I am going to do a post-mortem on the syllabus that I studied under CUSAT. This is applicable to almost every university, not just CUSAT. Im calling this a post-mortem, because Im already through with this. Post-mortem is done only on dead bodies. The Word itself means, ‘after death’.
Lets rewind 7 years. There are 60 of us who joined for the Computer Science course. Only a very few had a proper exposure to computers before, but all have come together to learn computer science, trusting the university, its syllabus and the staff. Now this is what we get in semesters 1 and 2.
Engineering Mathematics 1 & 2
People tend to give mathematics an unquestionable authority. “Learning maths is never a waste. Ive heard this sentence many times from many people. Actually learning anything is never a waste. But learning something out of the context on the expense of relevant subjects is stupid. Thats what these 2 papers does in the first year. These mathematics papers are tailor made for the old engineering disciplines, not for computer science students.
Engineering Physics, Engineering Chemistry, Engineering Mechanics
These subjects are relevant to the old branches of engineering. Civil, mechanical, chemical etc can use this. But what are we as computer science engineers going to do with this ? Once in a discussion about this, I got a funny answer. “You computer box is made using mechanics principles and the nuts and screws are prevented from rusting using knowledge derived from learning chemistry”. I dont have any counter arguments.
Engineering Graphics
The same theory is used for computer graphics. But the subject is taught using a gun shaped instrument and all that we learn is some tricks on how to draw various stuff. It has got 3 hours of lab every week, and those 3 hours is a wresting with pencil, the gun and the paper. Why not do it on a computer ?
Fundamentals of Engineering 1 and 2
Fundamentals of engineering includes civil, mechanical, electrical, Electronics. An argument that supports these subjects. “An engineer should learn the basics of all engineering disciplines”. Ya ofcourse, I should know the exact concrete mix needed for a dam, I should know the energy cycle graph of 2 stroke and 4 stroke engines.
Computer Fundamentals
Rain in the Desert. This involves a little bit of C programming.
Humanities.
I have got nothing to say about this subject. Humanities hours were really peaceful times where almost everyone can sleep. The subject had a touch of moral science and no one really cared about it.
Computer programming lab
The only enjoyable and useful subject we learned in the first year.
Workshops.
This substituted for the Gym workouts. Carpentry, sheet metal work, Electrical wiring, filing etc. These required a lot of manual effort. There are subjects that should be taught in schools, not in engineering colleges.
The core of the problem
This is not a computer science syllabus. This is an old civil, mechanical, electrical syllabus, slightly modified. Old engineering disciplines and new engineering disciplines have nothing in common. We are different and we need a different semester 1&2 syllabus. We dont want a common first year. Here are some better alternatives we could have studied, some things that we missed.
- Computer hardware overview, assembling a PC.
- Operating system choices, installation, configuration and maintenance
- Useful software tools, document editor, spreadsheet, presentations
- Proper use of the keyboard (typing)
- Useful internet tools, develop an internet culture
- Computer science history, software licences, philosophies.
The result
Wasted 90% of the s1, s2 time. Caused a lot of frustration and depression. Wasted money, effort and time in other semesters writing supplementary exams. Wasted money on text books, lab equipments and salaries. Over all confusion and lost focus.
Thats so true…
but the situation over at Kerala University is even more pathetic.
There’s not even a single ‘rain in d desert’ in d syllabi…
Comment by Niranjan — March 8, 2008 @ 10:18 am
Well Well
I can guarantee you that you will find the same problem with all the Undergraduate graduate degrees in 99.9% of all universities in India. There are only those top 10 Colleges/Universities that really teach you something that is useful.
I also Had the same scenario with my BSc Computer Sc Degree from Madras University. I had to learn Hindi and English literature in my first two years – you can just imagine my frustration.
Comment by JMJ — March 8, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
I beg to disagree on this particular exercise of postmortem of the syllabus though I do believe that engineering is only a good tool to get a suitable bride/groom.
