|
|
|
|
|
|
by gigamonkey
5426 days ago
|
|
|
I don't know what, if anything, is going on at Berkeley, but Hal Abelson talked quite a bit about the switch from SICP to a different intro course at MIT when I interviewed him for Code Quarterly http://www.codequarterly.com/2011/hal-abelson/ and it wasn't about abandoning Scheme or "not teaching core computer science". (Well, maybe a bit less core computer science in the intro course but that was basically so that CS people could have more time later for CS without all that annoying EE stuff. And vice versa.) |
|
|
That said, Hal himself does fully support the change from SICP/6.001 to 6.01 according to my sources.
And you're right that much less EE is required of of pure CS majors (6-3s), but I'm told that very few current students do that major, most do the combined EECS one....
To finish, while I don't have time right now to finish reading/skimming your very interesting interview (you do realize you are by far the best interviewer in our field?) as far as I can tell a lot of the deep stuff taught in SICP/6.001 has also been purged from the base undergraduate curriculum. Kinda reminds me of when the Boy Scouts of the USA changed their system in the '70s so that you could become an Eagle Scout without ever having camped outdoors, started a fire, etc.
(My response to that was to drop out of Boy Scouts; here, as a scientist by inclination who just happens to narrow interests in CS which are fairly EQ with SICP I don't exactly have a dog in this hunt (amusingly, my other big interest in this general field is pure software engineering, the fruits of starting out on an IBM 1130 and realizing there HAD to be a better way to do things :-). Although I do seriously wonder about the de-emphasis of functional programming at some of the top 4 in the multi-core future which is today).