[KLUG Advocacy] Re: Let's get this CS v. CIS v. moron v. other party started -- missing my points ...

[Bryan J. Smith]

Quoting "Robert G. Brown" <bob@acm.org>:
> I'm not really interested in polemics one how useless "the system" is.
> There are some specific reasons for this,

Asimov's "Foundation[s] [Trilogy]" comes to mind.

If we forget the theory, it won't be long before no one knows who to build anything.

E.g., if Microsoft/Novell "engineers" can do anything, why don't they design
network ASICs?  Because if they don't, who will make the equipment?

[ NOTE:  I expand on the "whys" below in my "engineer v. technologist v.
technician" discussion ]

> but in any case my original stamtent was directed as someone who is,
> IMO, part of a solution to that, a doer, not a talker.

Agreed.  CIS is a terminology lesson in technology, at least CS is a
project-based ciriculum.

Now versus EE/ECE/CSE**, it gets interesting.  Although CS is going to be more
"in-depth" than EE/ECE/CSE**, the latter is one of those serious
project-oriented programs that throws you into a room and "get this to work ...
don't know how to start?  find out!"

[ **NOTE:  These are the ABET designations.  EE is, obviously, electrical
engineering.  ECE is electrical and computer engineering -- i.e. electrical
engineering base with digital/math/programming.  CSE is just an engineering base
with digital/programming atop (no real electrical/analog other than the "core"
all engineers take. ]

The reason is simple, with CS**, you've got 60 [semmester] hours dedicated to
just CS, beyond your 60 "academics."  So they can teach you a lot.

With engineering, you've got 60-75 hours of "core" courses, in addition to the
"academics" (although they are reduced to only about 18-24), before you get to
your 30-45 hour "option."  And if you are EE/ECE, you're going to get a lot of
electrical/analog/materials in those courses.  So with EE, you'll get only about
12-15 hours of digital/prog, ECE has about 18-24 and CSE** more on the order of
24-30.

At least that is how it works at UCF.  In the '90s, ABET ECE = UCF EE, but
before the '90s, ABET CSE = UCF CpE.  Not sure about CS now, since UCF has
recently moved CS to the engineering college from the arts & sciences one.  It
may now be the new CSE, but it could still just be CS with some engineering
option overlap.

I like the engineering approach, because it _forces_ you to get "real world"
technical knowledge on your own.  Of course, you'll probably still pass without
it, with maybe a C.  But it's the #1 why I got straight A's (or high B's) in my
system design and analysis courses.

> I really, really hope you are saying this in the very limited context
> of expertise in a particular discipline, and not as a broader
> statement about education in general.

>From a 100% _technical_ standpoint, it holds true.
>From a 100% "knowledge" standpoint, it is not so true.

Which brings me to the whole use of the term "engineer."  I don't mind when
someone calls themselves and engineer -- heck, use it as "short" for "engineer
technologist" or even "[engineering] technician" -- let alone "sales engineer,"
etc... in _internal_ titles and designations.  But I _do_ have a problem when
someone uses it in a _public_, professional consulting capacity, because
referring your "practice" as an "engineer" is a reserved word in many states and
countries for damn good reasons.

The term "Professional Engineer" is a reserved word just about everywhere.  It
signifies a "license" that is equivalent to the same education+experience as a
doctor and lawyer -- from a _legal_ perspective too.  You _can_ sue for
malpractice, have an engineers license revoked _and_ have the _government_ put
him in jail for "negligence" and/or "criminal intent."  Besides, the government
is getting sick of both "fly-by-night" programmers that hold up major, public
works as well as the flood of calls to state BoPE (board of professional
engineer) from people who are complaining about MCSEs/CNEs and don't understand
why the government can't revoke their engineering certification.

You see, before the 18th century, engineering wasa actually a PhD track, with an
unimportant undergraduate track, and only a 1-2 year "intership."  It was the
British that realized that engineers need 4-5 years of "real world" experience.
 So they condensed the post-graduate into an non-generic, 4.5-5 year
undergraduate program**.

[ **NOTE:  Hence why it is very difficult to switch to an engineering major
_after_ you have started a couple of "academic" years in college when you were
looking at another major -- because the physics, statistics, mechanics, etc...
are _all_ calculus based, unlike most of the "minimum academics" colleges
require in your first 60 hours.  And it also leaves little room for electives
(so those go wasted as well). ]

As such, a "licensed" engineer _still_ has the equivalent years of education
_and_ experience, a decade, of a "licensed" doctor or lawyer.

Engineers are _not_ practical from an "educational" standpoint, but they _are_
knowledgeable.  That knowledge only becomes "pratical" with experience.  Again,
the British realized this, and forced a PE to have at least 4 years experience
before they could become licensed.  Although the educational requirements have
varied, and many states/countries do allow you to obtain a PE license without a
degree (usually after ~15 years experience though), the focus is the same.

With that all said, understand you do _not_ normally need an engineer to install
network cabling.  I _hate_ it when the Novell/Microsoft guys say, "you build
bridges, we build networks."  They do _not_ build networks!

