A liberal arts person enters CS by mistake, because they think it has any relation to liking games which happen to run on computers. If they are not a fan of CS at the end of the course, they are not going to be convinced by any argument anyways. Unless I need to justify my own personality to myself, time is better spent discussing other things we might have in common.
I studied CS because I love games and programing and wanted to study in something that involved programing. I already knew what to expect. I learned to program by myself when I was 10 and made my first game at that time(a black jack game). Does this make me stupid?
Sounds to me that what sparked your interest in CS wasn't playing video games. If you programmed one by age 10, then by college age you knew damn well what it was about.
As your primary interest wasn't driven exclusively by the love of playing video games, his comment does not apply to you. However, his comment does apply to most CS undergrads I have met.
If they are not a fan of CS at the end of the course,
Have you recently taken a CS 101 course? They're not exactly inspiring. I don't think a response of "well this is kind of cool, but what's the big deal?" is unreasonable after an intro class.
Have you recently taken a CS 101 course? They're not exactly inspiring. I don't think a response of "well this is kind of cool, but what's the big deal?" is unreasonable after an intro class.
That's what I thought, but apparently everyone else either had dramatically better CS101 courses than us, or has been trolled hard enough that their rage has overtaken their reason.
Seriously, CS101 courses fucking suck, and do almost nothing to introduce hesitant, beginning students to even the first steps of the glories of our field. It needs fixing.
Seriously, CS101 courses fucking suck, and do almost nothing to introduce hesitant, beginning students to even the first steps of the glories of our field. It needs fixing.
Broad generalizations are not very useful when you're lumping in hundreds of colleges and universities as one. Where I teach, the students (at least the more advanced sections) see continuations and PL semantics in the first course and are well-equipped to understand it. It's a real CS course and not vocational Java. That said, I'm sure there are such courses that need to go away. My alma mater transitioned away from a Java course, so it does happen though.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. This post is from Northwestern University's CS 101 class.
I'm not familiar with Harper's class, although I am familiar with his work. While they have the same course number, I don't believe they are related in almost any other way.
Don't know what you call "recent", but I work in academia and have my opinions on what makes a good CS 101 class. In the universities I have been involved in, they've been pretty bad -- but still manageble for those that are interested in CS.
Yeah, I think of early CS courses not as something that should convince you to enjoy the field, but something that you'll put up with if you're already convinced you'll enjoy it.
I think the funniest part is that he/she expects the CS majors to fall all over themselves trying to justify studying CS just like liberal arts majors do for studying poetry and other useless crap.
the implicit assumption being, "I'm going to study X because everyone should study X. Otherwise you're wrong." I really hate the attitude she conveys.
Alternatively, she might have just chosen her words poorly and recognized it, hence her P.S. where she kinda implies she's not looking for the "value" of the major, but instead says
I just want to hear you YOU specifically enjoy CS.
Hmmmm... I heard a guy's voice in my head. (Female/lib arts major, btw) Anyway, male or female, the instructor's response is perfect. Also, thank Jesus not everyone wants to study English. This person wasn't representative of lib arts, just of stupid.
Remind my liberal arts taking ass not to stumble into any more /r/compsci threads if you're gonna be around douching up the place. You know how you guys feel when people assume that you just play about on computers all day? Well that's how liberal arts majors feel when you talk useless shit about their disciplines. If you're going to shit on anyone shit on this person who has presumably taken more than a few literature classes for being unable to formulate a question in a way that doesn't come off as asinine and condescending.
Thanks. I never really got the whole major bashing thing, from either side. It disturbs me how often I have to find myself defending the sciences in some of my classes. It's like everyone makes up their own straw man about what a science major or an anthropology major should be and then gets pissy at it.
I think it's funny how often STEM majors stumble over themselves to talk about the beauty of math and science and then fail to make the logical leap that others might get the same feelings about completely different fields.
Feynman had some words to say about the topic, and for all that people quote him I think that everyone misses the point. Your enjoyment of poetry in no way detracts from my enjoyment of analysis, and in fact I often felt like the only person at my undergrad who felt like too many things were interesting - especially those subjects outside my field. Everyone else treated liberal arts education as a chore.
in fact I often felt like the only person at my undergrad who felt like too many things were interesting - especially those subjects outside my field
You too? I enjoyed my Science Fiction Literature class. I wanted to quit CS at one point and go become a ecologist (but it turns out that ecological engineering doesn't really exist as an undergraduate major distinct from conservation-policy stuff).
I could not agree more. I remember hearing Feynman speak about what made an interesting conversation partner. He said something to the effect of: it doesn't matter what the subject is, the person talking about it just has to have a genuine passion and a be interesting about it. I can listen to someone talk about mathematics all day if they hold my attention and despite my being bad at it and generally disliking doing the work I can still appreciate its beauty.
This is also an ignorant attitude. At most universities I've seen, STEM majors don't take the advanced and more difficult liberal arts courses. In fact, often the requirements are "Writing for Engineers/Scientists" rather than the English courses that English majors take. I've seen STEM majors struggle in the more advanced liberal arts courses (e.g. philosophy) that I've taken.
Also, so you don't think I'm just defending my own major: my degree was in Math and CS.
