The following article appeared in the New York Times on September 2, 1999. The laments about why so many students were then going into computing (i.e., for the money) now seem a bit dated, but things really were hot back in the 90s! Some passages are of particular interest from the standpoint of the Software Component Engineering course sequence and potential CS-oriented majors; the [parenthetical remarks from one of the SCE faculty about these passages] are, of course, not part of the original article. What's your view? Is there any intellectual content to computing, or is it just the latest thing to distract students from studying "real" science?
The New York Times
September 2, 1999
© 1999 New York Times
By Claudia H. Deutsch
Jim Ivy fears that his son Jonathan, a freshman business major at Pennsylvania State University, will graduate from college without ever having taken a chemistry course. Montville High School, the New Jersey school he attended, did not require chemistry, and his adviser at Penn State says he can skip it there, too -- provided that he signs on for more computer science courses.
"Everyone says computer sciences are mandatory for him, but no one has ever recommended that he even look at chemistry," said Ivy, the chief executive of the Savin Corporation, a copier company in Stamford, Conn. "It's truly sad that kids can graduate today without getting exposure to the fun of physical sciences." [That is sad. However, it's not the case if you major in CSE (or any other engineering discipline) or CIS at Ohio State. OK, a CIS major could avoid chemistry; but not physics!]
No one questions the need to emphasize computers in education these days. Nor do they deny the plethora of high-paying jobs that the computer world offers, from the mundane tasks of fixing computers to the mind-stretching ones of designing digital code. Few suggest that basic sciences are disappearing from the classroom.
But a sense is growing in some business quarters that the sheer ubiquity of computers has deflected attention from more traditional sciences and skills. [What important skills that are of interest in "business quarters" are they worried students won't have, because they are busy learning about computing instead?]
Experts worry that vocational schools will soon churn out too many computer repair people and too few refrigerator technicians. [Not to worry... Maybe these "experts" should have taken an economics course instead of chemistry. :-)] They worry even more that universities will produce scads of people who can use computers as research and calculating tools but far too few who can use the scientific method to solve problems. [Not to worry... Or maybe they're again talking about a business major learning about computing instead of traditional science, because that's not a trade-off for a science or engineering major at a serious university.] They fret that the prospect of quick wealth will lure bright students who might have become research scientists -- or science teachers and professors -- into joining Internet ventures instead. [Not to worry (as of about 2001)...]
"We're not going to need more HTML coders five years from now; we're going to need biotechnologists," said Paul Saffo, a director of the Institute for the Future, a research group in Menlo Park, Calif. [HTML coders?!? It's probably true that we won't need more of those. It's strange what people outside of computing think computing professionals do for a living. But apparently we won't need as many biotechnologists as this guy might think, or that you might believe by reading the popular press. Even after adjusting projections dramatically downward to reflect the dot-com bust and the rise of off-shore outsourcing, the US Department of Labor projects that two-thirds of "new science and engineering jobs" between 2006-2016 will be in "information technology". How many will be in "life sciences"? A few percent. The folks studying computing actually seem a lot more likely to find jobs (though probably not doing "HTML coding").]
"Everyone wants to start an Internet business today," he added, "because they don't realize that the science moguls of a decade down the road will be the biotechnologists. And that means a good chance that the biotechnology moguls a decade from now will be foreign-born." [If you plan to be a mogul, then biotechnology may be as good a field to study as any.]
Others worry that the next generation might not develop the experimental zeal and creative thinking of the precomputer days. [The implication seems to be that people who use or study computers are not as "experimental" or "creative" as they would have been without computers. Do you believe this? If so, probably computing is not the right career for you. :-)]
"Computer science courses teach skills and techniques, but they don't teach critical thinking the way physics does," said Gerald F. Wheeler, executive director of the National Science Teachers Association. [This must be the National High School Science Teachers Association. It's quite true: high school computer science courses do teach primarily skills and techniques, basically how to use some particular programming language. But recalling high school physics, "critical thinking" is not what comes to mind as the central theme there, either. University courses in both areas should be much different from high school courses.]
