AM.I

Computer Science Udo W. Pooch RahulChattergyTexas A & M University University of Hawaii

Richard H. Austing Michael C. MulderUniversity of Maryland Bonneville Power

nineerin |__-Administration

Education in the 80'sThe computer's pervasiveness in the 1980's will demand even moreprofessional talent, broader computer education, and perhaps evenlicensing of the computer professional. Industry, education, andprofessional groups must cooperate to meet these challenges.

This paper offers an opinion as to what can be ex-pected in computer science and computer engineer-ing education in the 1980's. We initially examine thecurrent status of undergraduate, graduate, and con-tinuing education curricula development and treatinternational curricula development and accredita-tion efforts as auxiliary issues. Next, we discuss theneed, supply, and demand for new graduates andthose who continue their professional education,and follow with an assessment of the need for fur-ther cooperation between universities and industry.We also examine the effect of international coopera-tion and the impact of the registration and licensingissues. With these factors firmly in mind, we offer aprofile of a computer science and computer engi-neering graduate in the 1980's, as well as a prog-nosis of the future, outlining the challenges thatboth academia and industry will face.

Overview of curricula development

The past few years have witnessed an acceleratingpace of curricula development in the realm of com-puter science and computer engineering education.Professional societies, those in universities, andthose in industry have been developing model cur-ricula that mesh computer science and computerengineering, but only with much difficulty andsometimes heated debate. There is considerable con-cern among educators, individuals involved with thecomputer industry, and students that much must bedone to provide cohesive programs in computerThis article represents a consensus of the authors' views, butdoes not necessarily reflect their individual opinions or those ofthe organizations they represent.

science and computer engineering programs at col-leges and universities, and junior and communitycolleges. In far too many situations, the student isplaced in a position of having to choose between acomputer science or computer engineenng cur-riculum, rather than being able to choose a com-puter science and computer engineenng curriculum.The unfortunate result is that a student ventures in-to industry rn-prepared for the challenges that hewill meet.Computer science, as the term is used in this

paper, includes those areas of study addressed inthe curricula reports of ACM's Curriculum Commit-tee on Computer Science,1'7 and of the IEEE Com-puter Society Education Committe's Model Cur-ricula Subcommittee.21 It is not intended to encom-pass predominately business or managementoriented areas, such as information systems or infor-mation systems management.

Areas for curriula improvement. Based on therecommendations in the ACM and IEEE ComputerSociety reports and as corroborated by actualdevelopments in existing departments, it seemsreasonable to project trends in computer sciencecurricula (Table 1). The first two years of a BSdegree program will contain a more rigorous anddisciplined approach to programming, putting thefield more firmly on a scientific base. Research inabstraction, correctness, and verification will pro-vide results which can be incorporated into lower-level instruction in programming, but which will ap-pear in a rigorous fashion in courses at the junior-senior levels. This, in turn, will make the approachto languages at those levels more well-defined andorganzed than it now appears to be.

0018-9162178/0900-0069$00.75 © 1978 IEEESeptember 1978 69

Table 1. Areas for curricula Improvementand enhancement.

Distributed systems, communication systems, and networksModular system design conceptsSoftware engineering conceptsComputer-aided design tools and aidsTools/techniques for problem solvingApplication concepts (e.g., case studies, sizing andperformance evaluation concepts)Availability, reliability, and maintainability (ARM) conceptsSystem life cycle conceptsManagement conceptsCommunication skills and concepts

These subjects represent areas for continuing computerscience and computer engineering curricula Improve-ment and enhancement, and summarize the recommen-dations of the ACM Curriculum Committee on ComputerScience and the IEEE Computer Society Education Com-mittee's Model Curricula Subcommittee.

The systems area, however, will not become assettled. The impact of mini and microcomputers andmicroprocessors on curricula has only begun to befelt. Both curricula reports recommended specificcourses, but implementations of these recommenda-tions will vary considerably. Logic and designcourses will be introduced earlier in many curriculaand extensive use of laboratories will be attempted.The implementation of such courses andlaboratories may be severely impeded by the unwill-ingness of institutions and states to allocate thenecessary resources. The need for departmentallycontrolled equipment laboratories will also growbecause many more students at lower levels willhave already had exposure to minis and micros.Again, funding for the laboratories may not begiven. The solution to the funding problem isunclear since it is dependent on so many politicaland economic variables. Also unclear is the natureof the changes such laboratory oriented lower-levelcourses will impose on junior-senior level systemscourses.In addition to appropriate equipment in sufficient

amounts, changes in lower-level course content will-require different teaching methods and in somecases retraining of faculty members. Traditionally,changes in faculty teaching techniques do not comeeasily. In spite of the availability of a wide-range ofinstructional aids, including classroom computersand terminals, the vast majority of computerscience and computer engineering faculty sharewith faculty in other disciplines the same traditionalmethods-chalkboards, handouts, textbooks, andlectures.

Need for study of applications. The problems con-nected with instilling more organization, science,and engineering into the field may be minor com-pared to the problems of integrating applications in-to curricula. There are already significant entreatiesfrom other disciplines which rely on various applica-

tions to make computer science courses more ap-propriate for their students. Industry also continuesto ask for graduates with more relevant training.Some departments offer a kind of practicum or

topics course which enables students to address aproblem from another discipline or one in an in-dustrial setting. But any department which tries tomeet application needs solely by offering suchcourses, while keeping most of the other courses inthe curriculum relatively theoretical, will only bepaying lip service to the problem. The applicationsof computers must somehow be integrated into cur-ricula, but many computer science departments willhave problems doing so in the 1980's. Electricalengineering departments which house a computerscience currculum, however, will not be as affectedby this problem.

Training elementary and secondary teachers. Anarea of curriculum development which will be impor-tant in the 1980's relates to teacher training.Assuming that current trends will continue, com-puting will be taught in almost all secondaryschools and in some, if not a majority, of elementaryschools. The material presented will include bothprogramming and study of the social impact of com-puting. The need for teacher training programs, orcomputer science education, will grow rapidly.There are a few programs in existence now (e.g., atthe University of Illinois, Illinois Institute ofTechnology, and University of Oregon). Also, somematerials have been prepared at the internationallevel by the IFIP Technical Committee for Educa-tion's Working Group on Secondary School Educa-tion, WG 3.1, chaired by Wm. F. Atchison.22However, there are just not enough programs ormaterials to meet the growing need.The development ofprograms in computer science

education, both to train new teachers and to retrainexperienced ones, will require the combined effortsof faculty in education and in computer science.Many departments will not have sufficient staff togive to these efforts. The alternative, namely havingelementary and secondary teachers from otherdisciplines pick up information about computers asbest they can and then teach it, can create moreproblems than solutions. Although we could saythat adequate training in subject specialties is aproblem of education in general rather than of com-puter science, computer scientists should never-theless be deeply involved in curricula developmentin these areas.

