3 ms·

> In the end, if computer science education is basically vocational, then perhaps it makes sense to replace Calculus I and II with Rails I and II. Why do you b

by Dewie 12y ago

> In the end, if computer science education is basically vocational, then perhaps it makes sense to replace Calculus I and II with Rails I and II. Why do you bring up Rails? If it is in reply to what argonaut said, that is a straw man; argonaut seems more likely to want to replace calculus with logic, discrete math, etc. I.e., other branches of math.

brudgers 12y ago
His argument is that Calculus isn't used much 'on the job' and that these other things [which just happen to be maths] are better because they are used on the job. It's an argument for vocational relevance. I simply extended it. It's 'slippery slope' not strawman. However, slippery slope arguments are relevant for science education and we are talking about computer science. They become less relevant as science -> engineering because arches and bridges can be designed empirically. Which is fine if you're training Roman Legionnaires. But it doesn't produce an Omar Khayyám.
- Dewie 12y ago
  I see what you mean, but I don't quite agree. argonaut seems to be refering to relevance to CS ("even those doing CS heavy work"), not just the things that CS grads end up doing (which probably is more likely to be software engineering than CS). And when it comes to logic, discrete math et. al., the relevance of it refered to the relevance to CS, not to enterprise programming, web programming, or whatever it is that CS grads end up doing. I wouldn't really say that to argue for having courses that are mostly relevant for CS in a CS course is to argue for vocational training - it would be more like arguing for a more specialized (to CS) education, as opposed to a more broad education (CS plus other things that might not be directly relevant or transferable to CS).
- argonaut 12y ago
  Sorry I instigated this big argument. My main point was just to point out why it is perfectly plausible for the OP to not include calculus. If someone feels like they need calculus, they can go right ahead and take that MOOC!

by Dewie 12y ago

brudgers 12y ago

His argument is that Calculus isn't used much 'on the job' and that these other things [which just happen to be maths] are better because they are used on the job. It's an argument for vocational relevance. I simply extended it. It's 'slippery slope' not strawman. However, slippery slope arguments are relevant for science education and we are talking about computer science. They become less relevant as science -> engineering because arches and bridges can be designed empirically. Which is fine if you're training Roman Legionnaires. But it doesn't produce an Omar Khayyám.

Dewie 12y ago
I see what you mean, but I don't quite agree. argonaut seems to be refering to relevance to CS ("even those doing CS heavy work"), not just the things that CS grads end up doing (which probably is more likely to be software engineering than CS). And when it comes to logic, discrete math et. al., the relevance of it refered to the relevance to CS, not to enterprise programming, web programming, or whatever it is that CS grads end up doing. I wouldn't really say that to argue for having courses that are mostly relevant for CS in a CS course is to argue for vocational training - it would be more like arguing for a more specialized (to CS) education, as opposed to a more broad education (CS plus other things that might not be directly relevant or transferable to CS).
argonaut 12y ago
Sorry I instigated this big argument. My main point was just to point out why it is perfectly plausible for the OP to not include calculus. If someone feels like they need calculus, they can go right ahead and take that MOOC!