Of course, many computer scientists take umbrage at any hint that theirs is an intellectually bankrupt field. Indeed, Michael Hammer, the management consultant who coined the term "re-engineering" and who is often cited as a premier management thinker, has a doctorate in computer science. [So, maybe he actually has some idea what computing is about, what computing majors study, and what computing professionals do. It's about time we heard from someone like that... :-)]
"Computer science gives you the intellectual grounding to deal with enormous complexity," he said. "The liberal arts teach critical thinking, the basic sciences teach the scientific method, but computer sciences gives you systems thinking skills. It teaches the value of precision, and it gives you the ability to deal with trade-offs and with huge issues of design." [Where else have we heard this? There are different paradigms for thinking about problems -- "critical thinking" as practiced in philosophy and literature and history courses, as well as scientific, mathematical, and engineering paradigms -- and it would be a good idea for students to learn something about all of them, not just the "scientific method". Is "computational thinking" yet another different way of thinking, or is it a hybrid of the other paradigms?]
Still, that idea does not stop science educators from worrying that their fields are being eclipsed. According to Richard Heckel, a professor emeritus of metallurgical engineering at Michigan Technological University, who collects statistics on engineering enrollments, "The number of undergraduates going into computer sciences and computer engineering is growing rapidly, while enrollments in electrical and environmental engineering are plummeting." [Not to worry, pal...]
Warren Hein, associate executive officer of the American Association of Physics Teachers, cites a similar trend. "The number of undergraduate majors in physics is at a post-Sputnik low," he said. "Kids are saying, 'Why should I go into something as demanding and rigorous as physics when I can take computer science and make more money?' " [Good question! These "kids" might as well take something undemanding and unrigorous, like computer science... :-)]
Take the case of Paul Hallee. All through high school he was on the four-year college track, taking chemistry, biology, physics, earth sciences -- all the traditional science courses. And he has always loved the outdoors. So, going for a four-year degree in environmental law -- the kind of program that trains forest rangers -- seemed a no-brainer.
That is, until he realized that his hobby, fixing computers, could be a better career bet. Hallee was accepted into a four-year program, but instead he took a two-year course in computers and electronics. Now, at age 20, he is working for Maine Business Solutions, a computer repair operation in Waterville, and hopes to carve out a career administering computer networks.
"I could have ended up with a fancy four-year degree and no clue of where to get a job," Hallee said. "Computers seemed a really viable option." [Notice: he actually enjoyed working with computers, too, or this really wouldn't have been a viable option for the long term. Who wants to work for 30-40 years doing something they don't enjoy? If you don't really enjoy thinking about the ideas you find yourself study in computing, look for another major that you do enjoy. Maybe minor in computing to help set yourself apart from other graduates in the other field, if you're really concerned about job prospects.]
Most parents, worried about future jobs, are anxious to give their children a head start in this computer-oriented world. According to the Toy Manufacturers of America, some 10 million scientific toys -- Chem Craft sets and such -- were sold in both 1997 and 1998. Some 32 million electronic toys -- computer games and such -- were sold last year, up from 28 million in 1997.
The widening interest gap is particularly apparent in vocational schools, which are often pressed for funds. Many have added computer skills courses and subtracted courses in, say, automotive repair, welding and other traditional blue-collar skills. "If they are using resources for new computer programs, they have to cut the ones they see as marginal, or that have low enrollment," said Thomas W. Holdsworth, director of college and technical programs at Skills USA-Vica, which creates programs for vocational education.
Within schools, the financial considerations are affecting academic programs, too. Western Hills High School, in a poor part of Cincinnati, used to offer anatomy, earth science, botany and advanced-placement courses in biology, chemistry and physics. Last year, it abolished all of them and converted many of its laboratories to other uses.
"It was all part of a cost-cutting directive, but the computer labs did not get hit," said Louise Gerl, a biology teacher at the school who says she spends her own money for supplies to do even rudimentary experiments. "Local companies bombard us with free computers, but no one will give me materials to build a laboratory or conduct experiments," Ms. Gerl said.
