Why Computer Science

Passions such as art history are far easier to pursue in life by constantly reading books, going to museums, and attending lectures. Computer science is impossible to engage with on a casual basis. It requires a massive and highly focused investment of time and energy, ideally with the world’s best teachers guiding you at the same time.

First, I don't know that I agree with the first bit. One may certainly dabble in art history (or many other liberal arts-type majors), but one won't get quite as much out of it as someone else who dedicates hours and hours to it over months and years. This holds true for all deep, non-trivial subjects.

Further, one certainly /can/ 'engage with CS on a casual basis'. People do it all the time, and they certainly don't always have "the world's best teachers" to guide them. Mentors, teachers, and professors play an important role, but many people do quite well in their chosen fields without that extra boost.

Re: Why Computer Science

#5

Post by gliese1337 » Sun, Jun 12, 2011, 11:01 PM UTC

  > I was tempted to switch into art history
  > to escape the huge engineering workload.

My association with friends in the fine arts indicates that that would've been a horrible decision; probably depends on what college/university you're at, but while engineering majors seem to have a pretty consistently high workload, visual design, music composition, and art history majors seem to get periodically slammed with horrendously massive workloads.

I thought about switching to animation for a while, and then realized that there's no way I could handle the load in the introductory-level classes. I suspect it's because there're lots of people who would like to do fine arts, so they make all of the 100-levels incredibly intense to filter in just the ones who are really talented and dedicated.

Sometimes I wish they'd do the same thing with the CS department.

  > Computer science is impossible to engage
  > with on a casual basis. It requires a massive
  > and highly focused investment of time and
  > energy, ideally with the world’s best teachers
  > guiding you at the same time.

I believe this to be true as far as the theoretical, mathematics-based discipline of computer science goes. But it should be noted that you can become a fantastic programmer with very little formal CS background and casual engagement.

Re: Why Computer Science

#6

Post by taa4321 » Sun, Jun 12, 2011, 11:56 PM UTC

yes, but will it get me laid?

Re: Why Computer Science

#7

Post by kabdib » Mon, Jun 13, 2011, 12:12 AM UTC

gliese1337 wrote: post #5

> I was tempted to switch into art history > to escape the huge engineering workload. My association with friends in the fine arts indicates that that would've been a horrible decision; probably depends on what college/university you're at, but while engineering majors seem to have a pretty consistently high workload, visual design, music composition, and art history majors seem to get periodically slammed with horre…

And you don't need much hardware investment; practically any miserable computer of the last decade will challenge you enough. In fact, having a shit-hot workstation to do your exploratory programming on might be bad for you. (Of course, I'm an old fart about this -- carved bits out of mother stone, hand-cranked our ALUs, etc.)

Re: Why Computer Science

#8

Post by riledhel » Mon, Jun 13, 2011, 12:30 AM UTC

"Computer science gives you the ultimate freedom to pursue your dreams." Great quote.

Re: Why Computer Science

#9

Post by dcosson » Mon, Jun 13, 2011, 12:55 AM UTC

kylemaxwell wrote: post #4

Passions such as art history are far easier to pursue in life by constantly reading books, going to museums, and attending lectures. Computer science is impossible to engage with on a casual basis. It requires a massive and highly focused investment of time and energy, ideally with the world’s best teachers guiding you at the same time. First, I don't know that I agree with the first bit. One may certainly dabble in…

I don't know how common it really is for someone to casually teach him/herself CS. Sure, a lot of people teach themselves to build websites or mobile apps, but ask them to, say, search/filter their results and it's pretty easy to see there's not a whole lot of scientific thinking going on. Learning Computer Science is very different than learning to code (i'm not saying it doesn't happen, but from my experience most casual coders don't care very much about the theoretical underpinnings - and don't often need to, with modern languages).

Re: Why Computer Science

#10

Post by true_religion » Mon, Jun 13, 2011, 1:09 AM UTC

dcosson wrote: post #9

kylemaxwell wrote: post #4

Passions such as art history are far easier to pursue in life by constantly reading books, going to museums, and attending lectures. Computer science is impossible to engage with on a casual basis. It requires a massive and highly focused investment of time and energy, ideally with the world’s best teachers guiding you at the same time. First, I don't know that I agree with the first bit. One may certainly dabble in…

I don't know how common it really is for someone to casually teach him/herself CS. Sure, a lot of people teach themselves to build websites or mobile apps, but ask them to, say, search/filter their results and it's pretty easy to see there's not a whole lot of scientific thinking going on. Learning Computer Science is very different than learning to code (i'm not saying it doesn't happen, but from my experience most…

I agree, computer science is an applied goal-oriented branch of mathematics.

Many people simply don't read math papers for casual intellectual stimulation.