Curricula development in computer scienceand computer engineering

Significant curricula development work began inthe early 1960's. Prior to that time the major sourceof computer education and training was the com-puter manufacturer. To fill a widening gap betweenthe demand for and the availability of computer per-sonneL a large number of private computer schools

COMPUTER70

were established in the 1950's. With encouragementfrom industry and guidance from the professionalsocieties, computer education developed in institu-tions of higher education in the 1960's.At the 1963 ACM annual conference a panel ses-

sion was held dealing with education in computerscience and computer engineering. The results ofthis panel were reported in the April 1964 issue ofthe Communications of the ACM. This work in turnled to the preliminary recommendations for anundergraduate program in computer science, madeby C8S-the ACM Curriculum Committee on Com-puter Science, and published by that group in1965.18 With the support of a grant from the Na-tional Science Foundation this work was expandedinto a more comprehensive set of recommendationsknown as "Curriculum '68."'About the same time, but independently, the

Cosine Committee of the Commission on Engineer-ing Education prepared guidelines for computerscience in electrical engineering'2 which recommend-ed an undergraduate course program. Themathematics community also indicated an interestin computing curricula development by publishingthe Recommendations on the UndergraduateMathematics Program for Work in Computing in1964," which represented work by CUPM-theCommittee on the Undergraduate Program inMathematics.The roughly simultaneous publication of the

Cosine Committee recommendations and "Cur-riculum '68" established computer science andengineering education as an area of study andresearch. Numerous papers and reports, both by in-dividuals and by working groups of the professionalsocieties, have been prepared and published since1968.8 This work has included additional reports bythe Cosine Committee, interim reports of activitiesof CIS, an -additional series of recommendations byCUPM, and development of guidelines in the area ofinformation systems by C'EM-the ACM Cur-riculum Committee on Computer Education forManagement. Formal and informal special interestgroups dealing with questions of computer scienceand engineering education have also been formedand have provided a continuing forum for discus-sion. Discussion of the history trends of computerscience and engineering education is presented byRamamoorthy.2

Undergraduate curricula development. The mostrecent work done in the area of curricula develop-ment was published in final form in November 1976by the IEEE Computer Society2l and in preliminaryform by the ACM in June 1977. The essence of thecurricula were published in Computer in December1977,28 with a fine comparison of the two recom-mended curricula written by Engel.'6 The three fun-damental block organizations are reproduced forcomparison in Figures 1, 2, and 3. Twelve institu-tions are known to be currently using the curricularecommendations, with many more analyzing themat this time. Constructive criticism of the reports

September 1978

CORE COURSES:cs-i

COMPUTERPROGRAMMING-1

CS-2COMPUTER

PROGRAMMING-2

I

CS-3 CS-4 GS-5+ASSEMBLY LANGUAGE INTROUCTION TO INTRODUCTION TO ELEMENTARY

PROGRAMM ING COMPTRGAZTO FILE PROCESSING LEVEL

_ __ oz ~~~~~~~~~~~~ADVANCED

CS-6 CS-7 Ci-8OPERATING SYSTEMS DATA STRUCTURES ORGANIZATION OFAND COMPUTER AND PROGRAMMINGARCHITECTURE-1 ALGORITHMS ANALYSIS LANGUAGES

ELECTIVE COURSES:CS-9 OPERATING SYSTEMS AND COMPUTER ARCHITECTURAL-Il CS-15 THEORY OF PROGRAMMING LANGUAGESCS-lU COMPUTERS AND SOCIETY CS-16 COMPILER WRITING LABORATORYCS-11 ADVANCED SYSTEMS PROGRAMMING CS-17 AUTOMATA, COMPUTABILITY, AND FORMAL LANGUAGESCS-12 MINICOMPUTER LABORATORY CS-18 NUMERICAL MATHEMATICS: ANALYSISCS-13 DATA BASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DESIGN CS-19 NUMERICAL MATHEMATICS: LINEAR ALGEBRACS-14 ANALYSIS OF ALGORITHMS

Figure 1. Block diagram shows ACM computer science under-graduate curriculum recommendations made in 1977 by C3S-theACM Curriculum Committee on Computer Science."

has dealt with areas of omission, but has notdisagreed with the content of the reports' recom-mendations. Feedback indicates that prerequisitesand corequisites should be more completely defined,and that business information systems, data pro-cessing, health information systems, and otherrelated areas should be included in the computerscience and engineering field. Another importantsuggestion calls for the recommendation of coursesfor "tracks," i.e., specialized programs of study,such as in software engineering. The professionalsocieties are developing such "tracks."The undergraduate curricula is generally accept-

able, insofar as industry, academia, and governmenthave worked through professional societies togenerate recommendations and guidelines that areworkable.The potential effects of several of the above prob-

lems become significant when considered by com-munity colleges which offer or plan to offer two-yearcomputer science programs. Currently the majorityof community colleges offer programs which focusmainly on areas of business oriented computing(e.g., data entry, data processing, operations,business applications programming). Computerscience curricula do exist, but mainly as transferrather than as terminal programs. Their content istherefore influenced by the four-year institutions towhich the community colleges' students normallytransfer, hence the influence of the undergraduaterecommendations on the community college pro-grams.Most of the faculty in community colleges are not

prepared to offer a computer science program. Theircomputer backgrounds often derive from businessand industry experience, where many of those whoare part time are also employed. This situation isunlikely to change substantially by the middie

71

COMPUTER ORGANIZATIONDIGITAL LOGIC AND ARCHITECTURE SOFTWARE ENGINEERING THEORY OF COMPUTING

INTRODUCTORY

SE-3~~~~~~T-

K~~~~~~~~~~~- DITA L 'KMCRO/DITEUTED TASAOA1(UOAANArO

SRUCTURES -VICU S

0101~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~T-

GIGT - C INTERMEDIATELOGIC~~~~~~~~ ARCHITECTURE -

DEVICE --. SYSTE ND ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~DATARUSE

DL-4 0O-4 COCU 3R T SE-

DESG CRORAMMING LN CMPTRcoTN

Figure 2. Computer science and engineering curricula flow diagram PREREQUISITES Asummarizes the recommendations published in January 1977 by the CONCURRENT LABORATORIES ADVANCED

IEEE Computer Society Education Committee, Model Curriculum 14 CORE CURRICULUMSubcommittee."

