Re: Electr* Engineering
in the late 1960s and up thru 1979 UTexas at Arlington Computer Science initially only offered a Masters, and was housed in Industrial Engineering. If you wanted an undergrad degree in "computing" you went thru the math department and got a BA or BS in mathematics with an emphasis in computing. I took a *lot* of CS classes and a couple EE tclasses to build my own CS curriculum on top of my BS-Math. In 1979 when I graduated I could have gotten one of the first BS in Computer Science and Engineering instead of Math. But, I just stoop to taking a 3-unit class for a semester in mechanical drawing which was madnatory for engineering degrees at that time. Has never been a problem, and I enjoyed my math classes. Lee Courtney Lee Courtney On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 12:04 PM Yeechang Lee via cctech < cct...@classiccmp.org> wrote: > Adam Thornton says: > > The genealogy of Computer Science departments (and their curricula) > > (at least in the US) is also weird and historically-contingent. > > Basically it seems to have been a tossup at any given school whether > > it came out of the Electr[ical|onic] Engineering department, in > > which case it was memories and logic gates and a bottom-up, > > hardware-focused curriculum, or out of the Mathematics department, > > in which case it was algorithms and complexity analysis and a > > software-focused curriculum. > > Yes, I've noticed the same thing. Example: Harvard's CS department is > originally from the math side, while MIT's is from EE (thus today's > EECS). > > Berkeley = EE > Brown = Math > BYU = Math > Caltech = EE > Columbia = EE > Cornell = Operations research, math > Dartmouth = Math > Illinois = Math > NYU = Both (because Polytechnic developed its own CS program long > before NYU acquired it to regain an engineering school) > Penn = EE > UCLA = OR (probably because of the RAND heritage) > > Caltech until very recently did not formally offer CS degrees; > students received degrees in Engineering and Applied Science, with a > focus on CS (or aeronautics, or civil, or ME). > > Illinois is an example of a track we might call "other" or even > "defense". With government funding the university built its own > computers (including ILLIAC and PLATO), and the group that did so > became the CS department, but the undergraduate CS program began > within the math department. Harvard's and Penn's programs might also > qualify. > > Undergraduate CS degrees are BA (Example: Harvard), BS (Example: > Penn), or both (Example: Columbia). At Penn one must be an engineering > student to major in CS. At Columbia one can major in CS in either the > liberal arts or engineering schools, but with different > curriculums. At Yale there is one undergraduate school, within which > one can receive a BA or BS in CS, with different curriculums. Cornell, > Northwestern, and Berkeley offer CS in their separate liberal arts and > engineering schools; undergraduates receive BA or BS degrees with > identical CS curriculums, with only other requirements differing. > > I've read that medical schools are good at teaching either > pharmacology (drugs), or pathology (diseases); perhaps this is also > because of the expertise/specialty of their early faculty members. > > -- > geo:37.78,-122.416667 > -- Lee Courtney +1-650-704-3934 cell
Re: Electr* Engineering
Adam Thornton says: > The genealogy of Computer Science departments (and their curricula) > (at least in the US) is also weird and historically-contingent. > Basically it seems to have been a tossup at any given school whether > it came out of the Electr[ical|onic] Engineering department, in > which case it was memories and logic gates and a bottom-up, > hardware-focused curriculum, or out of the Mathematics department, > in which case it was algorithms and complexity analysis and a > software-focused curriculum. Yes, I've noticed the same thing. Example: Harvard's CS department is originally from the math side, while MIT's is from EE (thus today's EECS). Berkeley = EE Brown = Math BYU = Math Caltech = EE Columbia = EE Cornell = Operations research, math Dartmouth = Math Illinois = Math NYU = Both (because Polytechnic developed its own CS program long before NYU acquired it to regain an engineering school) Penn = EE UCLA = OR (probably because of the RAND heritage) Caltech until very recently did not formally offer CS degrees; students received degrees in Engineering and Applied Science, with a focus on CS (or aeronautics, or civil, or ME). Illinois is an example of a track we might call "other" or even "defense". With government funding the university built its own computers (including ILLIAC and PLATO), and the group that did so became the CS department, but the undergraduate CS program began within the math department. Harvard's and Penn's programs might also qualify. Undergraduate CS degrees are BA (Example: Harvard), BS (Example: Penn), or both (Example: Columbia). At Penn one must be an engineering student to major in CS. At Columbia one can major in CS in either the liberal arts or engineering schools, but with different curriculums. At Yale there is one undergraduate school, within which one can receive a BA or BS in CS, with different curriculums. Cornell, Northwestern, and Berkeley offer CS in their separate liberal arts and engineering schools; undergraduates receive BA or BS degrees with identical CS curriculums, with only other requirements differing. I've read that medical schools are good at teaching either pharmacology (drugs), or pathology (diseases); perhaps this is also because of the expertise/specialty of their early faculty members. -- geo:37.78,-122.416667
Re: Electr* Engineering
