<p>“I agree that some of the CS people are really pretty cocky.”</p>
<p>let the dog bark enough, you might hear a word.</p>
<p>I cant believe this thread got this long. lmao</p>
<p>"My son is a CS major and he tutors the EE majors in circuits. Of course he’d like to study EE, CS, Physics, Mathematics and Mechanical Engineering too.</p>
<p>But really, do what you love. "</p>
<p>CS majors at our school dont take circuits. I dont see how he is tutoring them. Unless he took this class before, I dont see how its possible to teach Thevinin, integrator and differential op-am analysis( less than 10% of the material). This is a load of baloney, forgive me.
… of course Auburn might teach Biotechnology with computational analysis.</p>
<p>EDIT: The main CS reviewer and tutor is actually an EE. I would provide the link to my college’s tutoring services website. PM me.</p>
<p>CS is not engineering, you need a book and a compiler, thats all.
Auburn can use a pencil and paper. </p>
<p>Auburn, get ready to lose your <em>interview( let alone job)</em> to some foreigner.
and stop generalizing salaries, its different for different cities you impatient child.</p>
<p>silence_kit, V= IR keeps you posting. </p>
<p>And theres the complicated stuff that might rattle your brain( dont think you have one, but i;; be conservative for once). </p>
<p>Go make a website. meanwhile, Ill find a way to capture the sun’s energy.</p>
<p>Auburn, most CS majors cant fix computers. MechE’s are better.</p>
<p>I needed to catch up to you in posting, so i broke it up. Its kinda like partial integration…</p>
<p>Oh wait—> you NONE-engineers dont understand integration. Sorry for confusing you again!</p>
<p>silence_kit, are you done with that website WITH THE HELP OF 4,000,000 different tools? You can use one and get it done easily you know… its called definite integration. you know… limits and …</p>
<p>OH WAIT! your one of them too! ** rattle rattle rattle rattle **</p>
<p>“That reminds me of a post on this webboard a while back where one guy was saying that studying EE was the secret to success in investment banking. He said that CS majors didn’t know anything about modeling/mathematics, etc. The EE’s secret weapon? The right-hand rule. E & M was the key to riches on the market. lol.”</p>
<p>Financial engineering used to be like rocket science. Pde’s, Brownian motion, control theory, FEM, signal processing and stuff like that. I was pointing out that CS is more about discrete structures and EE/Physics with an appropriate computational element would have served him better.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, its not like the math dept. knows anything about that . . . </p>
<p>christ, EE’s are insufferable </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think you quite get it. I think many in CS would be glad not to be associated with engineers : )</p>
<p>Lacero, yikes, my bad. Sorry for putting you down. Still, it sounds like an applied mathematics degree would better serve that purpose: you won’t have to take classes on circuits, electronic device physics, or computer organization, and can get straight to the math.</p>
<p>"I needed to catch up to you in posting, so i broke it up. Its kinda like partial integration…</p>
<p>Oh wait—> you NONE-engineers dont understand integration. Sorry for confusing you again!"</p>
<p>Wow, didn’t I just say Engineers brag about Calculus like nobody else in the world has ever taken it? Sorry, its required for CS, Math (OBVIOUSLY), Physics, pretty much a lot of “NONE-Engineering” majors. And I know what partial differentiation is, but unless you mean integration by parts, it looks like someone is projecting their own ignorance of Calculus onto others. You engineers’ brains are as large as a real, closed, bounded and noncompact set. Did THAT confuse you?</p>
<p>“CS majors at our school dont take circuits. I dont see how he is tutoring them. Unless he took this class before, I dont see how its possible to teach Thevinin, integrator and differential op-am analysis( less than 10% of the material). This is a load of baloney, forgive me.”</p>
<p>So far I’ve taken a class on Computer Architecture, which includes constructing logical circuits from transistors/gates to perform such operations as ands, ors, nots, shifts, and devices like counters, ALUs, etc. . I’m not sure if CS programs get into the physics of these circuits, but I assume that the things I mentioned are what the original poster of the comment you’re referring to was talking about (I know Engineering friends, even BioE, who have to learn about logical circuits). It wouldn’t surprise me if the EE’s needed help constructing logical circuits, when there’s no formulas to apply and creative thought is required, you can’t just run to your cheat sheet or calculator to help you. </p>
<p>And like silence said, nobody has tried to claim CS is Engineering, that isn’t the issue, you’re not breaking our hearts by telling us that, sorry.</p>
<p>“CS majors at our school dont take circuits. I dont see how he is tutoring them. Unless he took this class before, I dont see how its possible to teach Thevinin, integrator and differential op-am analysis( less than 10% of the material). This is a load of baloney, forgive me.”