First off, a bridge builder has serious ethical and liability implications if
they do _not_ practice the trade with the utmost concern for public safety.

Secondly, they are _not_ equivalent.  The IT equivalent in the "bridge building"
world is the _construction_worker_!  They _install_ the bridge.  Some
"[engineering] technologists," like "land surveyors" oversee the proper
construction of that bridge.  But the engineer _designs_ the bridge.

Lastly, here's the "IT world" example:  An engineer "designs" a network ASIC,
PCB, and network equipment, the [engineering] technologist understands the
technology and can even make post-design modifications or retrofits, as well as
optimal use of the technology.  Which means the technologist oversees the
installation and maintenance of the equipment by technicians.

KEY POINT -- SIMPLE NUMBERS:

   1 engineer : 10 technogists : 100 technicians

You only need about 1 engineer designing a network ASIC and networking products
for about every 10 technologists who modify, retrofit and oversee the
installation of them by about every 100 technicians.

So, at the _most_, a MSCE or CNE is an "engineering techologist."  I don't mind
them saying "engineer" for short, but it _must_ read "engineering
techology/technologist" in the _official_ term/cert/etc...  ITT Industries,
DeVry and other technical colleges, and even branches of traditional colleges,
also have BSEET, BSCET, etc... -- note the "T".  They say "electrical engineer"
for short, but it's still _engineering_technology_.

Engineering technology is actually very _intense_ technical training approach. 
You only give minimal theory.  E.g., why teach the physics of "magnetic flux"
when V=IR will do for most everything?  Then they can focus on delivering 10x
the technical training in 4 years.  Technologists are very overlooked, and they
maximize the potential of basic theory with practicality.

[ **NOTE:  The same thing can be said about math/physics v. engineering at the
"traditionally educated" level.  E.g., engineering mechansics is just the
application of specific physics that is relevant to engineering.  Same deal when
you go down the electrical paths -- focus on practical transforms like Laplace
and Fourier, as well as numerical methods and analysis in algorithms and
computer.   Same deal in the ratio game too:  1 math/physicist : 10 engineers :
100 technologists : 1000 technicians.  What do math/physicists do?  They come up
with the new materials, new algoritms, etc..., and the engineers apply them to
actual product designs. ]

You don't need to have a formal education to be a technologist, they just
package it into a condensed, intense training at technical schools/programs. 
And given enough experience, like a decade or two, you will eventually come to
the realization of basic engineering principles (although calculus really,
really makes things much easier to understand -- long story).  

But I would argue a traditionally educated engineer has a much easier time being
a technologist or technician, _assuming_ he has the equivalent experience, than
going the other way around.

REAL WORLD EXAMPLE:  

I mean, I get dumb stares from technicians when I try to talk about
transconductance, timing closure and other specifics at the semiconductor (or
even just digital logic in some cases) level when I try to explain why heat and
voltage aren't the only issues when it comes to overclocking.

Same deal when I start talking about how AMD actually designs much better chips
than Intel, and the only difference is the marketshare.  Heck, it's almost the
same argument of Linux versus Windows, but because most people can grasp
"programming" concepts more than "semiconductor" design (and I'm not just
talking "digital logic"** but the actual _material_ level -- because, _tada_
computer chips are still _analog_** people! ;-).

[ **NOTE:  This is the #1 reason why I have a ECE degree.  CS/CSE majors only
get "digital logic."  It goes far deeper than that, and "digital logic" (nor
even just NAND transistor logic) is _not_ how something looks in layout (let
alone junctures), etc...  The world is still very much analog.

> On the narrow ground, I would, in general, agree with you, except to say
> that there are important exceptions and precedents being set. More broadly,
> I sense that you're simply out of your depth, regarding education as a whole.

Actually no.  I got an engineering degree because I wanted to know _how_ the
universe works on many, mechanical, physical and invisible levels.  I also
paired that engineering degree with a 30+ hour/week job while in college.

The result is that I am very "arrogant" about being "well rounded."  I have the
theory that helps me understand things _and_ I constantly keep my self
"up-to-date" of the latest changes in technology.

A traditional education makes you knowledgeable for life, no matter what
technology changes are made.  A continuing technical education keeps you
current, so you have apply 

> Frankly, Bryan, I don't care if you hold the Stanley Cup and the
> Brooklyn Bridge. 

You missed my point.  I was saying I don't hold my degree up high like I know
more than anyone else, and I don't expect anyone else to think otherwise.

No more than a laywer from a lesser known college thinks anymore of a lawyer
from Harvard or Yale.  ;-p

It's the person's knowledge and how they wield it that matters.

-- 
Bryan J. Smith, E.I. (BSECE)       Contact Info:  http://thebs.org
[ http://thebs.org/files/resume/BryanJonSmith_certifications.pdf ]
------------------------------------------------------------------
* A lecture on software piracy from Bill Gates is like a lecture *
* on adultry from the owner of a brothel of other people's wives *