I can attest to that. ;-) Where I went (CMU) the CS department grew out of the Math department…while I was there the only degree that the CS department granted was PhD. So everyone else majored in something else (EE in my case…which had a bunch of digital stuff but still focused on a lot of theory…differential equations, electromagnetic fields/waves and communications theory) and took CS courses as electives (which focused on data structures, algorithms, etc…e.g. a lot of CS theory). TTFN - Guy > On Aug 12, 2019, at 11:05 PM, Adam Thornton via cctalk > wrote: > > At Rice in the early 90s the department was "Electrical and Computer > Engineering" if my hazy memory serves. > > The genealogy of Computer Science departments (and their curricula) (at least > in the US) is also weird and historically-contingent. Basically it seems to > have been a tossup at any given school whether it came out of the > Electr[ical|onic] Engineering department, in which case it was memories and > logic gates and a bottom-up, hardware-focused curriculum, or out of the > Mathematics department, in which case it was algorithms and complexity > analysis and a software-focused curriculum. > > Adam
Re: Electr* Engineering
Hi Kevin: Yup. I haven't heard anything about Gana for decades, but Chris is on Facebook... I graduated in 1977... you'll probably also remember Rick Hobson, Jerry Barenholtz, Tom Calvert and Nick Cercone... For those not from SFU - https://www.sfu.ca/computing/about/history.html From: "Kevin McQuiggin" To: "myself" , "cctalk" Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 9:18:53 AM Subject: Re: Electr* Engineering Norman, I recall you! I was at SFU first as a high school student from 1975 then as an undergrad 1977-1981. Elma, Doreen, Ted Sterling, James Weinkam - you’ll remember them! I was a TA as well in the late 1970s and classes were small, especially upper level. 5-6 students per class and we’d TA one another based on our specialities. Mine was system software, OSes, a bit of hardware. It was a great “classic” university eduction, not the big machine it is now. Best wishes, Kevin Remember Gana and Chris Dewhurst? > On Aug 13, 2019, at 8:37 AM, Norman Jaffe via cctalk > wrote: > > Kevin - which university did you go to? > I was in the first class at Simon Fraser University that started in Computing > Science (1974) rather than transferring in from another department... we > often had TAs in one class that were students in the next one, as they had > taken the first class earlier... > > From: "cctalk" > To: "Adam Thornton" , "cctalk" > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 7:50:15 AM > Subject: Re: Electr* Engineering > > In my school in Canada, the computing science program started about 1974 and > grew out of the math department, but when it was formalized as a department > in 1976-77 the university wisely placed it in a new “Interdisciplinary > Studies” faculty and staffed the school with people from mathematics, > chemistry, physics, and some external engineering folks. > > It worked out very well and the program was recognized shortly as one of the > best in Canada due to recognition of CS’ interdisciplinary nature. > >> On Aug 12, 2019, at 11:05 PM, Adam Thornton via cctalk >> wrote: >> >> At Rice in the early 90s the department was "Electrical and Computer >> Engineering" if my hazy memory serves. >> >> The genealogy of Computer Science departments (and their curricula) (at >> least in the US) is also weird and historically-contingent. Basically it >> seems to have been a tossup at any given school whether it came out of the >> Electr[ical|onic] Engineering department, in which case it was memories and >> logic gates and a bottom-up, hardware-focused curriculum, or out of the >> Mathematics department, in which case it was algorithms and complexity >> analysis and a software-focused curriculum. >> >> Adam
Re: Electr* Engineering
Norman, I recall you! I was at SFU first as a high school student from 1975 then as an undergrad 1977-1981. Elma, Doreen, Ted Sterling, James Weinkam - you’ll remember them! I was a TA as well in the late 1970s and classes were small, especially upper level. 5-6 students per class and we’d TA one another based on our specialities. Mine was system software, OSes, a bit of hardware. It was a great “classic” university eduction, not the big machine it is now. Best wishes, Kevin Remember Gana and Chris Dewhurst? > On Aug 13, 2019, at 8:37 AM, Norman Jaffe via cctalk > wrote: > > Kevin - which university did you go to? > I was in the first class at Simon Fraser University that started in Computing > Science (1974) rather than transferring in from another department... we > often had TAs in one class that were students in the next one, as they had > taken the first class earlier... > > From: "cctalk" > To: "Adam Thornton" , "cctalk" > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 7:50:15 AM > Subject: Re: Electr* Engineering > > In my school in Canada, the computing science program started about 1974 and > grew out of the math department, but when it was formalized as a department > in 1976-77 the university wisely placed it in a new “Interdisciplinary > Studies” faculty and staffed the school with people from mathematics, > chemistry, physics, and some external engineering folks. > > It worked out very well and the program was recognized shortly as one of the > best in Canada due to recognition of CS’ interdisciplinary nature. > >> On Aug 12, 2019, at 11:05 PM, Adam Thornton via cctalk >> wrote: >> >> At Rice in the early 90s the department was "Electrical and Computer >> Engineering" if my hazy memory serves. >> >> The genealogy of Computer Science departments (and their curricula) (at >> least in the US) is also weird and historically-contingent. Basically it >> seems to have been a tossup at any given school whether it came out of the >> Electr[ical|onic] Engineering department, in which case it was memories and >> logic gates and a bottom-up, hardware-focused curriculum, or out of the >> Mathematics department, in which case it was algorithms and complexity >> analysis and a software-focused curriculum. >> >> Adam
