Few things give me such mixed feelings as hearing people discourse to laypeople in technobabble, as if It is all magic spells and you must TRUST ME. When done right and done well, it's not a bad thing; with the wrong attitude or intent, you see the wrong results. Either way, there is far too much trust in technology and in those who develop it. I am as guilty as everybody else studying computers: we can hardly resist saying the "magic words" - legit terminology we know they don't understand - and watch delightfully as the audience responds with instant respect. This effect is not good at all. (The other parallel, dumbing-down technology as pop computer science, is not much better, but in this post I will just look at the first case.)
Disclaimer: I honestly believe anyone, with the time and proper instruction, could excel at math and technology.
What I Am Learning (as a computer science major):
No, that really is all there is to it.
This is not to belittle the degree, only to put it under a light and dust off anything that disguises its meaning. It is cool stuff to learn; it continues to leave me awestruck and (just healthily) proud. On the other hand, I find it sad that the terminology often leaves people with the wrong impression. Computers science is more down-to-earth and accessible than its reputation says. I want to see more people studying it - doesn't matter if they're college students or self-taught learners, for income or for personal enrichment.
The truth is, there are technology-savvy people - of varying degrees of skill - with less than benevolent intentions. I don't just mean people who start viruses and steal identites; I mean people who simply use their knowledge wrongly. They can, for example, price their services outrageously high and get away with it, because their customers believe the illusion that those services are actually worth that much. Even with very rudimentary services, you'd be surprised how easily a customer can be legally, openly scammed, without them ever being the wiser. Of course, if this happens on a small scale, it can happen on a large one.
The point here is, simply, public knowledge. Technology is not an equalizing sphere of society. Everyone owns a computer, but what percentage can describe how the internet operates? Technology, in fact, is an area that inherently creates hierarchy and elitism. In the future this may change - for now, this is how it is.
The public needs to educate itself. As if we lived back in ancient times where only the upper class could read...everyone must educate themselves. If you have internet or a public library with internet, you have the means to learn. Any little aspect of computers you understand is a step forward! Take that as your starting point, and find out what the next or related step is. Every piece of knowledge counts. Learn what you can, so you won't have to trust potentially shady characters.
I am being serious. I don't want to see any kind of class system, and yet here we have one on the verge of reality. Or maybe it's already here. We would tolerate the abuse of technology less if we had the capability of protecting ourselves. Should we increase tolerance or capabilities?
Disclaimer: I honestly believe anyone, with the time and proper instruction, could excel at math and technology.
What I Am Learning (as a computer science major):
- Math. My degree requires three months of stats, six months of calculus, and six months of discrete (a hodgepodge of set theory, probability, proofs, graphs, etc.).
- There is really nothing mystical about these classes. Stats is about punching buttons on a calculator. Calculus and discrete are about juggling long lists of rules, staring at pictures, and headdesking.
- You don't have to be smart or intuitive. I still haven't got there and probably never will. You only have to be horribly stubborn and hardheaded, and find some patient teachers/tutors/superheroes.
- For the record, calculus 1 & 2 aren't harder to understand than precalculus 2. They just take a lot more time.
- Programming. They call the different programming methods "languages" for a reason. You literally learn programming like you learn Spanish or German or any other language. Lots of homework and memorization.
- Programming involves math, but overall it is much easier. You get to check your answer as you go, and it's like a puzzle: if a piece fits, you'll know it, and if it doesn't, you'll almost always know that, too.
- Learning to write code is like immersion language-learning. When you start, you just type what you're told to type. You only understand about 1% of what you're doing. Gradually it makes sense. Gradually what you read in the book makes sense.
- Again with the analogy: programming involves grammar-like rules and terminology. (That's where the technospeak comes in.) Just like verb conjugations, programming grammar rules help direct your learning and make it easier and easier to learn more quickly.
- Data Structures, Algorithms, and Hardware.
- Data structures - basically every kind of list you could ever imagine or want. Plus trees and graphs and other linked structures, involving points connected to each other.
- Algorithms - "to do" lists and loops. Sets of instructions. Ways of doing things. Sequences of steps. Not magic. (Confession: next quarter is when I actually take the "algorithms" course, but I have been studying algorithms all along, so the gist of it is here.)
- Hardware - how computers work electronically. Computer science only takes an introductory look at this part.
Hacking- The computer science degree doesn't require you to study security (or breaches of security). That and networks are more the focus for the information technology degree. Computer engineers, by further contrast, learn more about the electronics/hardware of a computer, and less about the programming/software or networks.
- In one lecture, the guest professor demonstrated what must be the mildest form of hacking. It was extremely boring and read-only.
No, that really is all there is to it.
This is not to belittle the degree, only to put it under a light and dust off anything that disguises its meaning. It is cool stuff to learn; it continues to leave me awestruck and (just healthily) proud. On the other hand, I find it sad that the terminology often leaves people with the wrong impression. Computers science is more down-to-earth and accessible than its reputation says. I want to see more people studying it - doesn't matter if they're college students or self-taught learners, for income or for personal enrichment.
The truth is, there are technology-savvy people - of varying degrees of skill - with less than benevolent intentions. I don't just mean people who start viruses and steal identites; I mean people who simply use their knowledge wrongly. They can, for example, price their services outrageously high and get away with it, because their customers believe the illusion that those services are actually worth that much. Even with very rudimentary services, you'd be surprised how easily a customer can be legally, openly scammed, without them ever being the wiser. Of course, if this happens on a small scale, it can happen on a large one.
The point here is, simply, public knowledge. Technology is not an equalizing sphere of society. Everyone owns a computer, but what percentage can describe how the internet operates? Technology, in fact, is an area that inherently creates hierarchy and elitism. In the future this may change - for now, this is how it is.
The public needs to educate itself. As if we lived back in ancient times where only the upper class could read...everyone must educate themselves. If you have internet or a public library with internet, you have the means to learn. Any little aspect of computers you understand is a step forward! Take that as your starting point, and find out what the next or related step is. Every piece of knowledge counts. Learn what you can, so you won't have to trust potentially shady characters.
I am being serious. I don't want to see any kind of class system, and yet here we have one on the verge of reality. Or maybe it's already here. We would tolerate the abuse of technology less if we had the capability of protecting ourselves. Should we increase tolerance or capabilities?