DL1 /-IXa X SE-1 1980's. However, there will be a large number ofIRIILIIP0RMNgraduate computer science majors in the work forceIDl6lTALLOPOIN LA who have master's degrees. Some of these graduates

will be interested in teaching and may be qualifiedto do so in community colleges. Hiring such person-L/A INTRODUCTION t t y SE 2 nel will add a useful diiiiension to at least some pro-

/ \ ~~COMPUTER /\

ORGANICEZATIO-N| lM INICOMPUTER ) , OATA grams, will strengthen transfer programs, and mayLOT LABORATORY 2 DL-2 o5 v I Ihelp alleviate the problem of growing enrollments inlower-level computer science courses in four-yearprograms. In addition, such personnel could be

DL-4, DL-3 z ,3 helpful in recommending computer equipment and

XiG TALSE S in utilizing mini- and microcomputers in courses.

SPROCESSOR GPROOAMNGIN It is doubtful that community colleges will incor-r-DL-4 )LABORATORYiJ porate full-blown computer science programs into

their curricula for purposes other than transfer. Thejob market trend is clearly in the direction of hiringgraduates with no less than a bachelor's degree.

CO-3 < SEG 6However, Hamblen's survey'$ indicates that thereare approximately ten job possibilities for everybachelor's degree graduate in computing, so there is

-T SE-7 at least a possibility that two-year graduates canOPERA ING find employment, probably as entry-level program-

CO-4 SY\STEMS 11 mers, in such a job market.MICPO- l SYSTEMS

|PROGRAMMING R-ESIGN l TRANSE a Graduate curricula development. Development of

WRITING graduate curricula has not evolved at the same rateas work in the undergraduate area. Both the IEEE

Figure 3. Diagram Illustrates the sequence of laboratories for the Computer Society and the ACM are actively work-IEEE Computer Society's curriculum.)1 ing on graduate curricula but are one to two years

72 COMPUTER,

away from recommendations and guidelines. Todate the development of graduate curricula has beena function of the individual university, and in factdepends on the interests of the graduate staffmembers available at a given institution. Hence,various institutions have become known for grad-uate education in specialty areas.The development of graduate curricula should

also involve industry. University-industry coopera-tion could create a graduate-level environmentcharacterized by mutually beneficial interaction be-tween graduate education and research and localindustry.

Continuing education curricula development. Themost challenging area of curricula developmentwork involves those courses and programs common-ly grouped under the term "continuing education."The term refers loosely to instruction aimed at theprofessional, i.e., someone with a basic degree who isnot seeking an advanced one, who desires a "nononsense" level of instruction and wants informa-tion which he can immediately use on his job. Theemployer may even be the driving force behind theindividual's involvement. It is clear that this type ofcurricula development is very dependent on theneed of local industry, and probably incorporates"hands on" instruction with theoretical considera-tions kept at a minimal essential level. The alreadylarge market for this type of education will continueto grow rapidly due to the professional need to keepup with -new technology such as the micro-processors. Again, the professional societies are at-tempting to develop curricula recommendations andguidelines for continuing professional education.The IEEE Computer Society's committee includesa large number of industrial people who have ex-perience with continuing education. Even more ac-tivity in this area is needed, not only due to therapid growth of technology and the desire of pro-fessionals to grow educationally, but also because ofthe expressed desire of industry, which has up tonow assumed most of the responsibility for continu-ing education, to share the load with academia. Theneed is especially pressing because normal channelsof information transfer-e.g., texts, journals, struc-tured courses, etc.-are too slow to keep up with cur-rent technology.The structured education of a computer profes-

sional has traditionally ended with his undergradu-ate training in a university. For the major part of hisproductive life he is expected to continue to learn"by osmosis" from his peer group. The computer in-dustry's rapid pace of technological developmentmakes this learning process inadequate. Generallyaccepted estimates state that the availableknowledge in most areas of computing science andrelated technologies doubles approxiimately every5-8 years. Continuing education can clearly assist acomputer professional in acquiring this newknowledge in a rapid and systematic manner.However, this potential is not achieved by the con-ventional forms of continuing education offered by

universities and industry, which are too fragmentedand limited in scope.A step-by-step procedure for the development of

continuing education programs has been developedby Chattergy and Pooch.10'11 Continuing educationcurricula guidelines and recommendations are ex-pected to be available within two years from the pro-fessional societies.

The practicing professional wants "nononsense" instruction-information of

immediate relevance to his job.

Closely allied to continuing education programs isthe matter of self-assessment. Many computer pro-fessionals will want to know whether or not they arekeeping up in their areas of specialty. Self-assessment is one attempt to provide a means fordoing so. The ACM Committee on Self-Assessment,chaired by Terry Frederick, has published three self-assessment procedures-one dealing with program-ming skills and techniques,2 another with systemorganization and control, and information represen-tation, handling, and manipulation,3 and anotherwith internal sorting.4 Additional procedures are inpreparation. The reaction has been favorableenough to suggest that self-assessment procedureswill be used extensively after further developmentwork. In addition to providing individuals with ameans for estimating their knowledge in specificareas, the existing procedures also provide pointersto references for further study, hence their continu-ing education component. Self-assessment pro-cedures should evolve into effective instruments forboth self-evaluation and continuing education, help-ing fulfill the professional needs of the 1980's.

Universities and colleges should give greaterrecognition to continuing education as a distinctsectioxn of the spectrum of education, and provide in-creased leadership in the planning and offering ofcontinuing studies. Universities and colleges shouldalso cooperate to a more significant extent with in-dustry, government, and professional societies insuch programs, in order to achieve the most benefitfor the student and the best utilization of peopleresources. These programs might be regarded as co-op or internship programs in reverse.Some rather specific conclusions about continuing

education seem to be unavoidable:24

Most professionals are not interested in continu-ing education as now defined; they are simplyinterested in learning how to do their current jobbetter. They will respond to skill training ratherthan to formal education, and they will demand animmediate pay off in terms of recognition,responsibility, or salary.

