4 ms·
Regardless of the source of the comment, it would be interesting to have the source data to know exactly what they're classifying as "Computer Science" programs
by waterlesscloud 12y ago
Regardless of the source of the comment, it would be interesting to have the source data to know exactly what they're classifying as "Computer Science" programs. That term has certainly increased in usage over the last several decades, and was not always in use in the decades prior to the 1980s.
So what did the study use in its place?
That's a valid question regardless of who raised it.
- jamesaguilar 12y agoSure, but "we don't know, therefore let's provisionally go the MRA's unsourced claims," is not a sound interim position.
- waterlesscloud 12y agoAs I said, it's an interesting question, regardless of the source. So I went and looked it up, since that seemed more productive than fighting endlessly over it. The NSF study helpfully includes an appendix that shows what fields they counted as "Computer Science", and it turns out that "Data Processing" and "Data Processing Technician" were indeed counted in that category. Of course, that says nothing about the relative numbers and how they changed, but it does raise a possible explanation for the shift in numbers as Data Processing died out as a field. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13327/pdf/tabb1.pdf http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13327/pdf/tabb1.pdf