If its about computers and engineering in it, you shud be learning a lot about other subjects too. Like you as a programmer, can you create a accounting package?
At the same time, if you are wanted to create a engineering drawing program, you will have a base to build upon since you know basics from S1 or S2.
Its the system thats in fault here, not the syllabus as such.. . . . . . . .please do disagree
Comment by TheAnand — March 9, 2008 @ 12:09 am
Very well said…
Comment by Derick — March 9, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
well the faculty says its necessary to learn all this in first yr to get a base…and the workshops are “supposd” to turn u into engineers”…hmm well i really duno wht ece or cse guys had to do with ths..nyway we in cusat r lucky..though we have much larger syllabi than othr univrsities…and more labs….we just had to do a bit f wht the people in mg or kerala does
Comment by jibin — March 9, 2008 @ 9:05 pm
There are 60 of us who joined for the Computer Science course. Only a very few had a proper exposure to computers before, but all have come together to learn computer science, trusting the university, its syllabus and the staff.
u don’t expect the under privileged to be stuffed wit all computers but nthing else in first year itself.. do u???
n not to mention everything learnt is useful.. jst u don’t c how u can use it..
Comment by jstsum1 — March 10, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
There were many who were not privilaged enough to have a proper intro to computers. Im speaking for them. Its the responsibility of the university to see that the gap is bridged. And the first year is the perfect time for that. Instead they force.. all other crap on us.
Comment by admin — March 10, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
Anand,
There are many areas where programmers develop software. Its not possible for us to learn all those in college. We will learn, such business requirements when a need arises. Not in college.
Comment by admin — March 10, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
Very Very True!!!!!!
I myself am a First year computer Sc. engg. under the syllabi of cusat currently. Whatever you said here applies to my case as well, why on earth should u study these subjects to become a comp. sc. engineer???
The current engg. maths syllabi is poor crap, easily it could’ve been replaced with relevant math sub.s like discrete maths, probability & logic and a lot of other relevant stuff related to comp. Sc. maths could’ve been a lot more interesting if the stress was given to its appln. side.
there is nothing done to instill passion for the subject in the pupil, a great subject like comp. sc. is ruined by this syllabus. i have friends who doesn’t even know how to install a program studying comp. sci., loads and loads of crap is what we study, the arena of comp. sci. is quite broad and there’s a lot of subjects which could be taught instead of these mind numbing subjects. I agree with you compltly in the matter of graphics, they cud’ve easily taught us graphics in a cad prgrm.
The Tech.Comm.&S.S(humanities) sub. can be replaced by a comp. ethics &philosophy paper( atleast we could build a new generation which completely believes in opensource&are strong in nettiquettes – think about a generation which believes in stallman &ERS)
Electronics&comp. sc. are inseperable and what we have to study is just the bare basics of electro. we don’t even have much electro. lab work to do. Instead you’ve to wrestle with all the stupid things in mech. work shops (but the overweight kiddos do get a litl workout here[;)])
Just as u said, there are a lot of basics related to comp.sci. which can be taught in the ist year itself, why wait for another year??
I joined an engg. colllg. for CSE out of passion for comp. sci. and now i know i may well have joined any other collg. for that matter or i may have even chose not to study at all.!!!
Comment by Asutosh — March 10, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
Well Said !!
Computer Science is not handled the way it should be.
How many staff know there is something called Linux ?
How many of those great teachers know what is the full form of FOSS ?
Comment by Dinesh — March 11, 2008 @ 12:30 am
Well the Simple reply from me is… I cannot fully agree with this topic..
I feel:
“This is what is the difference between an MCA/BCA student and a Btech/BE student…Since we are learning these EXTRA DESSERT we are so called Software Enginners other wise we are just programmers or designers”
I may be wrong but still i feel its correct….
Comment by Anoop — March 11, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
Do you think studying 4 years is giving you an advantage , Then think again. 1.5 years is totally wasted, and the rest is debatable.
Dont think that you are superior to an MCA guy, jut because you learned B-tech. Its not the degree, but the quality of your education that matters.
