Showing posts with label science education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science education. Show all posts

Thursday, July 25, 2013

Quality of Computer Science Higher-Education, Part 1

A recent discussion about H1-B quotas and tech workers on Hacker News brought up a very interesting question for me. The observation is that US companies are finding it hard to staff programming positions. Some comments suggested that higher-education is producing a lot of unqualified graduates. There was also a claim that the quality of CS education has declined substantially. Having been on three sides alluded to in this discourse, doing the hiring, teaching, and job-seeking, I thought it would be interesting to see what data we have and what we can glean from the said data.

Aside: I like to collect some data on the whole fizzbuzz phenomenon (i.e., the majority of job applicants not being able to program fizzbuzz). If you like to contribute your perspective and see the aggregate results of where the skills gap is, please consider taking my survey.

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

The Scientific Method and Epistemology

photo by widdowquinn via PhotoRee

Listening to a past Intelligence Squared discussion on whether "Science will have all the answers", or as interpreted by one of the panelist "science is the only route to knowledge." This question lies in the purview of epistemology, the study of the nature of knowledge and the limits of that knowledge. Curiously enough, all this question is ultimately wrapped up in mathematical logic. Taking a step back, consider for a moment when you were first introduced to the scientific method. Hypothesize, predict, and test. It sounds all nice and intuitively rigorous, but where does it come from? Why does it supposed to intrinsically make sense? It turns out that there is nothing really fundamental about this formulation of investigation. My sense of the matter is that people still treat science very superstitiously as if it were some kind of magic or dogma. From grade school on, we were taught the one true answer as to how the natural world works. We revere Galileo and Darwin, and their respective scientific discoveries as if they received the discoveries from the heavens and did not require experimentation, hotly debated peer review, and eventual validation by other work. Moreover, we were taught at least implicitly that these great scientists were never wrong. Their theories never had to be revised or be subject to independent validation. Moreover, it seems as if we think that their theories are and were always the only reasonable answer. There is a kind of survivor's bias in science education. We laugh off Lamarck and others as being so obviously wrong and even as absurd forgetting that they were real scientists too despite not having directly produced the prevailing theory of our time. In fact, I dare say that it would be difficult to say what our understanding of the world would look like today if not for these other scientists upon whose work still contributed to the development of our current understanding of the world. Even the scientific method itself is treated as received knowledge and not as an amalgam of multiple reasonable routes of scientific investigation. Science itself is presented as a winner-takes-all activity.