The long-range development of continuing educa-cation is closely tied to the overall attitude ofmanagement to its professional staff membersand their needs.

September 1978 73

Continuing education can only be effective if alllevels of a company (industry) give it activesupport.Universities and colleges will probably play only arelatively minor role in the future growth of con-tinuing education (technical) courses, untilindustry insists that they develop courses andprograms. The professional societies can provide amediating service between academia and in-dustry.The need for specific technical courses should beestablished by surveying individual professionals,as well as by noting the interest of managementand the trends of technologies. Advisory commit-tees composed of members from academia, in-dustry, and government should be helpful in thelong-range estimation of technologies, trends, anddevelopments, and their impact on the needs forvarious technical courses.The motivation for and rewards of continuingeducation should include (1) formal recognition byemployers via enhanced responsibilities, financialrewards, and/or job reclassification, (2) certifica-tion and/or accreditation of individuals for comple-tion of continued education courses or programs,and (3) recognition of continuing education byemployers as a valid element in personal profes-sional development.

Curricula accreditation. The issue of computerscience and engineering curricula accreditation con-tinues to be important. It is clear that establishedand maturing programs in computer science andengineering look to accreditation as a valuable if notnecessary step toward recognized competency.Thus far the IEEE Computer Society, as a consti-tuent member of ECPD-the Engineer's Council forProfessional Development, has worked in two im-portant ways with that organization. First, theComputer Society has cooperated in the develop-ment of the ECPD accreditation guidelines for com-puter science and engineering programs,29 by whichall programs seeking accreditation are nowevaluated. Second, the Computer Society has pro-vided lists of computer professionals who haveserved and will continue to serve on accreditationteams. It is clear that ECPD accreditation willbecome increasingly desirable, if not absolutelynecessary, to institutions offering computer scienceand engineering programs. This will be true becauseof the desire of students to attend institutionswhich have been judged to have acceptable com-puter science and engineering programs, andbecause of industry's demand for graduates of ac-credited universities. The computer science andengineering accreditation guidelines should bereviewed yearly and updated as needed. The reviewshould be conducted by both industry and the pro-fessional societies.

Effects of changing technologies. Continuing in-novations in computer technology, and the continu-

ing expansion of the role of computing in society,will greatly affect computer science and computerengineering education in the next decade.

Impact of microsystems. The proliferation ofmicrocomputer systems will have an enormous im-pact on computer science and computer engineeringeducation. For example, it is now possible to pur-chase an "off-the-shelf" computer kit for $5955-andthis price will continue to decrease. Various univer-sities are just beginning to set up mini- andmicrocomputer courses and to acquire mini- andmicrocomputer systems, although articles discuss-ing the use of such systems in computer educationhave already appeared in the literature.11, 7 Havingworked with large systems for many years (bothbatch and time-sharing), we now find ourselves fac-ed with the different challenges and opportunitiesoffered by small systems, i.e., the inherent restric-tions of small systems and yet their accessibilityand availability for student "hands-on" experience.This evolution in technology raises a number of

questions for educators. How can we best (re)struc-ture our curricula to take advantage of suchsystems? How should a mini-micro laboratory beorganized for teaching and research? What shouldbe the mix of time spent on standard course workand time spent on development efforts? How can webest retrain ourselves in order to take advantage ofthese systems?Though educators have tried to adapt to this far-

reaching change in technology, only recently havearticles appeared describing the integration of theuse of microsystems into computer science cur-ricula.'9'36 Although each paper covers differenttopics in varying degrees of depth, almost all of theauthors agree that a micro-lab facility can providestudents with exposure to concepts and problemssuch as actual hardware, computer operation,operating systems, backup procedures, programsize problems, inter-computer communications,scheduling, maintenance, and computer manage-ment. These are the kinds of problems students willencounter after graduation. A mini-micro laboratorycan offer students actual experience, previouslyunavailable, in dealing with such problems.26In addition to general discussions concerning the

establishment of such labs, papers are now appear-ing which cover specific courses designed to usesuch facilities.923 Although a few caveats are ex-pressed, most of the comments are phrased as"good news." However, some of the authors cautionreaders about the problems involved in simplyoperating a laboratory'7 as well as in maintainingthe system and keeping the faculty involved.Although many people correctly assumed that theremight be a lack of good software for the newmicrosystems, they did not necessarily foresee thatthere might also be more problems with the hard-ware than initially anticipated. Furthermore, the ex-perience of several groups shows that with a varietyof operating systems and software packages in use,a considerable degree of software support is re-

COMPUTER74

Udo Pooch,Richard Austing, and Mike Mulder (left to right) considered computer science and engineering education issues.

quired simply to perform routine maintenance. Ifthere are not adequate provisions for support staff,the responsibility for maintenance falls on facultymembers who generally don't have enough time todo the necessary troubleshooting. However, the ex-perience of most groups indicates that the problemsdo not cancel out the advantages to be gained in us-ing mini-micro laboratories.Other questions can be raised as to how the evolu-

tion of these microsystems specifically affects peo-ple concerned with computer education. Some of themost important points are:Many more students finishing high school willhave had some course work and experience using acomputer.More departments in colleges and universities willrequire their students to take (additional) com-puter courses.More people in the community who return to theuniversity will want to take computer courses.Graduates of degree programs wil be returningto universities to learn about recent computerdevelopments.

Tracking. The first point above indicates thatmany introductory computer courses might needrevamping, since students will finish high schoolwith a working knowledge of programming andcomputer systems. Already a number of univer-sities are offering "tracks" for students based ontheir pre-university computer experience. tvidenceseems to suggest that this will become an even morewidespread practice.Such a "track" system will be reinforced by other

departments' increasing needs for specific types ofcomputer courses for their students. Although such"service" courses already exist, they will becomeeven more prominent in the future, providing theimpetus for creating different tracks in computerscience and computer engineering curricula. If,however, computer science and computer engineer-ing departments decide they do not want to promotethese offerings, then the other departments willstart developing their own versions. Aprecedent-the proliferation of statisticscourses-illustrates this trend.