In some ways, industry is trying to fill the gap. The Dow Chemical Company recently sent a road show, made up of professional actors and run by a professional director, around to junior and senior high schools to "educate children on the importance of science in a fun MTV, singing-dancing-game-show way," said William S. Stavropoulos, Dow's chief executive. [This must have worked! Students seem to be flocking to chemincal engineering these days (and I doubt that has much to do with mundane things like $100/barrel oil and the lure of high-paying jobs in that industry :-).]
Two years ago a consortium of automotive companies formed Automotive Youth Educational Systems, a nonprofit organization in Troy, Mich., that sets up mentoring and apprenticeships between high school students and automotive executives and dealers. It has even begun inviting kindergarten classes in to see how cars are fixed or sold.
"You can make good money without a college degree in this industry, but moms and dads just don't encourage their kids to be technicians anymore," said Donald I. Gray, the president of the organization.
Although such industry-specific efforts can fill some job pipelines, few educators believe they can do much to stop the erosion of hands-on science in the schools. "What corporations do is a Band-Aid on a hemorrhaging wound," said Sylvia Ware, director of education at the American Chemical Society, which has set up groups to seek ways to train better science teachers.
Computers and science education are not mutually exclusive, of course. [Really?!? That's not what the rest of the article seems to suggest.] A growing number of teachers and professors, from the pre-kindergarten level through graduate schools, are using software packages and Web sites as tools to teach sciences.
Not long ago, the American Chemical Society set up a Web site (www.chemcenter.org) that enables children to simulate some experiments. "Too many teachers are teaching science as something that is learned from a book, rather than as a way of testing reality, of looking at the world," Ms. Ware said.
Educational associations are running with the computer ball, too. The National Science Teachers Association, in conjunction with the Toshiba Corporation, a leading maker of laptop computers, just sponsored a contest among teachers to pick the best lesson plans using laptops to teach scientific principles. Among the winning programs was one that helped students learn about the human body's response to physical activity by measuring their pulse rates at various running speeds at the gym.
The teachers association has also begun a program with textbook publishers to include, in the margins next to specific topics, links to its new Web site (www.scilinks.org), which offers expanded discussions or experiments. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, a division of Harcourt Brace, is including the links in two high school chemistry and environmental science textbooks, and another publisher plans to do so in new versions of elementary school science books.
Still, many teachers worry that while chemical formulas and physics equations can be conveyed through a computer screen, the basic scientific questing that is supposed to accompany them cannot. "Computers can teach information, but they don't teach a way to ask questions or conduct experiments where you don't know the correct answer ahead of time," said Eric Gruenstein, a professor of molecular genetics at the University of Cincinnati Medical School. [Ah, another authority on what computers can and cannot do... Ever seen any science education software for kids?]
Saffo, the futurist, put it more succinctly. "Computers done right can open entirely new educational horizons," he said, "but computers done wrong will turn our high schools into trade schools."
Nor do computers teach that science can be just plain fun. That is what Sarah Beth Corning is trying to do. She teaches science to children ages 3 to 7 at the Village Infant Center in Manhattan. It is an affluent school, and she has ample access to computers. [So do her students, at home, so why would anyone think they should need to use computers at the infant care center?] She pretty much shuns them. [You mean the students aren't learning programming in pre-school? Why are the parents bothering to pay for this? :-)]
Sure, computers can simulate the bubbles that will rise if acid is added to an alkali, but Ms. Corning infinitely prefers letting the children make "volcanos" by pouring vinegar into a baking soda solution. "They'll look at it on a computer once and get bored, but they'll make the volcanos again and again, and they'll even check to see what happens if they add something else," she said. "They can learn from computers, but they need this kind of hands-on experience to get hooked on science." [It's really a simple black-and-white issue, isn't it? Either you use computers, or you get hands-on experience. Sigh...]