4 ms·

> There is a tension here that is being understated which is that people of every major now take the intro-level CS class because programming is integral to eve

> There is a tension here that is being understated which is that people of every major now take the intro-level CS class because programming is integral to everything. Why doesn’t the CS department have a different intro class for CS majors and non-CS majors. That’s a common practice in the mathematics, physics, etc. departments. (To have harder intro classes for the students majoring in your department vs those who don’t.)

klooney 2y ago
At my university, they did, I don't think it's that uncommon.
- layer8 2y ago
  Same here. The CS curriculum was theory-heavy (as it should be), and there were purely practical programming courses for the other faculties.
- SilasX 2y ago
  Right, there’s the longstanding joke about whether you’re taking real geology vs “rocks for jocks”.
chris_wot 2y ago
Costs. They don't want to have two courses teaching largely the same concepts when one will do. Short sighted, but that's how they roll.
seanmcdirmid 2y ago
At least when I went to school, intro CS was a weed out course for getting into the CS department in the first place, along with calculus based physics that potential engineer and physic majors also had to take. I think these days it’s a bit different in that many schools allow high schoolers to apply directly to the CS department? But then it would be a matter of scale I guess, they usually have clinical professors run these classes because they demand full time attention.
- sansnomme 2y ago
  They need to get rid of the concept of weed out courses. It's bad for learning. If you are paying 30-50K a year for an education, course availability should be a given. Don't use the bell curve as an excuse to deny students an education, or if you are going to use a threshold, use a fixed one, not one that limits by percentage of students. The fat cat admins and professors need to be fired. Too many schools take the students' money and plow it into research and other areas, with zero regard for undergraduate education. "You are in university now, it's sink or swim. Can't make it? Too bad." This attitude is especially prevalent in the state/public unis, especially places like Berkeley where demands exceeds supply. Your traditional private colleges like Dartmouth and Harvard don't have this problem.
  - nmeofthestate 2y ago
    Ideally people who can't handle the course should get filtered out before being accepted to the college, so they don't waste any money. But since it's impossible to filter reliable at that stage, surely it makes sense to also filter early on in the course. (from the perspective of the student. If the college wants to take more of their money they could still direct them to a different, easier/more suitable subject).
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    A lot of schools these days weed out at the application level: if you have a great portfolio from middle school through high school, great! You have it made. I sort of like the change to redeem yourself during the first two years of your university if you didn't have the ideal secondary school experience to get into a hot department of a hot university. CC can do that as well, I guess, but it is a much harder hill to climb.
- InkCanon 2y ago
  Weed out courses do have various problems. Some of it is regulatory - certain public or public funded universities don't let you eliminate large portions of your cohort. Graduation rate is a part of many college rankings, so there's also an incentive to not fail. I don't think it's completely wrong. Failing a student after he or she sunk a ton of money into it is really not ideal. IMO it seems really easy to pass prospective students the first few chapters of your CS textbook/lectures then test them as a prerequisite for enrollment, before they enrol. This would be close to free, filter out a lot of would be dropouts and just save money and effort all around.

klooney 2y ago

At my university, they did, I don't think it's that uncommon.

layer8 2y ago
Same here. The CS curriculum was theory-heavy (as it should be), and there were purely practical programming courses for the other faculties.
SilasX 2y ago
Right, there’s the longstanding joke about whether you’re taking real geology vs “rocks for jocks”.

chris_wot 2y ago

Costs. They don't want to have two courses teaching largely the same concepts when one will do. Short sighted, but that's how they roll.

seanmcdirmid 2y ago

At least when I went to school, intro CS was a weed out course for getting into the CS department in the first place, along with calculus based physics that potential engineer and physic majors also had to take. I think these days it’s a bit different in that many schools allow high schoolers to apply directly to the CS department? But then it would be a matter of scale I guess, they usually have clinical professors run these classes because they demand full time attention.

sansnomme 2y ago
They need to get rid of the concept of weed out courses. It's bad for learning. If you are paying 30-50K a year for an education, course availability should be a given. Don't use the bell curve as an excuse to deny students an education, or if you are going to use a threshold, use a fixed one, not one that limits by percentage of students. The fat cat admins and professors need to be fired. Too many schools take the students' money and plow it into research and other areas, with zero regard for undergraduate education. "You are in university now, it's sink or swim. Can't make it? Too bad." This attitude is especially prevalent in the state/public unis, especially places like Berkeley where demands exceeds supply. Your traditional private colleges like Dartmouth and Harvard don't have this problem.
- nmeofthestate 2y ago
  Ideally people who can't handle the course should get filtered out before being accepted to the college, so they don't waste any money. But since it's impossible to filter reliable at that stage, surely it makes sense to also filter early on in the course. (from the perspective of the student. If the college wants to take more of their money they could still direct them to a different, easier/more suitable subject).
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  A lot of schools these days weed out at the application level: if you have a great portfolio from middle school through high school, great! You have it made. I sort of like the change to redeem yourself during the first two years of your university if you didn't have the ideal secondary school experience to get into a hot department of a hot university. CC can do that as well, I guess, but it is a much harder hill to climb.
InkCanon 2y ago
Weed out courses do have various problems. Some of it is regulatory - certain public or public funded universities don't let you eliminate large portions of your cohort. Graduation rate is a part of many college rankings, so there's also an incentive to not fail. I don't think it's completely wrong. Failing a student after he or she sunk a ton of money into it is really not ideal. IMO it seems really easy to pass prospective students the first few chapters of your CS textbook/lectures then test them as a prerequisite for enrollment, before they enrol. This would be close to free, filter out a lot of would be dropouts and just save money and effort all around.