope much" I doubt, that a computer with its endless possibilities of using it and programming it, is comparable to a telescope. Also I did make note, that CS is not only about computer programming. So I am fully aware of the following: > CS fundamentally is not about computers. It's about math and the flow of information between theoretical machines. Computers just happen to be a physical implement. However, this does not mean, that universities should forego teaching about computer programming properly. The alternative is, that we acknowledge, that first we study CS, but then employers finance year long computer programming classes for new employees, taught by people, who are actually good at this. The kind of people, who have lots of experience with different systems, programming languages, paradigms and teaching in general. That'll be expensive. > What about moving the responsibility (and financial risk) off students' backs and to the corporations that want to exploit the knowledge gained in a degree through apprenticeship and learning to code through experience? Yes indeed, that is one alternative. I am saying, that employers should not expect and of do not expect good good to come out of people, who recently graduated from university and have their BSc or MSc. I don't think we are in disagreement about that point. However, realistically this might lead to some employers being to much up in the clouds, only ever accepting employees, who were taught elsewhere and students having a really hard time finding _any_ job at all, because no one is willing to expend the resources to teach them. Furthermore, the teaching will probably be very one-sided, gaered towards what that particular employers uses in their tech stack. It is also highly unlikely, that most employers will have teachers, who are really that good, lets say up to Abelson and Sussman standards, if we may wish for something.

randomsearch 4y ago

Imagine what happens when that person doesn’t leave academia to have the opportunity to learn to code. They just stay on. And end up teaching coding.

nebulousthree 4y ago

Your argument is akin to saying "there's so much theory crammed into Astronomy that students do not get to look through a telescope much" CS fundamentally is not about computers. It's about math and the flow of information between theoretical machines. Computers just happen to be a physical implement. The idea that universities should teach to develop industry-fit individuals is just an extension of commodifying university education. Why not let the industry handle training for what they need their people to do, and let universities focus on their intended goal: create more university professors/researchers. What about moving the responsibility (and financial risk) off students' backs and to the corporations that want to exploit the knowledge gained in a degree through apprenticeship and learning to code through experience?

int_19h 4y ago
We don't do it because it means trade schools for developers. Which, in truth, is exactly what 90% of what we do in the industry needs. But it's not glamorous; it's not a degree. Trade schools are for proles, and we aren't proles, now, how could we possibly be?
eloff 4y ago
> Why not let the industry handle training for what they need their people to do, and let universities focus on their intended goal: create more university professors/researchers. Which would result in universities eventually going out of business. An outcome I'm not opposed to, provided what replaces them functions better at training young people for real life.
zelphirkalt 4y ago
> Your argument is akin to saying "there's so much theory crammed into Astronomy that students do not get to look through a telescope much" I doubt, that a computer with its endless possibilities of using it and programming it, is comparable to a telescope. Also I did make note, that CS is not only about computer programming. So I am fully aware of the following: > CS fundamentally is not about computers. It's about math and the flow of information between theoretical machines. Computers just happen to be a physical implement. However, this does not mean, that universities should forego teaching about computer programming properly. The alternative is, that we acknowledge, that first we study CS, but then employers finance year long computer programming classes for new employees, taught by people, who are actually good at this. The kind of people, who have lots of experience with different systems, programming languages, paradigms and teaching in general. That'll be expensive. > What about moving the responsibility (and financial risk) off students' backs and to the corporations that want to exploit the knowledge gained in a degree through apprenticeship and learning to code through experience? Yes indeed, that is one alternative. I am saying, that employers should not expect and of do not expect good good to come out of people, who recently graduated from university and have their BSc or MSc. I don't think we are in disagreement about that point. However, realistically this might lead to some employers being to much up in the clouds, only ever accepting employees, who were taught elsewhere and students having a really hard time finding _any_ job at all, because no one is willing to expend the resources to teach them. Furthermore, the teaching will probably be very one-sided, gaered towards what that particular employers uses in their tech stack. It is also highly unlikely, that most employers will have teachers, who are really that good, lets say up to Abelson and Sussman standards, if we may wish for something.