At this point one might ask why a separate track-ing system is needed. The basic reason involves thedifference between the mathematics backgrounds ofcomputer science majors and non-computer sciencemajors. At most universities, computer sciencemajors must take calculus, usually in the form oftwo one-year sequences covering both single andmultivariable calculus. Students not majoring incomputer science, however, often do not have thenecessary math background to take many upper-level computer courses. Therefore courses stressingapplications and effective use of systems, and whichdo not require sophisticated mathematical explana-tions, must be developed to meet these students'needs. This is not meant to belittle the role of mathe-matics, since a solid background in mathematics(particularly discrete mathematics) is as importanttoday as it has ever been for computer sciencemajors.The service course concept receives additional

support when a third point is considered. As micro-systems become less expensive small businesses,service organizations, and homemakers will be ableto afford them. Their availability will promote evenmore widespread use, resulting in many peoplereturning to colleges and universities to learn aboutthem. Most of these people will not be proficient inmathematics. Furthermore, their interest willprimarily center on using a microsystem for veryspecific types of applications. Their background andmotivation will definitely lead them to various typesof service courses. With appropriate planning andforesight, it should be possible to structure somecourses to meet the needs of these returningstudents as well as of the non-computer sciencemajors described in the preceding paragraph. Notonly would this be an excellent use of resources, butit would also serve as a valuable service to thecommunity.

Computers and society. In discussing aspects ofcomputing that are important to the "citizen-at-large," it would be remiss not to focus on the "com-puters and society" course. As taught at variousschools, this type of course takes one of two ap-proaches-it either attempts to teach some pro-gramming as well as discuss issues, or it does notteach programming but introduces some of the

September 1978 75

basic terminology and concepts of computersystems before discussing various topics. It is notthe purpose of this paper to describe the content ofsuch courses or debate the relative merits of one ap-proach as opposed to the other. The interestedreader can obtain this information from an ACMstudy funded by the National Science Foundation.6The point is that "computer and society" courses

are becoming more common, and that one of the big-gest challenges of the 80's may be to educate theaverage citizen about computers. In particular, peo-ple should be able to separate fact from fiction withregard to computer-related stories on TV and innewspapers and popular magazines. Furthermore,they need to be made aware of important issuesrelated to the use and misuse of computers. Theyshould have the opportunity to acquire enough in-formation to form intelligent opinions on such vitalquestions as the implications of centralized databanks, the pros and cons of electronic fundstransfers, the viability and effectiveness ofcomputer-assisted or computer-managed instruc-tion, and the security of computer systems that con-tain and process top secret information.Most people today do not simply think of the com-

puter as a powerful tool. They ascribe to it (often un-consciously) many human attributes. A major effortis needed to raise their level of consciousness so

they can put the computer into proper perspective.Such mass education will not be accomplished

through normal classroom means. It will require theuse of mass communication techniques. One firstthinks of educational programs on public televisionand possibly on radio as ways to tackle this prob-lem. However, more innovative solutions are re-

quired to impress on the general public the impor-tance of understanding these issues and taking an

active role in their resolution. With continuedadvances in computer technology, it might be possi-ble in the next decade to teach TV courses to a homeaudience equipped with terminals and computers.As this home audience acquires a certain level of

Figure 4. Past and projected numbers of computer science degreesawarded annually.

76

expertise, it can also be exposed to important issuessuch as those discussed previously. For peoplewithout computer equipment, programs can bedevised which draw on "story themes" to illustratethe use of computers.More avenues need to be explored in order to find

the best techniques for educating the most peopleabout computers. This is not only one of the biggestchallenges facing educators in the 1980's, but is alsoan area for ongoing work well into the 2000's.Without a broad base of public understanding,many important computer-related issues will bedecided by a few people, and many important com-puter applications will be curtailed or blocked due topublic misunderstanding and misinformation.

Matching the need, the supply, the demand

To date there has not been an oversupply problemfor computer science and computer engineeringgraduates. These professions have experienced ahigh number of job offers per graduate and a verylow rate of unemployment.Few students are taking computer science courses

simply because they are fun and challenging. Thegrowth in the number of programs and departmentsof computer science and computer engineering(created in response to the large numbers ofstudents) has been phenomenaL This growth is ex-pected to continue. There is also a great demand forgraduates in other fields who have a background incomputing or at least have some knowledge of howto use computers in their disciplines.Today and for the foreseeable future, profes-

sionals with a degree in computing will enter a"sellers' market." Colleges and universities havenot been able to keep up with the demand forgraduates at all levels-bachelor's, master's, anddoctoral. Several recent reports and letters haveanalyzed and assessed the future job market forstudents receiving PhD degrees in computer/infor-mation science and related areas.'4,27'1436 Studiespredict that the job market will remain strong forgraduates of PhD, master's, and bachelor's pro-grams (see Figures 4, 5, and 6), although there issome disagreement over how degree programsshould be structured and where programs in com-puter science and computer engineering should belocated. Obviously these supply and demand curvesmust cross at some future time, so we ndust beginplanning now for the inevitable job crunch alreadybeing experienced in other disciplines.Students from other departments are increasingly

interested in computing courses because they areconcerned about getting jobs. They simply are moreemployable if they have some knowledge of com-puting, whatever their major. This concern, morethan any other cause, is creating the need for moreservice courses. As noted previously, however, someof these courses can serve other audiences in addi-tion to non-computer science majors, if carefullyplanned.Thus the challenge of the 80's in this area of

curricula planning is to carefully follow the trends inthe job market. Yearly reports such as those doneby Taulbee and Conte'5 will be very valuable. In

COMPUTER

fact, similar studies will probably be required in thenear future in order to gather reliable statistics onhow the job market absorbs graduates frombachelor's and master's programs. As supplycatches up with demand, more attention will begiven to the aspects of improving the quality, sincethe demand for quantity will have leveled off. Animportant goal now should be "controlled growth"in order to protect the future market as well as toserve current needs.Our emphasis here on job market trends does not

imply that departments should structure theircurricula to meet the needs of employers. Far fromit! Computer science and computer engineeringeducators are as deeply commited as educators inother disciplines to offering students solidbackground knowledge as well as highly specifictechnical expertise. A degree in this area does notdenote a "training license." It is a sign of aneducated person who has learned how to solve prob-lems in a logical manner, using the computer as atool. However, it is a fact that in a period of rapid ex-pansion such as computer science is still experienc-ing, curricula will continue to be designed which em-phasize job training aspects rather than broadereducational goals. It is imperative that such pro-grams be upgraded and weaker ones not initiated.This is a very complicated and potentially sensitiveproblem, but one that educators cannot afford toshirk.With demand outstripping supply, there is

concern that the needs of industry are not beingmet,30 that ill-prepared graduates are being hiredanyway because of the rapid growth of computertechnology and applications. The weaknesses ofsome graduates' preparation include inadequatedigital systems and software engineeringbackground, inadequate familiarity with softwaretools and aids, and inadequate project management,policy and decision-making, and legal training.

