3 ms·
I prefer to avoid uncharitable interpretations, so I am hesitant to jump to such a conclusion. However, I will admit that judging admission based upon "non-aca
by lliamander 13y ago
I prefer to avoid uncharitable interpretations, so I am hesitant to jump to such a conclusion. However, I will admit that judging admission based upon "non-academic strengths like leadership" allows personal biases and political forces to seep into the admissions process. Are admissions counselors, or computer science professors, really qualified to judge qualities like "leadership"? The potential for the kind of political corruption that you inferred does make me concerned.
Now, I have read Dr. Harper's explanation of the change to the CS coursework, particularly with regard to the introductory classes. Apparently, when you introduce students to programming as an extension of algebra (i.e. functional programming) then you build upon timeless mathematical intuitions and reasoning abilities as opposed to mastery of the ephemeral and accidental complexities of C, Java, or Python. Not only does this seem to lead to a greater proportion of women participating in computer science, it leads to a greater overall retention. You can read more about it here (https://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/intro-curriculum-update/ https://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/intro-curri...).
- hga 13y agoWOW. I'm really impressed. And that's totally, 100% entirely different that MIT's approach to things. In, of course, directions I approve of. Then again this is the work of a CS department with roots in math, business, and e.g. AI, and MIT's roots are in its pioneering EE department, it's resolutely EECS, and the last time I checked, the vast majority of undergraduates get EECS degrees, vs. ones that are mostly one or the other.
- lliamander 13y agoYou might also be interested in the work of Dr. Mark Guzdial on the subject of introducing students to programming/computing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIkRUW6BEBc&list=WLF05B05A865F5765A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIkRUW6BEBc&list=WLF05B05A86...). Now, he argues that language doesn't matter, and that what's important is teaching concepts through engaging applications (more akin to the MIT approach, from what I can tell). Clearly, that approach has had pretty good success (perhaps more so that CM, it's hard to know). However, it does not strike me that these two approaches should of necessity be in conflict. Why can't we use a good functional programming language (like Scheme, ML, or Haskell) to teach useful concepts through interesting applications while still leveraging those mathematical intuitions? I think we can. The idea of using a language with a functional core (e.g. Haskell, Clojure, Erlang, OCaml) has been gaining traction in the industry.