I agree to the fact that some extra subjects makes us different. You can be more different by intoroducing some literature also into the syllabus. But does it help you become a better computer guy ? No way……
All you have is 3 or 4 years and you have joined to learn computer science. So thats exactly what you should be taught.
Syllabus is not created to provide jobs or sell text books. Education and syllabus should be student oriented.
Comment by admin — March 11, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
Well I never said we are superiour to MCA or Other Equivalent comuter science degree holder frends…
but we are different.. How we are different is because we know that what we lean in that 1.5 years. We cover up all the basics of almost all major Engineering Domains. As you know, more than me, A software can be made for any domains engineering,Electrical ,Electronics, Banking ..like that anywhere…
By knowing all the basics of these domains makes us to think a step ahead than normal programmers; like the pro’s and con’s by implementing a partcular design in some domains…
E.G.
Its good to know about how logical Gates work, to create a software that simulated PAL configuration and finally it will dump the configuration into any Controllers..this can be in the case of Electronics Domain…
Likewise each domain will have some spec which gives us good basement to think in a way our customer wants.
Other Equivalent comuter science degree holder frends can also do it.. but it may take bit time for them to digust the senario and to implement it….
But what ve to know is TIME TO MARKET is a critical input for all business establishments…
Comment by Anoop — March 11, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
If you are going to learn all the domains in which we are going to make software for, then many life times will be required.
Computer science engineering must make make us capable of making computer systems and that too good ones. Thats is the first duty. Instead of doing that we are being taught useless stuff.
How much of your so called knowledge, have you used in your career. But there were many things that you could have learned, which were of direct use.
Like your example, its good to learn linguistics and english grammer, so that we can make better voice recognitions systems. We could have learned advanced operations research ,so that we can do better artificially intelligent and optimised systems. If you start by picking examples then there are many…. but there is not enough time to learn all these.
“Engineer must know the basics of everything”……. bullshit…… is something ive been hearing ever since ive been talking abou.t this problem. No engineer is required to anything, before he masters his trade.
We have 18 years of general education. Thats enough for general formal education. Engineering colleges are places to specialise.
Wasting time there is like wasting your golden years.
The conclusion is that… knowledge is always good…. but there is something called appropriate knowledge. With out that we are a sailing ship with out a destination.
Comment by admin — March 11, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
SOMETHING IS BETTER THAN NOTHING
Comment by Anoop — March 11, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
its a fact : im still fighting with first year maths ;D
Comment by hello Its a fact :: true fact — March 15, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
its atrue fact what i am learning in ist year is totally useless no continuation with next semesters i am a student intrested in computer and software feild but unfortunately cusat syllabus is formulated in such away that no computer student get any benefit i us e this oppurtunity to request that change the whole syllabus in such away that all student should be equipped with computer knowledge
Comment by sabir ps — March 22, 2008 @ 10:35 am
This post is absolutely correct. There is a huge disconnect between what is taught in colleges and universities and WHAT IS ACTUALLY NEEDED IN THE WORKPLACE. Unfortunately many of the college professors are lifelong academics who haven’t a clue what skills are important for student who want to enter and succeed in the workplace.
There is just a large imbalance between theory and practical application that is taught to students. They need this so they can compentely complete basic tasks when they first are hired. Instead students come out of university not even knowing how to build a simple installer program. The solution is close collaboration between business and universites to build a useful and relevant syllabus that will TRULY benefit students who want to become professionals. Of course there would need to be a third party to oversee the curriculum development so that business interests and greed won’t create yet another useless curriculum useful to only one company.
Comment by ton — May 29, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
I appreciate your effort to bring out the short comings of syllabus and the teaching paedagogy .
As a person who was part of the syllabus making and revision process for sometime, i have many experiences to share. I am going thro’ a busy schedule and let me say, for now, that it is high time for a discussion about what we can do to improve the syllabus.
The problem is not the syllabus alone. Non-vailability of efficient teachers is the real hurdle. Think WHY.