In the future as competition (particularly interna-tional competition) becomes intense, industry willbe required to be even more creative and productivethan at present. The solution to matching the needsof industry with the instructional backgrounds ofstudents lies with both the acadenic communityand industry, but more specifically with cooperationbetween the two. With such cooperation, the stu-dent will be more completely prepared to meet theincreasingly more complex challenges industry of-fers. Even more importantly, feedback from in-dustry to educators will have been established. Inthe next section we examine the nature of thiscooperation and feedback in detail.

The need for cooperation betweenuniversities and industry

As stated previously, one of the major reasons forthe creation of computer science and engineeringprograms is to produce educated and well-preparedgraduates who will contribute to the economicwelfare of their employing company. The newlygraduated professional will contribute in a numberof ways to his organization as his experience in-creases. His first contribution is usually at a

Figure 5. Past and projected numbers of computer science pro-grams.

Figure 6. Past and projected average numbers of degrees per pro-gram.

technical level, the next at a technical managementlevel, then at a middle management level, and final-ly at a corporate management or other high level.Probably the two most important and productivetimes are the technical contribution period (firstlevel), and the middle- or higher-level managementperiod (third and fourth levels) where policy is made.It appears that academia prepares graduates for thefirst level and yet offers very little training orguidance for the other three levels. Hence, it ap-pears that formal training should be made available(possibly on a continuing education basis) for agraduate to not only add to his technical knowledge,but to also become versed in technical managementand the complexities of corporate policy-making.The lack of such training results in the "armedcamp" technical outposts that exist within manycomputer companies.The above problem and suggested solution is only

at the surface of a more general problem-i.e., in-

September 1978 77

dustry and academia each perceive a large displace-ment (sometimes called a chasm) between theirrespective goals and objectives. How many timeshave we heard "Well, it's only academic anyway!"or "Industry is just interested in dollars next week,certainly not technology five years from now!"Industry should invest heavily in programs at

local and regional colleges and universities, in theform of dollars, equipment, and rotating staff. Thisinvestment should involve more than just a "work-ing relationship." A cooperative environmentshould be constructed in which the quality and typeof instruction and research activity is continuouslymonitored, and staff members are rotated betweenthe college or university and the local industrialcommunity. Far fetched? Hardly, if we look at therelationships that Stanford, MIT, and Carnegie-Mellon have established with industry, to name afew. In these examples dollars from industry,superior students, and staffs which support in-dustry with relevant (not necessarily applied)research have been the keys to successful coopera-tion. Without such cooperation we run the risk of asubstantial slip in the competitiveness of thecomputer industry, and a dwindling demand forgraduates of computer science and computerengmeerng programs.

Resource availability and control

There are two issues which will affect the natureand growth of computer science and engineeringprograms. The first is the amount of funding thatwill be available for equipment, and for support ofthe programs themselves; the second is the questionof who will control computer facilities and equip-ment procurement for the programs.

Funding. The nature of resource allocation, interms of money for instructional aids, computingfacilities, research support, and faculty salaries, is ameasure of an institution's commitment to com-puting. Assuming that the fiscal crunch will con-tinue into the 1980's, colleges and universities willfind it increasingly more difficult to support the ex-panding student interest in computers and the cor-responding demands for programs in computerscience and engineering. Administrators will beforced to shift resources from existing programs inother disciplines to the more heavily populatedcomputer-oriented programs (shifts of this kind,though not always in the direction of computerscience and engineering departments, are alreadyoccurring).

Private institutions which are not heavily endow-ed or which have not already made substantial com-mitments to computing will be severely limited inwhat they can do. Their graduates may suffer in thecompetition for jobs or places in graduate schools.Also, their efforts to recruit students may beadversely affected if they cannot provide anadequate program in computing. Accreditationguidelines which demand a certain level of ex-cellence could have an impact on such institutions.

Educational institutions within state systems areand will be competing with one another for ap-propriations. Within such systems an attempt tobolster an inadequately supported computing pro-gram in one school could decrease the effectivenessof a more well-established program in another in-stitution. Obvious solutions to this problem involveallocating more money throughout the system, ordenying computer science and computer engineer-ing programs to some institutions, or reducing thelevel of support for programs in other disciplines.Contract and grant funds represent a major

source of funding at the graduate level, and can alsoprovide an impetus for improving programs at theundergraduate level. Funding for research in themore theoretical aspects of computer science is stillavailable, but seems to be decreasing in dollaramounts as compared to support for applicationsoriented research. Indeed, a continuing trend in thisdirection should influence undergraduate andgraduate education in computer science andengineeering in the 1980's, as the results of applica-tions oriented research find their way into coursesand programs.

Control. The progress and success of computerscience and computer engineering programs alsodepend, in varying degrees, on who controls thecomputer facilities. Computer science and computerengineering departments need freedom of access tocomputers in order to develop and test program-ming languages and operating systems and toevaluate performance. A computer center can pro-vide this access if the control of the center is in thehands of a person who understands the needs of thedepartments. A department itself can provide thenecessary access if it maintains its own computinglaboratory and is able to acquire the appropriateequipment for it.

Educational computing in stateuniversities is a highly visible and

expensive activity, making it a targetfor external control.

In a college or university with autonomy, either orboth of the above opportunities are possible. In sucha situation the decision would be an internal one,and could be different for different institutions. In astate system, however, each component institutionmay not have as much control over computerfacilities and acquisition as would be desirable. In-deed, the trend seems to be in the direction of in-creased state control over computing. The impactsof such control will differ among states. In the worstcase, computer science and engineering depart-ments will have no effective input into decisionsabout computer equipment and will not be able toacquire or maintain laboratory facilities. The effectsunder those conditions could be disastrous to adepartment or program.

Generally, the more removed that control overequipment facilities and acquisition is from theeducational institution itself, the more likely it is

COMPUTER78

that a department will not have access to the properkind or quantity of equipment needed for teachingand research. Computing is a highly visible, expen-sive operation which non-computer orientedlegislators and budget personnel can earmark forcentralized control by one state agency, to the possi-ble detriment of computer science and engineeringprograms.

