|
|
|
|
|
|
by cehrlich
1805 days ago
|
|
|
As a university lecturer in a non-STEM subject who is currently self-learning both 'hard CS' and the more practical side of development, I have often thought about what an effective CS curriculum would be, and the thing I keep coming back to is something along the lines of guided self-learning. Nothing is as effective as curiosity, but having someone with broad knowledge and experience in the field can help guide students to not get caught up in dead ends. In my own academic studies the teachers that were the most valuable to me were ones who nudged me in the right direction, and then mostly stayed out of the way and let my hunger for knowledge and results do its thing. But now I perceive a fundamental shift in higher education, one towards spoon-feeding in order to satisfy a strict curriculum, and I worry strongly that this sort of model is very dishonest and doesn't produce good graduates. The biggest problem that I see in present-day academia is the bureaucratic desire to quantify and measure things, which might be reasonable if you see universities as trade schools, but is in my opinion doing irreparable damage. I'm sure there are some bad teachers out there, but the bigger problem I see is institutions that prevent good teachers from doing their thing, until only the bad ones remain. |
|
|
As a university lecturer in CS, I agree this would be a great thing for a lot of students. The thing about CS though is a lot of students hear that programming is a path to a high paying job, and they are really not motivated to learn the subject in the way that people who frequent HN might be. They don't want to self-learn, they want to be told what they need to learn to achieve an end-goal of earning a high salary when they graduate in 4 years. If you sit them down and ask them about their curiosity, interests, or ambitions related to CS, they give you a blank stare. They just want to get paid.
This perception also means that our program is the biggest at my institution. Students from every college want to take our classes. Our department is not so big (in terms of faculty, fewer than 20), so our class sizes are huge. My PL class last year was 200 students. My systems course last semester was 160. What this means is that I can't offer the kind of guidance for self-learning. Maybe if my class sizes were 30-40 students, but not for classes of 100+ students.
And then there's the issue of what students imagine a self-guided education looks like. They want to do things like mobile app development and AI. Most students don't self-guide themselves into fields like compilers and operating systems in my experience. They just aren't interested. Hell, I wasn't interested in these topics, until I was forced to take these classes as part of the standard curriculum. Now compilers are pretty much the only thing I'm interested in! I guess that's where the "guided" part comes in, but the point is that if students are left to their own devices, I worry we'll end up with a generation of programmers who are experts at making predictive AI models and iPhone apps, but have no idea how an OS or compiler works. Then who is going to teach the next generation how to make an OS? Already we have problems hiring people in these fields. 90% of the tenure track applications from our last round of hiring were from AI/ML type researchers, with only a few systems people (2-3 if we're lucky). I even have trouble getting TAs for my PL class, because all of our available grad students only know Python and C++ for their ML research. I see this only getting worse in the future.