Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
> Sean Kelly wrote:
> I see this idea mentioned over and over.  "you won't need all this baroque knowledge we're feeding you, yet it will help your problem solving skills".  Guess what I do when I write programs?  Yep, I solve problems.  I learned this skill while learning to program, and every time I program it is reinforced.

In this age of specialization, I can understand how you may not use math in your job.  And, while math might help in problem solving, I don't think that's why it should be taught.

Math is useful.  When you're tasked with implementing the backpropagation algorithm to train neural networks, and you get to the part that says you need to choose an easily differentiable activation function, then you need some Calculus knowledge.  This is a trivial example, but the type of thing I run into all the time.

> I've been programming in the industry since 1993.  Most people just don't need the math, and if you do, find a converted math major or mechanical engineer to help you out (unless they have forgotten all their math skills, as many of them do since they never use this stuff!).

Your "most people" is completely different from mine.  In my line of work, *every* programmer, at minimum, applies linear algebra *every* day.  Many make frequent use of calculus too.

You may not have needed it in your job, but if you don't have these skills, don't apply for a job with me.  :)

> You can learn good problem solving skills, communication, etc. while actually learning valuable software engineering techniques.  I'm not 

Agree.

--Steve

Stephen Waits wrote:
> Your "most people" is completely different from mine.  In my line of work, *every* programmer, at minimum, applies linear algebra *every* day.  Many make frequent use of calculus too.

Yes, in *your* line of work.  There's tons and tons of software written that does not require heavy math skills.  There's no reason to train all programmers in linear algebra and calculus.  I think they should be exposed to it at a high level, and if they want to go deeper that should be their option.

> You may not have needed it in your job, but if you don't have these skills, don't apply for a job with me.  :)

Indeed, and I never would.  Isn't the free market wonderful?

-Jeff

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:00:06 -0700, Stephen Waits wrote:

> Jeff Nowakowski wrote:

> In this age of specialization, I can understand how you may not use math in your job.  And, while math might help in problem solving, I don't think that's why it should be taught.
> 
> Math is useful.

Absolutely! The most compelling reason to learn maths in college is so that you can one day help your kids with their college homework. <G>

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
"Justice for David Hicks!"
24/04/2007 10:45:47 AM

Derek Parnell wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:00:06 -0700, Stephen Waits wrote:
> 
>> Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
> 
>> In this age of specialization, I can understand how you may not use math in your job.  And, while math might help in problem solving, I don't think that's why it should be taught.
>>
>> Math is useful.
> 
> Absolutely! The most compelling reason to learn maths in college is so that
> you can one day help your kids with their college homework. <G>
> 

Heh heh.  That's a similar reason why we need literature majors.  Or classics majors.  You have to have those majors in order to train new literature and classics professors for the next generation.

--bb

Dan wrote:
> Jascha Wetzel <[firstname]@mainia.de> Wrote:
> 
>>> You really don't need a CS degree to do most IT jobs
>> 100% agreed
> 
> I agree too.  I'm not saying "anyone can do it"; I'm saying that a degree doesn't provide as much as it ought in this particular field.  I found my experience almost debilitating and I think there are a few reasons why:
> 
> 1) By the time you're done 4th year, the exactly implementation you were taught starting 2nd year is already obsolete.
> 
> 2) Professors were taught by their professors were taught by their professors.  The teacher typically has never been in the industry, and doesn't really understand programming beyond trivial examples on a theoretical capacity.  They're also typically still stuck in the same paradigms and with the same tools as their professor's professor (the 70's).
> 
> 3) First year professors are really there to study a master's, not to teach.  They typically suck at teaching, not being able to frame the paradigm with the right analogies, but merely having acceptable technical knowledge.
> 
>> i'll have to stand up for the CS majors here, though... ;)
>> i think, these (fairly typical) statements about CS majors are highly
>> dependent on the university. i attended exactly one lecture during 
> 
> For anyone interested, don't go to University of Calgary for CPSC.
And definitely do not got to the University of Sydney for CS.
In the early 90's, they were still asking exam questions about I/O port addresses for teletype machines. Unbelievable.
I came outright first in a course called "System Structures" for which I   did not attend a single lecture. I've no idea what it was about.

Seriously, I reckon I learn more CS every month just browsing the net, than I did in two years of CS. Fortunately my degree was physics.