The effect of international competitionand cooperation

As mentioned earlier, the US computer industrywill be faced with increased competition from the in-ternational computer community. Foreign firmscontinue to take an aggressive posture, indicative ofthe higher percentage of GNP that countries such asJapan, England, West Germany, and France aredevoting to research. An increasing portion of thisresearch deals with computing systems develop-ment. It appears that technical papers coming fromoutside the US are of higher quality than in thepast. Academia and industry are perhaps not risingto this challenge to the US position in the computerfield. It is clear that they can, yet they seem not tobe doing so. It is interesting to note that in the coun-tries mentioned above the government, in one formor another, encourages research and development.The US also does to a degree, but what is neededand what is lacking is, once again, cooperation be-tween the US computer industry and universitiesand colleges. Before the government is asked to stepin and help, we suggest that such cooperation befostered to fully exploit our industrial and academicresources. The risk of not doing so is to lose ourtechnological position to others.In regard to the international cooperation effort,

it is significant to note the number of copies ofmodel curricula reports21 requested by parties out-side the US and the number of informal inquiries,made by major institutions throughout the world,for both curricula information and for guest lec-turers to discuss curriculum development. It shouldalso be noted that several inquiries came fromeastern bloc countries. It is clear that the rapidgrowth of the computer science and engineeringfield has made curricula development a concern notjust in this country but throughout the world. Wecan expect that joint development efforts may even-tually occur.

Cooperation among computer societies. It is notonly important that persons interested in computereducation be willing to cooperate with those in otherdisciplines, but also necessary that they improvecommunications among themselves. Athoughduplication of effort is a widespread problem, it isparticuarly endemic to computer-related fields sincethey have evolved so quickly and often in a"helter-skelter" manner. A number of projects have been at-tempted to help control this tendency.For some years the American Federation of Infor-

mation Processing Societies has promoted and coor-dinated cooperative projects among its membersocieties (which include almost everyone in com-puting who belongs to a professional society).

Through their Education Committee, AFIPS is con-sidering sponsoring a National Education Con-ference in the summer of 1979. This would bringtogether people from different backgrounds who areunited by a common goal-improving computer-related education. The two largest societies-theInstitute of Electrical and Electronics Engineersand the Association for Computing Machinery-arespearheading this effort. This venture is anotherexample of the cooperation between these twogroups to work together to avoid duplication ofeffort. This proposed conference will be preceded byanother cooperative effort in August 1978, whenACM's Special Interest Group for ComputerScience Education cosponsors a technical sym-posium with the IEEE Computer Society (throughits Education Committee). This symposium shouldhelp both groups prepare the groundwork for the1979 Conference, which will be broader in scope.As computer education continues to grow and

flourish, it is evident that communication is the keyto preventing the "re-invention of the wheel." Howcan we get information about what has already beendone to people starting new programs? How can webest share information-from current projects withthe widest audience? Cooperation on all levels,through publications, conferences, and informalmeetings involving people from various professionalsocieties, is one of the best solutions. By gettingmore people from different societies involved insharing ideas at meetings, and by obtaining broadercirculation of current thoughts through publica-tions distributed to more than one society at a time,some duplication can be avoided. Steps in this direc-tion have already begun, but more attention to suchprojects will be required in the future.The above emphasis on the national scene is

intended; cooperation on an international scale isextremely important but will not be successfullyachieved until a basis of cooperation exists amongcomputer societies in this country. Certainly therehave been a number of successful international con-ferences under the aegis of the International Federa-tion for Information Processing. In- addition to thetriennial conference IFIP organizes, it also sponsorsa number of working conferences. Its TechnicalCommittee on Education has sponsored two Inter-national Computer Education Conferences as wellas several working conferences.26'88 These effortshave attracted representatives from a large numberof countries and have thus been able to achieve acertain measure of success in disseminating currentthoughts and ideas about computer education.However, these meetings are attended primarily byrepresentatives from developed countries. Thus,means must yet be found to help less developedcountries implement computer education programs.The problems involved with the transfer of

technology are well-known. There is no easy way totake material and curricula that we or othertechnologically advanced countries have alreadydeveloped and simply rework them for less advanc-ed countries whose culturaL economic, and politicalsituations are entirely different. Therefore, newprojects and ideas are needed, such as the promo-tion of faculty exchanges between countries. Ofcourse, this is often difficult since it -is necessary to

September 1978 79

find someone from a developed country who under-stands the cultural nuances and social and economicdifficulties of the less developed country. Further-more, the educator coming from the less developedcountry has the roughly parallel problem of adapt-ing to a different culture, as well as to a host of newtechnical details. However, such exchanges havealready taken place and have been very successful,since they have promoted continuing internationalties between specific institutions. Specific one-to-one institutional cooperation presents the mosteffective way to promote computer education in lessdeveloped countries. Since people respond better toother people' than they do to money or materiaLexchange of programs can do more than anythingelse to promote the spread of technology.

It would be remiss not to mention the efforts ofvarious international organizations. UNESCO andOECD have sponsored conferences and producedworking reports analyzing and discussing variousaspects of extending effective technical education.The IBI-Intergovernmental Bureau of Infor-

Table 2. Profile of a computer science andengineering graduate of the 1980's.

ACADEMIC TRAININGDigital systems.System organization.Software engineering.Data base structures/management.Operating systems/architectural.Theoretical aspects of systems.Distributed processing/communications systems networks.Microsystems (single chip systems to multi-bit sliced).Computer-aided design tools and usage.Considerable experience with sizing applications.Understanding of economic analysis of digital systems design, and ofproject management techniques.Understanding of management/policymaking and economics.

INDUSTRIAL TRAININGPart-time assignment to local industry not to exceed six months.Part-time assignment to university staff member to assist in relevantresearch project in support of industry.

ENVIRONMENTThree to six months provided to learn the company, the system, theprocedures, and the specific job.Within six months will be able to design digital systems used in productlines or applications.Immediately able to construct a product/application proposal, includingeconomic analysis in cooperation with other team members.Be ready to cope with intense competition for company resources, and toexpect intense external competition from firms involved in the samemarket area.

CONTINUING EDUCATIONAL TRAININGBe ready to supplement undergraduate/graduate.training with formaltraining offered by local universities or the company itself.Based on current assignment, and own personal growth objectives, beable to select the proper set of course materials.Be ready to pass a certification/recertification examination.

matics-has been very active in promoting the inter-national dissemination of information through theirquarterly newsletter, various working conferences,and more recently through eight IBI-UNESCOregional meetings devoted to an IntergovernmentalConference on Strategy and Policies for Infor-matics.20 Efforts such as these are important andcertainly help convince key figures in variousgovernments of the need to support computing intheir countries. Just as important, however, are theaccomplishments forged by educators working intheir individual areas of specialization. Thechallenge for the 80's is to implement a strategy forinternational development of computing educationon a broadly cooperative and permanent basis.