Re: Electr* Engineering
Kevin - which university did you go to? I was in the first class at Simon Fraser University that started in Computing Science (1974) rather than transferring in from another department... we often had TAs in one class that were students in the next one, as they had taken the first class earlier... From: "cctalk" To: "Adam Thornton" , "cctalk" Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 7:50:15 AM Subject: Re: Electr* Engineering In my school in Canada, the computing science program started about 1974 and grew out of the math department, but when it was formalized as a department in 1976-77 the university wisely placed it in a new “Interdisciplinary Studies” faculty and staffed the school with people from mathematics, chemistry, physics, and some external engineering folks. It worked out very well and the program was recognized shortly as one of the best in Canada due to recognition of CS’ interdisciplinary nature. > On Aug 12, 2019, at 11:05 PM, Adam Thornton via cctalk > wrote: > > At Rice in the early 90s the department was "Electrical and Computer > Engineering" if my hazy memory serves. > > The genealogy of Computer Science departments (and their curricula) (at least > in the US) is also weird and historically-contingent. Basically it seems to > have been a tossup at any given school whether it came out of the > Electr[ical|onic] Engineering department, in which case it was memories and > logic gates and a bottom-up, hardware-focused curriculum, or out of the > Mathematics department, in which case it was algorithms and complexity > analysis and a software-focused curriculum. > > Adam
Re: Electr* Engineering
In my school in Canada, the computing science program started about 1974 and grew out of the math department, but when it was formalized as a department in 1976-77 the university wisely placed it in a new “Interdisciplinary Studies” faculty and staffed the school with people from mathematics, chemistry, physics, and some external engineering folks. It worked out very well and the program was recognized shortly as one of the best in Canada due to recognition of CS’ interdisciplinary nature. > On Aug 12, 2019, at 11:05 PM, Adam Thornton via cctalk > wrote: > > At Rice in the early 90s the department was "Electrical and Computer > Engineering" if my hazy memory serves. > > The genealogy of Computer Science departments (and their curricula) (at least > in the US) is also weird and historically-contingent. Basically it seems to > have been a tossup at any given school whether it came out of the > Electr[ical|onic] Engineering department, in which case it was memories and > logic gates and a bottom-up, hardware-focused curriculum, or out of the > Mathematics department, in which case it was algorithms and complexity > analysis and a software-focused curriculum. > > Adam
Re: Electr* Engineering
> On Aug 13, 2019, at 2:05 AM, Adam Thornton via cctalk > wrote: > > At Rice in the early 90s the department was "Electrical and Computer > Engineering" if my hazy memory serves. > > The genealogy of Computer Science departments (and their curricula) (at least > in the US) is also weird and historically-contingent. Basically it seems to > have been a tossup at any given school whether it came out of the > Electr[ical|onic] Engineering department, in which case it was memories and > logic gates and a bottom-up, hardware-focused curriculum, or out of the > Mathematics department, in which case it was algorithms and complexity > analysis and a software-focused curriculum. That was true in other countries as well. Sometimes different terms were used to show differences in focus, like "Computing science" or "Informatics". Early computer people, not surprisingly, had backgrounds from all over the science and engineering world. Several of the early Dutch computer designers were physicists with very little EE knowledge (and it showed...). For that matter, the famous Dutch computer scientist E.W. Dijkstra got his Ph.D. from the Department of Mathematics and Physics. The curriculum differences came a bit later, I think. At the very beginning you had to deal with the circuits and logic, no matter your background. Again, looking at the Dutch case, the Amsterdam computers came out of the "Mathematical Center" (an applied math institution) -- but they still assembled relays and tubes into complete computer systems, while working on algorithms. paul
Re: Electr* Engineering
On 8/13/19 2:05 AM, Adam Thornton via cctalk wrote: > At Rice in the early 90s the department was "Electrical and Computer > Engineering" if my hazy memory serves. > > The genealogy of Computer Science departments (and their curricula) (at least > in the US) is also weird and historically-contingent. Basically it seems to > have been a tossup at any given school whether it came out of the > Electr[ical|onic] Engineering department, in which case it was memories and > logic gates and a bottom-up, hardware-focused curriculum, or out of the > Mathematics department, in which case it was algorithms and complexity > analysis and a software-focused curriculum. In the early 80's West Point had "Geography and Computer Science". CS has always been the red headed step child. bill
Electr* Engineering
At Rice in the early 90s the department was "Electrical and Computer Engineering" if my hazy memory serves. The genealogy of Computer Science departments (and their curricula) (at least in the US) is also weird and historically-contingent. Basically it seems to have been a tossup at any given school whether it came out of the Electr[ical|onic] Engineering department, in which case it was memories and logic gates and a bottom-up, hardware-focused curriculum, or out of the Mathematics department, in which case it was algorithms and complexity analysis and a software-focused curriculum. Adam