CS majors not taking circuits? Perhaps what you’re saying about CS is true, at your university. But I think it’s worth noting that a crappy CS program at one university does not make CS a crappy program at every university. It would seem they don’t make EE majors take logic, either.</p>
<p>"EDIT: The main CS reviewer and tutor is actually an EE. I would provide the link to my college’s tutoring services website. PM me. "
Again, the peculiarities of your Alma Mater don’t really concern me. I can provide links to CS journals whose editors are comprised of people with a formal background in CS. Care to wager how many of those there are?</p>
<p>"CS is not engineering, you need a book and a compiler, thats all.
Auburn can use a pencil and paper. "
By the same logic, EE is not engineering, because all you need is a book and some circuit components. There’s a lot more to CS than programming, and a lot more to SE than programming. I can understand your confusion, though, since EE is designed to turn students into sweet little circuit monkeys.</p>
<p>"Auburn, get ready to lose your <em>interview( let alone job)</em> to some foreigner.
and stop generalizing salaries, its different for different cities you impatient child. "
Actually, if you paid attention to the reliable sources I quoted, EEs are more at-risk to outsourcing than software engineers OR computer scientists. If your dream job is programming computers, then yes, offshoring is a threat, but other CS-major related professions are in a lot better position than EE. Plus, there are tons more jobs, and will continue to me tons more for the next ~7 years, at least. As far as the salary comment goes… the reason I post the averages is because (a) it’s a useful comparison metric that is readily available and (b) to post the salary of everyone with these job titles would probably get me banned from the forums for making such a long post. It’s really kind of sad that you have unsupported ideas and when I present evidence for my position, you get mad. You have a lot of growing up to do.</p>
<p>“Auburn, most CS majors cant fix computers. MechE’s are better.”
You realize that fixing computers has nothing at all to do with what CS or SE is about, right? Not even programming presupposes a knowledge of fixing computers. This should be the job of the technological equivalent of a plumber. If you know how to plumb by yourself, by all means, go for it. But not being an expert at that isn’t really anything to be ashamed of.</p>
<p>“I needed to catch up to you in posting, so i broke it up. Its kinda like partial integration…”
That your posts contained any of the information or wit of mine. And wow, an EE picked up integration by parts somewhere along the line. Stop the presses…</p>
<p>“Oh wait—> you NONE-engineers dont understand integration. Sorry for confusing you again!”
You seem to really like integration. Can you even derive the rule for integration by parts by hand?</p>
<p>“silence_kit, are you done with that website WITH THE HELP OF 4,000,000 different tools? You can use one and get it done easily you know… its called definite integration. you know… limits and …”
What on earth does integration and limits have to do with making a website? Are you on crack?</p>
<p>"OH WAIT! your one of them too! ** rattle rattle rattle rattle ** "
???</p>
<p>greenvision, you’re making me paranoid about using my toaster. If people like you designed it, I think I’d be safer making a fire and cooking my bread on sticks.</p>
<p>"
"OH WAIT! your one of them too! ** rattle rattle rattle rattle ** "
???</p>
<p>greenvision, you’re making me paranoid about using my toaster. If people like you designed it, I think I’d be safer making a fire and cooking my bread on sticks.