I think "Computer Science" is one of the all-time classic misnomers. There's hardly any science in CS. (Virtually no experimentation, for example).

Don Clugston wrote:
> 
> I think "Computer Science" is one of the all-time classic misnomers. There's hardly any science in CS. (Virtually no experimentation, for example).

Prof. Kenneth Yip used to start his intro to CS lectures out by writing "Computer Science" on the blackboard in giant letters.  Then he'd start the lecture by saying the name is kind of odd for the subject because it's really not a science.  And he'd put a big "X" over the science part.  Next he'd say, "and what's more it's not actually about computers either".  Another big "X".

--bb

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:28:43 +0900
Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup@billbaxter.com> wrote:

> Don Clugston wrote:
> > 
> > I think "Computer Science" is one of the all-time classic misnomers. There's hardly any science in CS. (Virtually no experimentation, for example).
> 
> Prof. Kenneth Yip used to start his intro to CS lectures out by writing "Computer Science" on the blackboard in giant letters.  Then he'd start the lecture by saying the name is kind of odd for the subject because it's really not a science.  And he'd put a big "X" over the science part.  Next he'd say, "and what's more it's not actually about computers either".  Another big "X".
> 

Heh.. I kept telling my colleagues at school something similar, when they had problems implementing the latest Hello-World-Calculator in C#. (I'm always the one helping those who are "not capable" of "programming", in my class..)

"It's not about the programming language..it's just.. a problem and a solution!"

the german name of this subject is more appropriate. "informatik" suggests the science of information.

just because there are no experiments doesn't mean it's not a science, though. mathematics is usually considered a science although has no experiments either. that's because both aren't natural sciences where there is a given real world complex that we try to understand by sampling it with experiments.

in mathematics as well as "informatics" we try to find models of the way we think. therefore all the experiments take place in our heads. "informatics" additionally is an engineering science, trying to build/program machines that mimick the way we think in those models we found. in many cases we find that the way we think isn't most effective, therefore we change the models to fit the machines we've already built. which makes us drift a little more into the engineering direction.

Alexander Panek wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:28:43 +0900
> Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup@billbaxter.com> wrote:
> 
>> Don Clugston wrote:
>>> I think "Computer Science" is one of the all-time classic misnomers. There's hardly any science in CS. (Virtually no experimentation, for example).
>> Prof. Kenneth Yip used to start his intro to CS lectures out by writing "Computer Science" on the blackboard in giant letters.  Then he'd start the lecture by saying the name is kind of odd for the subject because it's really not a science.  And he'd put a big "X" over the science part.  Next he'd say, "and what's more it's not actually about computers either".  Another big "X".
>>
> 
> Heh.. I kept telling my colleagues at school something similar, when they had problems implementing the latest Hello-World-Calculator in C#. (I'm always the one helping those who are "not capable" of "programming", in my class..)
> 
> "It's not about the programming language..it's just.. a problem and a solution!"

Jascha Wetzel <[firstname]@mainia.de> Wrote:

> the german name of this subject is more appropriate. "informatik" suggests the science of information.
> 
> just because there are no experiments doesn't mean it's not a science, though. mathematics is usually considered a science although has no experiments either. that's because both aren't natural sciences
... [and the rest of his post]

Well said, sir.

If you think the understanding behind computer science is trivial, being a mathematician is easy!  All there is to it is a few variables and formulas and stuff.

That said, I actually find myself pretty decent at understanding math, I'm just highly inconsistent at doing it - which is why I have a computer.  : )

Jascha Wetzel wrote:
> the german name of this subject is more appropriate.
> "informatik" suggests the science of information.

It's better -- works well for most business apps, but it's a bit of a stretch for things like games.
IMHO, "software engineering" is a much better term.

> just because there are no experiments doesn't mean it's not a science,
> though. mathematics is usually considered a science although has no
> experiments either. that's because both aren't natural sciences where
> there is a given real world complex that we try to understand by
> sampling it with experiments.

In science, we're always trying to answer the "why?" question. Mathematics is no exception; that's what proofs are about.(*Why* are there no integral solutions to x^n+y^n=z^n where n>2 ?)
But in CS, the question is almost always "how?". While doing CS, you almost never come away with more understanding about how the universe behaves. Most of the actual computer *science*  is done in mathematics departments.