Computer Science’s Image Problem
Trying to sell CS as somehow not being about programming is false advertising — it’s like telling kids that chemistry isn’t about molecules or mathematics isn’t about numbers. Sure, there are scientists using computers to design medicines or study the climate. But they’re not computer scientists, they’re biologists or geologists. Computer science is about software.
My experience is that most people wouldn’t be happy doing computer science or programming. I think they just aren’t wired that way. There are a small number of us who knew we would love it, and there are a few who happen upon it in college or later and discover that they love it. But many more are the people who know that they don’t like it, or who are interested enough to try it but don’t get hooked. Image and advertising aside, I think that, once exposed, people quickly see whether it’s for them. So, to the extent that low interest in CS is a problem rather than the normal post-dot-com assortment, I think the solution is to expose more people to CS (both the ideas and the programming) at the introductory level. It’s at least as useful, for general knowledge and mental exercise, as basic chemistry, and if more people in that second group can discover that they have the interest and aptitude, so much the better.
2 Comments RSS · Twitter
I agree with this greatly. It definitely takes a certain mindset. Yet, I have the personal opinion that the best programmers are those that just code for fun anyways. I don't believe good programmers can be manufactured via a school program.
If there isn't a passion, there isn't much point. Coding that way can only go for so long till you go crazy.
Not sure how to effectively approach the problem of making sure students really know what they are in for with CS degrees, yet letting them know as much as possible right off the bat is probably for the greater good.
With so much gruff in the media about lowered CS students, hopefully schools aren't lowering the bar for their programs to just have increased numbers... or numbers just on par with expectations.
I think the "most people wouldn't be happy doing it" argument is valid for most careers, actually :) I know that I'd be miserable (and miserably bad) as a chef or auto worker or actor or doctor (and from my college career I know that I wouldn't like being a Real Scientist either. I like to build stuff, not figure it out.)
For the most part, people in CS seem to get hooked on it -- they're the ones who are obsessive enough to learn programming (mostly) on their own and attack projects long enough to learn the skills. That would explain the limited numbers, and also I think the gender imbalance, since that type of obsessive drive skews male. But it's also bad for the field, since people that obsessive are often narrow-minded as well, have trouble empathizing with people who aren't that way (which is terrible for UI design), and have limited interpersonal skills.
So yeah, teaching programming to everyone wouldn't be a bad idea; I agree it's as relevant as chemistry or trig. Of course, that's the kind of thing the people in that NYT article were complaining about!