"</p>
<p>Hahahahaha. Amen.</p>
<p>CS major at my son’s school requires circuits, computer organization and computer architecture. One can frequently find major differences in focus in CS programs between schools with an engineering school and those without (such as LACs). A CS student could just audit the EE courses that Berkeley puts online for a deeper exposure.</p>
<p>In reality, the truth is that a CS major could know nothing about circuits and still be a perfectly good CS major. CS isn’t really about circuits, except maybe logic circuits and even that in an abstract and small sense.</p>
<p>To chastize CS majors for not being fluent in circuits is akin to bashing EE majors because they’re crappy at proving things about algorithms… oh, wait…</p>
<p>“In reality, the truth is that a CS major could know nothing about circuits and still be a perfectly good CS major. CS isn’t really about circuits, except maybe logic circuits and even that in an abstract and small sense.”</p>
<p>We hire a lot of EECS majors from MIT and other schools. It is assumed that you have some exposure to circuits and hardware, even in my software engineering environment. The CS major is about pragmatism in the real world.</p>
<p>Be that as it may… CS really isn’t about circuits, even if knowing it would make you more marketable. I definitely think at least some familiarity with hardware (logic and analog circuits, computer organization, etc.) is important and beneficial. I just don’t think it’s imperative to the study of CS…</p>
<p>I guess, in a way, it’s very fair to say that CS-the-discipline isn’t engineering. I personally don’t feel like CS-the-discipline is about making anything… now, CS-the-major incorporates a lot of elements I wouldn’t consider to be part of CS-the-discipline, such as circuits, software engineering, and the like. I think it’s interesting how CS seems to have such a divide between what the field is and what people think the majors should know. I’m glad to see that most places are getting away from the idea of one “computer” major and towards a CE, CS, SE split. I don’t think the split is complete yet, but I think we’re getting there.</p>
<p>Circuits would be a nice elective for a CS curriculum. Formal Languages and Automata Theory would be a fine elective for an SE. And a course in Software Quality Assurance would be a cool elective for a CE. But I don’t see the utlity in requiring any of these courses in the indicated major curricula… except perhaps as a breadth requirement, which I can see the utility of, but then again you don’t usually count the breadth requirements as heavily as the real in-major stuff.</p>
<p>Just some random, unrelated ideas…</p>
<p>Son has to take 27 credits in arts and humanities, ethics, diversity and social sciences. If you can justify those, then circuits in CS is a dunk shot.</p>
<p>Well yeah, but those are all breadth requirements. I wouldn’t consider circuits as being more or less of a “core competency” of a CS major as his being able to do an integration using three partial fraction decompositions, two integrations by parts, and a trig substitution in a pear tree.</p>
<p>Still, I think that the point of a degree in CS (and in most other majors) is that if you do well in the degree, it is assumed you can pick up the few things you’re not as strong on when you start the job. If a CS major forgets what an inductor is, for instance, he can go to Wikipedia and figure out pretty quick. Etc.</p>
<p>Well, someone at his university disagrees with your perspective. As I said before, I’m pragmatic.</p>
<p>Fair enough… I just don’t want there to be an air floating about that CS majors need to know this, and that, and the other, when it’s really more of an optional (however advisable) thing.</p>
<p>Case in point, the PI for a numerical project I used to work on should have known some OOP (or any programming practice from after the 1980s), but s/he didn’t. It would have been nice to know, would have helped the project immensely, but it wasn’t required in the technical sense, as in, we finished the research and got it published.</p>
<p>As someone in industry I can say that CS majors should know this or that. Of course there are competing interests in what industry wants their CS grads to know. I assume that you are familiar with “The Perils of Java Schools.”</p>
<p>The fact that Berkeley and MIT have EECS degrees says that there is some decent demand for graduates with a healthy understanding of both EE and CS.</p>
<p>“As someone in industry I can say that CS majors should know this or that.”
Well, this isn’t entirely true. You can make recommendations based on your (anecdotal) experience, but I’m not sure that makes you an authority on what CS graduates should know.</p>
<p>“Of course there are competing interests in what industry wants their CS grads to know.”
Naturally, and I’m not saying that circuits are useless… just less fundamental to CS than other things, which may or may be less practical than circuits.</p>
<p>“I assume that you are familiar with “The Perils of Java Schools.””
Actually, I’m not. Is this an article, a book, etc.? I’d be interested in reading it, if you don’t mind providing a reference. I’m always interested in reading about the state of CS education… well, provided that they’re peer-reviewed pieces by people whose business it is to know about things like that. I’m not sure I want to read a blog, but…</p>
<p>"The fact that Berkeley and MIT have EECS degrees says that there is some decent demand for graduates with a healthy understanding of both EE and CS. "
And I’m not arguing with that. All I’m saying is that the CS major doesn’t necessarily have to be thought of as including a knowledge of circuits. If you need somebody with a knowledge of circuits, you should go after an EE, CE, or EECS major. I’m not saying that circuits are useless, or even that a CS major shouldn’t know about circuits, just that it’s not very theoretically satisfying to assume that CS majors should be proficient in circuits.</p>