the CoC 2.0
I came across an article on the Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts mailing list that was linked from the AJC on how Ga. Tech embraces ‘new face of computing’.
A lot of the hard-core techies and ex-alums who’ve commented on these changes have negative feelings and responses. I actually think this new perspective on the Computer Science curriculum could be A Good Thing, but am quite nervous. I naturally have to want Tech to remain competitive and be a good school. An easy way to do this to make it difficult/challenging/hard. It makes my degree there continue to be valuable. But part of me really sees this as a pretty cool initiative.
While the article seems framed innappropriately around the changes as being part of fears of job outsourcing, this is not how I see it. The interviewer picked up on that, but it’s really a small part in a sweeping change that should be welcomed. I also think there’s a bit of misinterpreted quote that really scares the tech-types:
The idea that people want to do something with information technology never managed to make it into the computer science curriculum. So we kind of tore apart our curriculum and put it back together with that as a focus.
He’s not saying that your average IT dood needs to go to Tech — far from it — but he is saying that too much specialization, and Ga Tech becomes the “really really really good ITT or Devry” of the South. Just take a look at any other degree, and you’ll see that the real value doesn’t come in learning anything (vocational) that you come out of school and just do well, but rather, in learning how to learn, so that anything life throws at you, you know how to learn and do well.
I think a vision like this encourages some good decisions when it comes time to implement things like a super-hard computer science 101 course that everyone has to take, using a functional language based on LISP. Or, one that focuses on using Microsoft Word/Excel to do tech stuff. Both bad ideas, by the way.
DeMillo is probably one of those quick-witted, BMW-driving Silicon Valley types, but we need those folk — the visionaries who can get behind an idea and take it home. Gosh, we even need those hard core “bench engineers” and the truly talented geeks to find a place to flourish and excel. But the geeks who want to be geeks will always find a way — think Linux User Groups, Teachers Assistants, and those crazy guys who stayed up in the CoC all night trying to out do each other’s projects (guilty of all three of those during my tenure).
Q: What do you want this school to be known for?
A: I want it to be known for redefining what it means to be a U.S.-educated engineer….
This is a noble goal, and the reasoning sounds good to me. Having been out in the “industry” for a few years now, I have a little bit of visibility on how career paths in the Computer Science and IT world pan out. I think changing the way the Computer Science core curriculum is setup could be amazingly awesome. I think it could really produce some engineers, as my pal Ali, puts it awesomely who fit:
b/w Silicon Valley power players and the hax0r in his cube being ruled by some gay-ass project manager.
To quote Ali again, because I think, by golly, he gets it:
The hope is that a GT diploma will represent an understanding of underlying computing principles as well as a perspective allowing for the exercise of this understanding on the shape and composition of the newly evolving digital landscape.
I agree.