Comment by abdunni — June 12, 2008 @ 11:43 am
Acc. to me the most useful subject we ever had in CS was Software Enggineering. But all staffs ,hod and all has gives this subject a name- ‘kathi’ — encouraging students to write wutever they want for this exam!
Comment by Cijo — October 2, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
Software Engineering can not be taught through chalk and talk sessions. It needs any number of case study sessions which do not happen for at least two reasons: (i) Teachers do not pay time and effort to prepare and present cases; they lack the practical experience needed to make meaningful case studies. (ii) Teachers do not encourage students to prepare case studies and present; in a class of 60+ students, presentations will eat up the entire semester.
The practical solution would be to include sessions by experts from industry.
Comment by abdunni — October 3, 2008 @ 8:45 am
I beg to differ about Engineering Mathematics and your readings in general (and infact to a certian degree take offence to it)!
The problem with your outlook is that you are taking an extremly narrow, myopic and poorly thought of perspective towards computer ‘science’ and engineering, specifically you are equating an entire engineering and ‘scientific’ discipline merely to computer usage and application development. If that be the case, a cheap 6 months dipolama degree from NIIT/Aptech should be considered equal to an Engineering degree.
A computer is nothing but a number crunching engineering device, whose impact on our modern society is way more profound that any other technology. And there is a solid reason why computers has become ubiquitos in our society. The reason, is that it can be used to solve problems from various multi-disciplinary arneas. Real life problems which can objectified and expressed in mathematical form and ‘subsequently’ coded by computer algorithms.
If I remember correctly, first year engineering maths covered ‘a bit’ of differential equation, probability and statstics, linear algebra and numerical methods. Some of the very first problems, historically computers were used (and still used actively) to solve. Let me give a simple example of a google query and eludicate how most of the idea from first year engineering mathematics kicks in during the process (though in more complex form).
The heart of google query is the page rank algorithm, which is based on a probability based measures from aggregated statstics (mostly usage) from the past. The inference process (the process of deciding the rank ordering based on the probability scores) itself uses either closed form linear algebra methods or for more complex services when query or ordering has more parameters (or need to be fudged) they use iterative numerical methods. The fast fetching of data from various locations in web happens due to the clever data strucutre (or hash) and the actual routing of the data happens fast courtesy our understanding of graph theory (again a pure mathematical discipline).
That covers all except differential equations. Being a Computer Graphics researcher ODEs are bread and better for me. Everytime you want to simulate water, rain or any other dynamical process, differential equations are a life saver.
And hey, good mathematical backgrounds also pave way to become good programmers. If in doubt, ask Edsger Dijkstra or Donald Knuth
. Both of them trained theoreticians. And the impact and legacy they left behing in field of computing, irreplacable.
A person adapt in technology should be rightly called a ‘technician’. A person who create, modifies or expands technology is an ‘engineer’. The purpose of an engineering school is to impart problem solving and analytical skill that comes in handy to his/her trade and not to train technicians. And training in maths will really hone up the problem solving skills useful for a computer scientist.
ps: Look at any undergraduate computer science disciple across the globe, you will find a huge emphasis in teaching mathematics.
Comment by Appu Shaji — December 12, 2008 @ 11:04 pm
@Appu
I never said mathematics should not be taught in a computer engineering course. There are many different fields of mathematics that are useful to computer engineers. But the current syllabus is not designed with computer students in mind. Its simply a rip off of the old engineering syllabus.
Why not start with an introductory course in the mathematics of programing, for eg – Structure and theory of programming languages.
BTW, 6 months at a workshop wont make you an automobile engineer, similarly 6 months at NIIT wont make you a computer engineer.
Comment by Kenney Jacob — December 12, 2008 @ 11:26 pm
@admin
My whole argument was that content in current syllabus (differential equations, probability, stats, linear algebra) are as relevant to a Computer Science and Engineering course as any others. Google query example was to show why the content in the syllabus still holds enormous merit and ‘need’ to be taught. I frankly fail to see why they are not relevant to a computer science student.
