My post entitled "Apparently computer science at Purdue sucks" is by far the most popular on this blog. Most of the views seem to come from searching for some combination of "Purdue", "computer science", and "sucks". There's a boatload of negativity in the comments and the post itself is over 3 years old, so I thought I'd give a refresh.
Disclaimer: I am no longer an undergrad at Purdue. I'm a grad student now and have experienced the other side of some of the things mentioned in the comments. However, this also means I'm less in touch with what other people are saying about the undergrad CS program. Most of these opinions are my own.
A few years ago, Professor Mathur took the helm as head of the CS department at Purdue. Let me just say to the naysayers that I believe he has taken our department in a very positive direction and that I would have counted myself very lucky to have some of the things that have been introduced under his watch. To name a few:
- Software engineering specialization. This is one of the first things implemented. Having any specialization at all is a giant step forward. This is/was a bit of a mixed blessing because my experience in CS307 (Software Engineering) was not that enjoyable. Nevertheless, the problem is orthogonal to having specializations.
- Five year BS/MS. I definitely would have stayed for this if it had been implemented before I graduated. Unlike many people, I like class. Having an extra year and getting another degree out of it has no downsides to me.
- Track specializations. This is more or less the next step after the software engineering specialization, from what I can see. The first two years are still the standard core courses (CS180, CS182, CS240, CS250, CS251) plus CS252, dubbed "Systems Programming". From there, it branches out into seven possible tracks. This is much more flexible than before, since people can now get by without taking the "dreaded" compilers. To me, this is unfortunate (because I specialize in programming languages), but I can easily understand the reasoning. This also means that, for example, people who are interested in math-intensive CS can do the Foundations of CS track.
- Conversion of CS177 to Python. This wouldn't have affected me, but this change is huge. They seem to be using Mark Guzdial's media computation book. I definitely think this is a step in the right direction compared to previous iterations of the course (Java, and HTML/Javascript). I would love to TA this class so I wouldn't have to worry about people having horrible indentation.
Of course, we're far from a perfect CS department. If we were, people would stop commenting on my blog and I wouldn't have to write this post. Here are some ideas:
- Reintroduce CS381 as a core course. I see some weaknesses with the introduction of tracks in that you can get by without taking CS381 (algorithms). I can understand removing compilers from the core set of classes, but unless CS251 (data structures) is doing substantially more work, I believe this is a big mistake. Sure, it's an elective in these instances, but I don't consider that to be sufficient. Making this class required sacrifices a lot of flexibility, but I find it odd that anybody would be able to get a degree in computer science without an algorithms class.
- Introduce an entrepreneurial track. This may not be reasonable/feasible, but I just thought of it. Perhaps it should be a specialization that goes alongside an existing track, but I think it would be a good idea to foster the minds of business-oriented students. In particular, I think it should really emphasize the blend of CS and business, from web startups to...not web startups. I don't think this quite fits into a management minor, though there may be a bit of overlap.
- Implement course outcomes. I now feel that course standardization is a necessary evil. Engineering has outcomes, which guarantees that any student that passes the class has at least a basic understanding the concepts taught in the class. This would give a more uniform education to all CS students, since professors would need to adhere to the designed curriculum, which therefore guarantees that any CS alum has at least a basic understanding of all of the concepts in all of his/her classes.
- Kill off Solaris labs. Someone I had numerous disagreements with did make a suggestion that I agree with wholeheartedly, and that is that the G040 Solaris lab sucks and should go away. Dealing with the Solaris terminals has very little benefit to anyone, but it seems they still use it consistently in some classes. Personally, I think the Solaris lab in Lawson that has "real" computers should also be converted to a Linux lab. The Solaris lab has always been a source of idiotic quirks that any CS180 UTA has probably dealt with.
- Update hardware. On a similar note, but not completely related to undergrads, I think we're in dire need of a hardware refresh. The machines we get in TA offices still date back to Pentium 4s. When comparing to what kinds of equipment other universities get, it's just embarrassing. Also, our network shares are tiny, which results in frequent e-mails complaining about partitions filling up. I don't understand this at all, in the day and age that terabyte hard drives can be had for under $100 and quad core computers can be had for less than $400.
- Increase flexibility in the new core. More flexibility in the new core would be a big step forward to people who come in knowing how to program. I won't say I learned absolutely nothing in CS180/CS240, but the amount that I learned was definitely not worth two semesters of work. I had been program MUDs for a substantial amount of time, so I was familiar with C already. I didn't know Java, but I knew C++, so CS180 was not that exciting. Ironically, Professors Dunsmore (CS180) and Brylow (CS240) were among the best I had, but I would be willing to forgo the experience of their instruction in order to take more upper-level classes. I understand that many "experienced" incoming freshmen are overconfident, but an adequate test-out procedure should be enough to filter them out.
Lastly, here are things I will argue vigorously against:
- Keeping course curricula up to date with latest fads. I argued against this in the comments section and will repeat it here. Computer Science to me is not about learning the latest technology (in this case, F#), but learning things that enable you to easily understand the latest technology. Trying to keep up with the latest fads not only pushes lots of pressure to come up with new syllabi, but also has questionable benefit. Putting F# in a curriculum effectively binds people to Windows or forces them to figure out Mono, while OCaml works on multiple platforms.
- Teaching technologies rather than foundations. The other example in the comments was about learning Silverlight. I risk offending people with this part, but oh well. Majors like C&IT are where you go to learn things like this. They are utterly focused on technologies rather than foundations. To put it one way, a C&IT degree is a fish and a CS degree is an instruction manual on how to fish. To put it very bluntly, certain parts of C&IT are what motivated CS majors learn in their spare time. Of course, to some degree this is necessary (when teaching programming).
- Pipe dreaming about infinitely flexible courses. I'm sorry to say that this is thoroughly unrealistic and puts much more strain on already-stressed TAs on grading objectively. Being able to pick your own projects for classes sounds nice, but I haven't seen this implemented effectively in any core classes.
There's one big factor in the equation that I haven't (and won't) address and that's people. How can we make students motivated to learn and faculty motivated to teach? Who knows? Not me. Nevertheless, I think the undergrad CS program has progressed in a positive way. I'm interested in hearing what undergrads that are able to experience the changes have to say.
