New York City gets a Software Engineering High School • Hacker News Board

Re: New York City gets a Software Engineering High School

#101

Post by mjwalshe » Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 9:32 PM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #71

tghw wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Computer Engineering is generally hardware and firmware design, something that is becoming less and less important as generalized processors have become smaller, cheaper, and more powerful. At this point, almost everything can be done in software, so a Computer Science degree is more important. Also, your Audi/Mercedes analogy is flawed. Physicists and engineers are very different, and if they needed more engineers,…

Computer Engineer here- while I would selfishly argue that Computer Science is not more important , the CS field is even now still growing, while our field is contracting. I do not expect ours to ever go away entirely, but the answer is not to make everyone a CE. I think maybe what mjwalshe is thinking about, is the Computer Scientist graduates who cannot even program.

yes that's what i was getting at theorys all very well but you need to be able to apply this to real world which is what most employers of programmers want.

My first job after school (as a technical programmer) was at an Elite RnmD organistion (our boss was the mechanical engineers president at the time) and I remember I was told one way to think about it is that "engineers" are scientists with thumbs.

Re: New York City gets a Software Engineering High School

#102

Post by mjwalshe » Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 9:39 PM UTC

tomjen3 wrote: post #54

mjwalshe wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probaly not they wouldnt get 5 good GSCES which have to include english so school would be put in special needs and the head and 80% of the staff woudl be fired. And a "technical" school getting anyone into oxbridge mm that will be the day.

Does Oxbridge really matter, anymore? I mean for those of us who aren't planing on becoming the next PM. Similarly I am sure Eton (which seems to be one of the most popular ways into Oxbridge) provides a very good education, but I am also certain that it is almost impossible to pay that much for most people.

Its does for a lot of jobs I am afraid and places like Google do seem to like elite universities.

Also Ox-bridge along with Bath, Imperial and Queens (British telecoms Belfast engineering Center used to get the pick of those) do have a rep as being the best universities for CS.

Eatons where the thickos go :-) Years ago when Mum had had a stiff Gin she commented if we had stayed in Birmingham she would have tried to get my grandfather to pull strings to get me into King Edwards (Tolkien's Old school) which along with The Oratory (Tony Blairs school) are considered the top 2 schools.

Re: New York City gets a Software Engineering High School

#103

Post by pmb » Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 9:41 PM UTC

geebee wrote: post #94

serge2k wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a while now I've been thinking that there should be a divide between software engineers, programmers, and computer scientists. Software engineers should be considered the people who go out and design a system, who are the primary create force and technical experts. Programmers should be people who implement. Computer Scientists should be (mainly) scientists. I see a lot of people who I have gone through school wi…

I'm sure that this divide exists somewhere if people still talk abou tit, but genuinely confused by it. "Programmer" and "Software Engineer" are different job categories for the purposes of filing taxes (in the US), and I've read articles projecting job prospects that give a sunny outlook to "software engineers" and poor prospects to "computer programmers." The idea is always that "software engineers" design a system…

Does not exist. It seems to be primarily about trying to define programming as an upscale profession like engineering - "programmers" might be replaceable cogs, but "software engineers" are a little harder to shove around.

Even worse, you have "computer engineering", which is a real engineering discipline (at least when focussed on hardware) and then you have the disaster that is the CS/programming community's attempts to ape standard engineering practices when the blueprint and finished product are the exact same thing.

Re: New York City gets a Software Engineering High School

#104

Post by yummyfajitas » Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 10:11 PM UTC

rdouble wrote: post #80

yummyfajitas wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compare unemployment rates in geography, philosophy and foreign languages. We need more CS people. We don't need more philosophers. (Though admittedly, knowledge of English or German might be very useful if you are coming from Romania.)

According to census data from 2010, foreign language majors have a lower unemployment rate (5.2%) than computer science majors (5.6%). Geography (6.1%) and philosophy and religion (7.1%) don't fare as well, but are doing about as well as computer engineers (7.0%). Worst off are clinical psychologists (19.1%), best off (0%) are actuaries, pharmacists, school administrators, and surprisingly, geologists and astronomers…

I stand corrected, foreign languages are probably also a worthwhile field of study.

Re: New York City gets a Software Engineering High School

#105

Post by ericd » Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 10:19 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #83

jmduke wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the wrong way to think about education. Learning is learning, regardless of job placement, and while I recognize the need for stronger STEM education it shouldn't come at the expense of equally important topics.