Isn’t there already a course called Principle of progamming languages during 3 or 4th Semester? Also I wish to remphasis, programming makes up only a fraction of computer science discipline. For example, EWD very scantly wrote computer code, though radically changed the field.
Yes six months in a workshop does not make you an automobile engineer, for the precise reason that student from automobile engineering course is expected to learn much more than the internals and working of the popular automobile models in the market. He/She has to learn the physics, maths behind the working, chemical and structural properties of the materials used and computational skill to test, evaluate and build novel design. An average new automobile engineer recurit might for all pratical reasons might need only skills little more than what he could have gained in six months training in a workshop. However, that is not a good excuse of removing the above mentioned cross-discpilinary skills out of the syllabus.
ps:See http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EWD1036.html
though written 20 years ago, it is still valid.
Comment by Appu Shaji — December 13, 2008 @ 12:17 am
You go and do a survey among computer graduates and find out how many of them have any clue why they are studying all these subjects. The most common answer would be “Cos its in the syllabus”.
We can always find reasons for including a particular subject in a computer engineering syllabus. Even biology can be included in a syllabus and then we can come up with arguments.The point is that, there has to be a priority level. Everything has to be put into perspective.
Just think how useful it is to the students. I know control systems are very useful for developing simulators. I had a paper and had a difficult time with it. I can assure you less than 1% of the total graduates will find it useful.
If a mathematics subject is being taught in a computer engineering syllabus, then the relevance of the subject must be properly explained, or it should be connected to real world computer problems.
For eg, when we learned Automata theory, I found it really interesting cos my dad, who is a mathematician explained the relevancy of that subject and its applications in the computer field.
The point i raised was, the current syllabus is not set properly for computer students. Its just the plain old syllabus the civil and mechanical guys use. Our universities are lazy, or under pressure from some lobby not to change it. If thats not the case , Why the hell would I still be studying boilers and their chemical reactions, four stroke engines and heat transfer equations ?
Comment by Kenney Jacob — December 13, 2008 @ 6:50 am
@kenny,
> We can always find reasons for including a particular subject
> in a computer engineering syllabus.
> The point is that, there has to be a priority level.
> Everything has to be put into perspective.
That is the core of my argument. Mathematics especially (and to `certain extend’ Physics and Chemistry) are highly ‘relevant’ for computer science curriculum and their presence in a CS curriculum is not based on second or third order rationale.
Again the problem is that you are severely restricting your viewpoint of CSE to a mere programming course. CSE discipline is a much ‘bigger’ and ‘richer’ super-set of Programming + Computer Usage. Programming is more of a skill-based discipline (like communication skill or inter-personal skill) than a strictly academic discipline (and needs a maximum of 2 semester course IMHO). You write programs to express your thoughts. One of main duty of CS engineering program is to teach students what all and how they can translate solutions of practical problems via computer programs. And most solutions of relevant practical problems are expressed via mathematical and physical representation. So I urge you to think outside the peripheral programming viewpoint of Computer Science education. Hopefully, it will make sense then.
See the objectives set out by MIT Computer Science UG program
http://www.eecs.mit.edu/ug/objectives.html
Look at the first bullet and see the inclusion of mathematical tools and basic science in its specs
Now, let’s have a look of syllabus from couple of top universities (MIT and Berkley)
See MIT’s CS departments newly revised UG syllabus (2010 edition)
http://www.eecs.mit.edu/ug/newcurriculum/index.html
http://www.eecs.mit.edu/ug/newcurriculum/SBCS_6-3.html
Berkeley syllabus
http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Programs/Notes/
The fresher programs there also include maths, physics and chemistry and are common across each discipline.
Frankly, CUSAT syllabus, though have its share of mediocrity, is one of the better syllabus among the lot. I personally enjoyed the benefit of learning more maths and other cross discipline stuff when I joined graduate program at IIT. I was more equipped technically in addressing lots of problems than my fellow grad students from non-IIT background. IIT undergrads had to learn much more maths (and could do cross dept) courses. So they obviously had the upper hand.
