then nobody, like almost nobody would major in computer science.
the article started off as a good look at where computer science is / needs to go and then disintegrated into a 'why aren't there more women engineers?' ok... why aren't there more women garbage men? erm, garbage people?
anyways, I think computer science programs have come a long long way since the early 2000s. I think the major thing computer science majors have to know is, your education that you pay for will not be enough to succeed. you MUST be a autodidact and teach yourself what is important for the specific thing you want to do when you graduate.
I had the option of a BA in computer science (sans some science and math requirements, plus more humanities requirements) and a BS in computer science. I took the BS, because it seemed like the BA was a "lighter" degree.
I think you're underestimating what 18 year olds are willing to put themselves through.
> then nobody, like almost nobody would major in computer science.
OK. For the sake of argument, let's say that's true. What's the harm? Computer scientists aren't required to deliver babies or anything. Even if they were, do we have a shortage of them?
I feel that most of the interesting computer science should happen at the graduate level anyway. Take mathematics or software engineering as an undergrad, go back to do computer science once you know what you're getting into.
"then nobody, like almost nobody would major in computer science."
That's actually fine. If Computer Science goes more theory and math that would be a good thing. Its really time we start rethinking the vocational part and separating it out. Computer Science isn't a job training program.
I would guess that even Software Engineering students would have to go through Calculus (just because it is a good weed out if for nothing else) and other math heavy, theoretical practice -- just like other Engineers.
What they want is almost a Software Technician degree. Someone that can put together apps and know how to troubleshoot but who are not working on the bleeding edge but putting together technology that others have largely already designed.
There is a huge need for this level of skill but not so much formal training. There are budding movements in that direction but nothing in the traditional higher education landscape or with that same level of trust and recognition.
> Calculus (just because it is a good weed out if for nothing else)
Nothing should be in the curriculum as a 'weed out'. Every class should justify itself in technical content. CS needs calculus absolutely, but for the ideas, not as a hurdle.
For chemical engineering I (barely) remember taking Latin. And this at a school that prides itself on engineering focus and keeping things tight.
Hell, my wife had to retake an art and history class to get into a nursing program because photography and cold war history didn't 'count' somehow.
I'm all for paring that kind of fluff down.
Then again, there is something to be said for weed out courses. They are easy to teach therefore easy to find resources for, they are generally useful (for many calculus is their first introduction to proofs outside of geometry), and so you can pack a bunch of hopefuls in before wasting more specialized time and effort on lost causes.
I wouldn't call it a "Technician" since that gets a little confusing with certificates and such, but I take your meaning. Basically these folks are looking for what a technical college would teach but they want a university name on their diploma.
