Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Real computer science should never heavily concentrate on or
> specifically endorse any one specific technology or implementation.
> A CS curriculum is not there to teach its students how to write software
> for Linux or Microsoft Windows, or how to use the Oracle DBMS. That's
> not what CS is about. Now, if these schools do this, then I'm sorry to
> say they're doing their students a grave disservice by chaining their
> knowledge to a specific technology or worse, proprietary software
> vendor.
Unfortunately, the "practical" factor kicks in as well, so several schools
('school' used in the general sense) have to cater to this demand. Believe it or
not, there are CS students who _actually_ demand for classes that teach
application software. However, these are, more often than not, electives and not
major subjects. And actually, it does sound like a good business venture: case
in point, partnerships with schools and companies like Oracle, Cisco, Microsoft,
Sun, etc.
Before going further, I'd like to just state that I'm not here to defend these
types of curriculums, but to present an insight as to why they are here right
now (and why they may continue to stay). So now that's over and done with
(protective suit on!):
As much as having "real" CS be the curriculum, I think that schools are
hardpressed to deliver a purely "theoretical approach." A typical "real CS"
curriculum will have Math... LOTS of it. But, unfortunately, not a lot of
students can deal with the extra Math beyond Calculus and Discrete Mathematics.
Even Physics, which shares quite a lot with CS, isn't given much focus anymore.
The tendency now is to promote "the in-thing" as a promise to a secure career
and future for the student. Take a look at course offerings, and you'll see
several focused on teaching Java, .NET, C/C++, and the like, but without focus
on what's more important: problem solving, data structures and algorithms,
compiler design and implementation, etc. These "latter subjects" are a turn off,
when in fact they should be the ones that appeal to people to take Computer
Science to understand "products" like Java and .NET.
In fairness, I don't believe that these subjects are bad or worthless. On the
contrary, ivory-tower thinking is useless without a little hands-on application.
We can debate all we want about algorithm x and algorithm y in theoritical
space, but they become pointless unless there's practical application. So in
this sense Java, .NET, Python, Ruby, and whatnot are great in that, as tools,
you get to test your ideas and see them come alive. I believe that familiarity
(if not mastery) of the vocabulary (language/tool) helps a lot in
implementation, so these types of classes are helpful that way.
So balance is still important. A school might opt to go the "real CS" way, but
should also have a venue for their students to channel what they've learned.
> Nevertheless, it would seem that apart from the three universities that
> got connected to PHnet in the genesis of the Philippine Internet, Linux
> usage in the academe really is generally less than in the private
> sector. Two words explain why: corporate sponsorship.
>
True. But hopefully that's no be-all-end-all means to stiffling CS education in
the name of "money."
--
Gino LV. Ledesma
// Random Programmer's Quip: It works on my machine.
--
Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph)
Official Website: http://plug.linux.org.ph
Searchable Archives: http://marc.free.net.ph
.
To leave, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/plug
.
Are you a Linux newbie? To join the newbie list, go to
http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/ph-linux-newbie