The proficiency of educators might be a different story. However, I think there is a bit of responsibility an eager student also has to assume. “Cos its in the syllabus” is a common answer, be it directly relevant or not relevant to the subject. I think the expectation to get hand-holded is way too much in our students. That has to change. In IIT and most other universities I have visited, the maths course is taught by the maths faculty and majority of the time the instructor hardly tries to connect with students. In fact, in most foreign universities UG programs are usually an after-thought for a lot of academicians. Putting in perspective is mostly outsourced for the student to do! And a majority of students actually go about doing it.
Setting a syllabus according based on a populist opinion is a really bad idea, especially since students are yet to learn or apply the trade and the chances are that they have a rather incomplete picture of the whole story.
To cut the long story short, I agree that it is high time syllabus needs to be updated, but I highly disagree to changes you propose.
Comment by Appu — December 13, 2008 @ 8:35 am
Did I equate computer science and programming ? I dont think so.
And the logic “since MIT does it, we also should do” is not valid. Give me one reason for me to spend time on boiler technology and nylon fabrication.
I am a big fan of MIT open courseware. Its damn good. But I have not sat in a single class in my entire life thats as worth as those video lectures. We here copy stuff from the western world, but we dont copy properly, we copy and then dilute.
And learning is not a competition, I am not learning cos I want t compete with my IIT friends. I am learning cos I want to know.
Since you also agree of the syllabus change, can I know specifically where all we need a change. ?
Comment by Kenney Jacob — December 13, 2008 @ 8:53 am
> Since you also agree of the syllabus change, can I know specifically where all we need a change. ?
Since the post talks about the first year courses, I am concentrating on them only. I will recommend to run all the courses you mentioned, however with an updated and modern syllabus.
I empathise with your angst@learning boiler technology plight, so Engineering Chemistry is first course that needs to be updated, which needs to address more chemistry rather than ‘chemical engineering’, with a far more emphasis on theoretical and solid state chemistry. Same goes with Physics, with an emphasis on theoretical fundamentals, rather than trade specific skills.
Engineering Drawing, should be amalgamation of (60-75% drawing on paper) and rest via CAD. The rationale is this provides a good model for students to understand how a practical problem solved earlier via pen and paper can be now translated to a computer software. I would personally love to instruct such a course, since it provides ample room for creativity and arose curiosity.
One of the modules of Engineering Mechanics and fundamentals of Engineering will involve a computational aspect to it. May be it is a good opportunity to expose the value of differential equations (which they are learning in Mathematics). You cannot expect a student to code at this point, so I will restrict the treatment to be theoretical (and probably flow-chart based treatment). A long shot will be to use spreadsheets to do some simulation. If I was an educator, I could have given a pep-talk by playing Half-Life with physics engine on, and show how Engineering Mechanics knowledge can be used to produced to cool effects.
I am tempted to throw in Economics instead of Fundamental of Engineering – Part II. After all, a lot of us make a huge deal of dough by pushing electron-coded money around via wire (and now without wires).
I will throw in a bit of number theory and crypt-analysis into syllabus, but that would be well late into the course (probably, around Sem 5)
Comment by Appu — December 13, 2008 @ 9:30 am
> And the logic “since MIT does it, we also should do” is not valid.
Agreed! But all I am saying is it makes a whole lot of sense in adapting a framework to which a lot of thought already has gone on. And we are talking Engineering education (and not social sciences), the former is more objective in nature and scope of standardisation easier; mainly because the skills required for a MIT CS undergraduate or a Kerala, Engineering college based CS undergraduate are more or less homogeneous, as they will be competing in same global market in the future.
Comment by Appu — December 13, 2008 @ 9:36 am
so finally we agree on giving the first year students more “computer time” with CAD and half life. But from where will you find time to do all of this with out removing some unwanted/low priority stuff from the syllabus ?
