Confessions of an Engineering Washout (from Tech Central Station)

This is a really good article. The writer reflects on his terrible experience as a chemical engineering major. This ex-engineer student has basically stated some of the biggest reasons why I think CS, IT and many of the sciences in general are losing student enrollments. Click here for the writeup.

This IRKS me to no end! As an instructor, I can make a difference, but as a PhD student, the differences I can make are very minor. (The irony in all of this is that I need to keep my research as a priority so I can graduate and be a professor someday. I hate irony.) As I've mentioned months (if not years) ago in older blogs, the lack of pedagogic skills at colleges and universities is taking a toll. The grim reality is that when a department considers potential candidates to fill an opening as a professor, most colleges and universities care about one thing -- how much money can this person bring to this department? That's it! I'm sorry to say that this is the way it is here at numerous other colleges and universities around the country.

Douglas (the writer) clearly came into college as an extremely talented individual, graduated with honors, took all accelerated classes, etc. He was well prepared for what he was about to embark upon. But, he lost his vision. Why? BECAUSE OF POOR TEACHERS! His experiences with both professors and their TAs were absolutely terrible. It's one thing to be in a class, know your lost, and not do anything about it. It's another thing to be lost, and try to do something about your situation, and get no support whatsoever.

So, you must ask yourself, "Why do these terrible professors stay on board?" In state schools, there are two reasons -- money and tenure. Otherwise, in all other colleges, it just comes down to money. Many of these professors bring in some good research dollars. Many departments are required to meet quotas in terms of research dollars, and if they fail, the talented faculty that care about teaching more than their research are the first ones to go. Even if they get the best student evaluations, they get rave reviews from students in their courses, and their courses have the highest enrollments over all courses in the department, the college doesn't care. Ex-professor X isn't doing their part in bring in research dollars.

I had a professor back when I was doing my MS in CS that had a profound impact on me as a computer scientist. He shaped my thinking and gave me a platform to stretch my abilities to new levels. I ended up doing my master's thesis under his advisement. I used many of his methods throughout my years in industry. I completed my MS back in 1992. I found out a couple years ago that he didn't get tenure, and that's why he left academia. Why didn't he get tenure? Because he wasn't bringing in enough research money. Can anyone see anything wrong with this picture? This is reality, folks! This is what really happens in colleges and universities nationwide. The faculty that have the highest ability to bring out the biggest potential with students are the least respected in the departments.

If you want my opinion (which you didn't ask for, but if you got this far, hey... it's just a couple more paragraphs), changing the priority from research to teaching has to be the first significant change to happen nationwide. This should not be interpreted as me saying that research must be put on hold. On the contrary, research must clearly continue or else we will lose our lead in tech as a nation. Ideally, teaching and research should coincide. Professors should strive to bring aspects of their research into the classroom. I believe that if you sink resources into your teaching right from the first year that students start courses in their major, and those standards continue throughout their academic career, then you will have molded a student research staff which would allow a department to get even more done in research than the current strategy of simply ignoring pedagogy. If these students are truly inspired and are involved in research, if they can see the fruits of what they learned being manifested in their projects, then there is a very good chance they will stay for grad school, at which point they will be well-prepared to perform significant research projects. It's a win-win situation. The department gets more resources from which to perform research, and the student is rewarded with experience to place on their resume, as well as sheer satisfaction from being a part of doing some significant research project. There are long-term effects as well. If the department reputation shines, a larger pool of students will be interested in applying to the major, and the average level of the student that gets to the point of being able to do research increases.

My idealistic side believes that this is just a simple application of the principle of reaping what you sow. As an instructor, I can inspire young, energetic, talented, creative students from the beginning. I can encourage them to push themselves further than they thought they could go. They can continue to get that inspiration from other faculty as they complete their foundational courses. Then, by the time they get to their senior year, you now have a pool of students craving cutting-edge research projects and opportunities that will be eager to do much of the research under direction of the faculty. I (as well as the entire department) will have reaped what we have all sown.

On the other hand, the nation as a whole is reaping what its sown already.

In my experience, it is an impossible job for any professor to perform high quality research that is solid enough to receive grants, AND spend the time needed to teach in such a way that inspires and molds up-and-coming scientists, researchers, etc.

Perhaps I'm just being too idealistic again.

Tech talent shortage on way - ajc.com

Yet more indications of a need for CS majors. See the article. (You may need to register to view it.) There was a recent symposium held by the Society of Information Management that discussed some of the challenges that employers are currently facing in recruiting and retaining highly-skilled tech workers. They noted that a lot of baby-boomer techies are starting to retire, and many of these slots are opening for new talent.

Here's an eye-opening quote from the conference -- they stated that finding and keeping workers "hasn't been this high on the agenda for most businesses since the boom days of the 1990s."

The conference also took some time to analyze why recent college grads are not pursuing IT-related careers.

Fewer CS Majors Not a Big Concern - Computerworld

What? You must be kidding me. Ok... so this article is an opinion. Therefore, I suppose I shouldn't get worked up over it. A wonderful thing about being an American is that we have a right to express our opinions in print. Foruntately, that also includes the right to disagree. I completely disagree with Ms. Robbins assertion that the decline of CS degrees should not be a problem. Fortunately, out of the dozens of articles I've read about the declining enrollments in CS, this is the first writer that seems to indicate that this is not a problem. I believe this writer is sorely misled regarding what careers that CS degrees are intended to prepare the student for. She seems to think that the main reason that students enter CS is for computer gaming. I'm sorry to inform you, but a CS degree hardly does anything to prepare a person for a career in the gaming industry. Just as web development careers rarely have any need for CS degrees anymore due to the excellent tools available, the gaming industry has numerous toolkits and software packages that allow the game developer to stay clear of any CS-related issues, allowing them to focus solely on issues such as playability, design, storyline, plot, 3D scenery and related graphics, music score, user interface, etc. The gifted storywriter, graphics artist, animator and score composers get jobs in the gaming industry. The CS major does not.


Her ignorance regarding CS and related careers really shines when she claims that it is not a problem that there are fewer CS degrees, and then in the paragraph immediately following that statement she talks about the effect of video-game violence on children. What conclusions does she want the reader to draw? Let's follow her logic. She states that there has been a study of the effect of video-game violence on children. Earlier, she leads us to believe that CS degrees are for people that want to develop computer games. Therefore, is the reason she believes that it is not a problem that there are fewer CS majors because there will be fewer violent computer games developed, and thus our children will become healthier?

Furthermore, she then allows the reader to believe that students and professionals in CS lead less than active lifestyles. Later, she indicates that "corporations need accountants, marketers, and operations and manufacturing staffers who are infused with computer skills." Are you telling me that these roles are more "active, interactive and tactile" than CS-related careers? Give me a break! The sedentary CS student will be quick to IM a "LMAO" message to you, Ms. Robbins!

It is one thing for incoming freshmen to have uneducated biases regarding what the CS discipline is all about. I don't expect them to know what CS entails. It's our job as instructors and professors in the field to educate them so they have a clear understanding of the potentials of the field, and if they choose it, to inspire and enable them to excel in the field, regardless of whether they join industry or continue in academia and research beyond their degree. Regardless, I don't expect this type of ignorance from a writer in a well-known industry trade magazine in CS.

The only part of this article I agree with is that every student needs to find a career path that is right for them. I can't agree more.

Argh!