Learning is good only if it either enables you do to something useful or you enjoy it. If you don't enjoy it (many people don't), focus on learning that lets you do something useful. High job placement gives an indication that a field is useful. As for learning you do because you enjoy it, treat it as consumption (i.e., the same way you treat an X-Box).

You cannot know what you will find useful in the future. A broad education helps inform your decisions on a huge variety of subjects, even without realizing it. Learning only what you think you'll need for your future profession is a really terrible idea.

Re: New York City gets a Software Engineering High School

#106

Post by dr_ » Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 10:35 PM UTC

This is interesting, but I'm not certain there need be an institution with just a heavy interest on software engineering. The article suggests that there are those who may not be proficient at other academic pursuits, but may have a keen interest in software engineering. To be honest, most of those kids are the types who will start coding/hacking on their own, not sure if a special school is needed for this. Plus there are added benefits to learning english, the arts, maybe a foreign language - I feel all of these have an impact on the type of person you become, perhaps even the type of software engineer you become. Just like it is with medical school - in many countries you go to medical school straight from high school, but here you complete 4 years of college first. In those four years you learn certain things which med school won't cover and which you may never be able to learn at any point again - but they could have a significant impact on the type of doctor you become, esp in how you interact with your patients. I feel the same applies to any career choice, including software engineering.

Re: New York City gets a Software Engineering High School

#107

Post by dzlobin » Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 10:37 PM UTC

asnyder wrote: post #84

YuriNiyazov wrote: post #57

I went to Stuyvesant HS 10 years ago, and I took all the CS classes that the school had offered from Mr. Zamansky ("Z", as we affectionately call him), and can add some more specific information as to why this was necessary. Stuyvesant opened in the beginning of the 20th century, and there are some vestigial components that should've been amputated long ago: in addition to the standard math, science, language (Englis…

As a Brooklyn Tech grad, we too had the shop and technical drafting requirements, though we also had a major system, which included Computer Science ( http://www.bths.edu/majordesc/CompSci.jsp ) as an option, which is technically required for graduation since it's your major. The courses offered as part of the major has changed since then, we had C++, Networking, and Computer Architecture, in addition to Java and Web…

What year did you graduate?

I was class of 2006 and we had AP Computer Science (which was Java at this point), computer architecture, networking, A+, some sort of PHP/MySQL web development class but it was mostly useless

Re: New York City gets a Software Engineering High School

#108

Post by yummyfajitas » Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 10:40 PM UTC

ericd wrote: post #105

yummyfajitas wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Learning is good only if it either enables you do to something useful or you enjoy it. If you don't enjoy it (many people don't), focus on learning that lets you do something useful. High job placement gives an indication that a field is useful. As for learning you do because you enjoy it, treat it as consumption (i.e., the same way you treat an X-Box).

You cannot know what you will find useful in the future. A broad education helps inform your decisions on a huge variety of subjects, even without realizing it. Learning only what you think you'll need for your future profession is a really terrible idea.

With certainty, no. So what? The right question to ask is this: Is P(need subject X) x (cost of not knowing X) Since the cost of learning X tends to be high (at least if you learn it in school), and the cost of not knowing it is very often nothing but the cost of learning it + cost of delays, this inequality is very often not satisfied.

Re: New York City gets a Software Engineering High School

#109

Post by jmduke » Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 11:02 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #83

jmduke wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the wrong way to think about education. Learning is learning, regardless of job placement, and while I recognize the need for stronger STEM education it shouldn't come at the expense of equally important topics.

Learning is good only if it either enables you do to something useful or you enjoy it. If you don't enjoy it (many people don't), focus on learning that lets you do something useful. High job placement gives an indication that a field is useful. As for learning you do because you enjoy it, treat it as consumption (i.e., the same way you treat an X-Box).

"Learning is good only if it either enables you do to something useful or you enjoy it."

I completely agree. But something is not only 'useful' if you can use it in your career.

Re: New York City gets a Software Engineering High School

#110

Post by dvdhsu » Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 11:02 PM UTC

dzlobin wrote: post #107

asnyder wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Brooklyn Tech grad, we too had the shop and technical drafting requirements, though we also had a major system, which included Computer Science ( http://www.bths.edu/majordesc/CompSci.jsp ) as an option, which is technically required for graduation since it's your major. The courses offered as part of the major has changed since then, we had C++, Networking, and Computer Architecture, in addition to Java and Web…

What year did you graduate? I was class of 2006 and we had AP Computer Science (which was Java at this point), computer architecture, networking, A+, some sort of PHP/MySQL web development class but it was mostly useless

APCS is still Java at this point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Placement_Computer_Sci...