My suggestion is to keep first year as simple and painless as possible. Remove chemistry fully, remove all the gym like workshops, no need for drawing using a mini drafter. We can move entirely to CAD, cos noone
Introduce different types of computers, operating systems and hardware devices. Internet knowledge is a must. A paper can be about efficient ways of using online tools like search engines. (We cannot assume that everyone has even used a computer before he joins a course)
Comment by Kenney Jacob — December 13, 2008 @ 9:40 am
> And learning is not a competition, I am not learning cos I want t compete with my IIT friends. I am learning cos I want to know.
Not, I never implied that. Only thing I implied I was more up well equipped courtesy the syllabus rather than most others. And I personally had fun learning some of the inter-disciplinary subjects and positively contributed to my personality and outlook.
Comment by Appu — December 13, 2008 @ 9:43 am
No, I would not recommend removing any of the courses, though I will vouch for a module wise updation. Teaching ED purely via CAD strips out all of its value. Anyone can be trained to be used a software. Let me re-iterate, it is not the goal of an Engineering course to teach a student a specific software (or coding for that matter). Going from paper to CAD teaches the student the a top-level view of process of a software is designed to address a real life problem. Teaching CAD only merely teaches them to point and click.
Mini Drafter is a perfect example of making a robotic arm limited to a planar degree of freedom! Physical, tangible inordinate devices, which can guide a students curiosity towards robotics or animation. Without Chemistry, how will you understand the physical nature of the hardware components that we use (microprocessor etching, substrate growing etc) ?
Note, my purposed syllabus also fits into cross-discipline guideline (ie a Mechanical engineering student, can also follow the syllabus) and to a certain extend it is imperative that we introduce CS into their life also, as most of the problems they are solving in future will also be with the aid of computers.
For teaching basic computer usage, I would recommend peer-organised workshops and other ventures and better access to labs and connectivity at all times. Computer usage is best self learned aided by peers rather than formally educated.
Comment by Appu — December 13, 2008 @ 10:08 am
Buddy, there are many things in the world from which a computer engineer can benefit.
Humans evolve, from action to speech, from speech to writing, from writing to typing, and now voice recognition. We shed obsolete skills as we progress. Do you thing its necessary to learn action language today ? Its the same with CAD also.
Comment by Kenney Jacob — December 13, 2008 @ 10:15 am
We still understand action (and communicate through action language often), and gets formally trained in speech and writing (and somewhere if needed picks up typing skills). None of these are obsolete skills!!! To use voice recognition, you had to learn all the previous activities.
Again, you are quick to jump the gun and complete ignore the translation action I am talking about. A computer scientist or engineer is expected to learn a ‘real life problem’ and ‘translate’ into a ‘software’. So there are 3 forms of understanding. Understanding a real life problem (making ED in the case), the concept of using a software, and act of translating a problem into software. Learning CAD merely trains to use ‘a’ particular software which probably will be out of date by the time the students graduate and is really bogus knowledge.
From a learning perspective, to formally understand the concept of projections or the geometry of an ellipse, parallel lines etc I still maintain that paper is the best medium. Once, you get a good grasp of it, you can move onto computers.
Comment by Appu — December 13, 2008 @ 10:29 am
…most subjects taught in 1st is a complete waste,even few useful subjects
we have like Technical communication are rendered useless by incompetent teachers!
Comment by Vishnu — April 16, 2010 @ 8:24 am
i am looking forward for computer engineering as i done have computers in 11th and 12 th class so i want you please sent me necessary details of how to work in 1 st year and the slybus of the computer engineering
Comment by vijay nair — July 21, 2010 @ 11:48 am
Me a CUSATian
Now S3 CS
Instead of teaching all nonsenses, the universities could have included papers like “Embedding Systems”, “php”, “html”, UNIX, AJAX, etc..
Through the stream we are only studying C, CPP, JAVA and LINUX
Wat else???
Comment by Arjun. M — October 16, 2010 @ 11:40 am