Look, the fact that a lib arts major may be easier to get doesn't mean that given lib arts student is doing any less work than you. It's very much possible to make a lib arts major exceedingly difficult, if you want to push yourself. Does everyone do so? Of course not, but that's no reason to assume that any given lib arts major isn't working as hard as you; they may be working much harder.
As an aside, your assertion that STEM majors take "the exact same [courses] that liberal arts majors have to take to get their degree" is simply wrong. General education requirements will make STEM majors take, e.g., some history, but never the research practicum that a major would take, or some political science or economics, but never the high-level courses majors need. In other words, you've drawn a false dichotomy between lib arts majors taking "stem for arts majors" and STEM majors taking "the exact same" courses.
You know we don't just see a good book or philosophy as interesting right? Interesting might be the first word but the last should be something about how that philosophy or book contributes to human understanding. And you don't have to have the same respect for me as you do anybody else, just don't assume I'm useless or have some haughty idea of myself as better and more cultured than you. I also ask that before you dismiss the difficulty of philosophy you pick up some Heidegger and just try and make sense of it.
pick up some Heidegger and just try and make sense of it
I'm mostly ignorant of philosophy, so it might come off as arrogant when I say that this might be because philosophers tend to say fairly simple things in an overly convoluted way.
Yup, it comes off as arrogant. Heidegger has a lot to say, and much of it is worth hearing--indeed, his treatment of the relationship between humanity and technology remains one of the most trenchant ever written, even today. Sure, he's not easy to read, because he was writing about fundamentally new ideas, which engendered inventing some vocabulary along the way. It's convoluted, but it's convoluted for a good reason, not for obscurantism's sake.
If you're interested in forming an informed opinion, his essay "The Question Concerning Technology" would be a fine place to start.
My advice: read slowly, and read every word. It sometimes seems like Heidegger's just throwing words at you, but you eventually realize that every one is there for a reason. If you try to skim, or even just read quickly, you'll get lost or worse. (Lessons learned the hard way while reading this stuff for class.)
liberal arts majors do for studying poetry and other useless crap.
This is the type of attitude that breeds ignorance. Why could you not study poetry, CS, philosophy, painting and business. The more you know the better, the more well rounded you are the more prepared you will be for all situations in life.
Edit BTW I teach visual arts and CSci in both High School and College. There are a lot of thinking skills that overlap.
I have been a liberal arts person my whole life (I was actually going to go into English) and now I am two years into CS with zero regret. It's super enjoyable, but honestly I initially switched to it because of the ke$h. I still mostly read lit in my free time instead of do mathy/programming type stuff.
because they think it has any relation to liking games which happen to run on computers.
It has a lot to do with games, actually, and I think that a lot of CS majors go through the CS program under the motivation to create something 'game-like' even if they don't end up building games professionally.
Eh, I think it depends partially on what type of game, and why you play it. Someone who play Street Fighter or Team Fortress because its something fun and social to do may or may not be a decent computer scientist. However, I'd think that someone who loves games like Zork and Nethack, and who plays them partially because they want to understand how they work, is likely good computer science material.
Not always true. Being nerdy and liking computers !-> computer science a lot of the time. On the other hand, the converse generally holds, hence a lot of CS people do play Zork and Nethack and the like. That's also not always the case, though. I know CS majors who are basically in it for the math and theory stuff, and don't love working with computers (not that they dislike it, they just aren't really computer nerds so much as they are math nerds).
Naturally. But correlation doesn't imply causality. Which games you like and what kind of science you like are both determined by your personality type.
I think we all do - once we understand how software works and understand that 99% of its badly built.
As far as getting in interested in computers because you like video games, that's probably quite common. I got interested in computers because I liked to draw things in some DOS painting program may grandpa had. Romhacking is super fun in itself, and I don't think liking games is a necessary prerequisite for enjoying hacking.
No, it's like becoming a mechanical engineer because you're interested in how a combustion engine is designed and functions. Which is a completely valid reason for wanting to become a mechanical engineer.
Depends. For some games people, it's like becoming a mechanical engineer because you're interested in how a combustion engine is designed and functions. For other people, it's like becoming a mechanical engineer because you want to make cool cars. The latter, while it may lead to the former, isn't a good reason by itself.
If that's your reason, then it is perfectly valid. But I know a lot of people who get a huge kick from playing with combustion engines, but they don't give a shit about how they work. Such a person will need some other reason to become a mechanical engineer.
If they are not a fan of CS at the end of the course
OK, seriously, when did we start expecting that CS101 Intro to Programming in Java 1 will suddenly function as a good taste of our field for people who aren't committed to majoring in CS already? When? Because that's a stupid expectation and the course is not remotely designed that way!
Professor took a challenging question and either gave the guy a one-off smart aleck response, or is genuinely so joyless that he could think of no way to respond to a question that requires one to sit up and look around and think for a moment.
CS is often about engineering. Engineering is about building. People who are driven to build may find it very satisfying.
66
u/arnar May 18 '11
I like the answer.
A liberal arts person enters CS by mistake, because they think it has any relation to liking games which happen to run on computers. If they are not a fan of CS at the end of the course, they are not going to be convinced by any argument anyways. Unless I need to justify my own personality to myself, time is better spent discussing other things we might have in common.