The impact of registration and licensingof computer professionals

The pressure to require registration and licensingof engineering personnel-including computer scien-tists and computer engineers-can be expected tocontipue. The IEEE Board of Directors approved apolicy statement in February 1977 recommending"that all practitioners responsible for theiractivities or the activities of their subordinates, belicensed to practice." The statement also recom-mended that the present industrial exemption bedropped. Although the IEEE has recently retractedthe statement, it has nevertheless generated a largeamount of criticism, concern, and yet careful think-ing about the issue of registration and licensing.The retraction resulted from a negative reactionfrom the IEEE's constituent societies, and theorganization has since reverted to the rather mildtone of the prior policy.This issue is not over and it will be raised again. It

will have an impact on curricula development in theform of more course work stressing the legal,ethical, professionaL and even societal obligationsof practicing engineers. Should registration even-tually become accepted (or even possibly becomelaw), it would have a profound impact on the way inwhich computer science and engineering is prac-ticed, as well as on the number of those who areallowed to practice. Therefore professional societies,educational institutions, and industry must in thefuture consider self-verifying or self-certifying ofprofessional competence in the computer scienceand engineering field. Where necessary coursematerial must be added to curricula to assure thatpracticing engineers understand the non-technicalissues that affect their profession. Since societymay demand it and since it may also have intrinsicprofessional value, we must consider some form ofcertification of competence, perhaps done on aperiodic basis.

The computer science and engineeringgraduate of the 80's

The new employee in the 80's will be a graduate ofa four- or a five-year program in computer scienceand engineering at a major university. This in-

COMPUTER80

dividual will have a blend of backgrounds'-aknowledge of classical electrical/electronic engineer-ing, a strong mathematical ability, a moderatefamiliarity with the theory of computing, heavy"hands on" experience with digital systems, and a

complete working knowledge of software engineer-ing techniques. He will be well-versed in thetechnicaL ethicaL and economic aspects of the com-puter industry and may well have spent time in anapprenticeship or internship in industry. Further-more, the individual may have passed a certificationtest. He will also be motivated to continue hiseducation. Table 2 sketches this profile in more

specific detail.A student who graduates with a degree in com-

puter science or computer engineering should alsobe able to communicate effectively. Though courses

in mathematics and computer science will continueto dominate curricula, more emphasis should befocused on courses that provide students oppor-

tunities to improve their communication skills.Employers and educators are becoming increasinglyconcerned about the inability of many graduates toexpress themselves clearly. Since projections now

indicate that current graduates will experience threeto four major job shifts in their lifetimes, it certainlybehooves us to graduate a person who can think andcommunicate well enough to sell his own technicalabilities to an employer. Consider, for example, thepoints extracted from a luncheon talk by Dr. MorrisIrving (Table 3) describing the qualities one

firm-Bell Labs-seeks in a computer sciencegraduate.As is often the case, it is easier to identify the

problem than it is to solve it. Thus, one can ask,"How do we propose to attack this problem?"Various promising alternatives exist. We can en-

courage students to take communications courses

such as writing and public speaking, and imple-ment courses or projects that require well-writtenand carefully documented reports. We can assign"team projects" so that students learn to work as a

group to solve large, poorly formulated, andsometimes incomplete problems. We can developstudents' communication skills during their "on-site" experience in local business and industry.Finally, we can make sure our students are aware ofthe importance of communication not only throughthe methods discussed above, but also by our ownexample.

Table 3. Comments extracted from a luncheon talkby Dr. Morris Irving, Bell Labs, at CSC '78.

Qualities looked for (in order of priority) in hiring:1. Ability to speak and write clearly2. Solid background in mathematics3. Solid foundation in computer science fundamentals4. Problem solving ability5. Thorough knowledge of the software development

process6. Ability to design the "people part" of a system7. Managerial ability

Reader Service Number 6

Prognosis for the future

The prognosis for computer science and engi-neering education for the 80's is for continuing goodhealth. This opinion is supplemented by theknowledge that the future will hold known as well asunknown challenges. Due to the concerted efforts ofacademia, industry, and the professional societies,firm educational guidelines and curricula recommen-dations have been established and published. Onedirect challenge, then, is to continue this curriculadevelopment work, making certain that such guide-lines and recommendations result in appropriate in-structions for students preparing for careers in in-dustry. It is quite clear that the demand for well-prepared individuals will continue to grow. Thechallenge will be to produce graduates who quicklyfit into industrial settings and who are motivated tocontinue their education.Probably the most significant future challenge is

the development of mechanisms for academia-industry cooperation. International competition willdramatically emphasize the need for such coopera-tion. Co-op programs, internships, sponsoredcooperative research, and guest instructors from in-dustry are but a few examples of the direction suchcooperation will take. It is quite clear that industryshould, and will, provide substantial dollars toacademic institutions. Models for such support cur-

0_

DESCRIPTIONPURCHASE

PRICEPER MONTH

12 MOS. 24 MOS. 36 MOS.

DECwriter 11 .......... $1,495 $145 $ 75

DECwriter III .......... 2,695 257 137

DECprinter I .......... 1,795 172 92

VT52 DECscope ...... 1,695 162 85

VT100 DECscope .... 1,695 162 85

VT55 DECgraphic CRT 2,395 229 122ADM 3A CRT ......... 875 84 45HAZELTINE 1400 CRT. 845 81 43HAZELTINE 1500 CRT. 1,195 115 61TI 745 Portable ....... 1,875 175 94TI 765 Bubble Mem....... 2,995 285 152

TI 810 RO Printer ..... 1,895 181 97TI 820 KSR Terminal .. 2,395 229 122Data Products 2230 ... 7,900 725 395QUME, Ltr. Qual. KSR. 3,195 306 163QUME, Ltr. Qual. RO .. 2,795 268 143DATAMATE Mini floppy 1,750 167 89

FULL OWNERSHIP AFTER 12 OR 24 MONTHS10% PURCHASE OPTION AFTER 36 MONTHS

$ 52956359598430304265996684

2751129861

ACCESSORIES AND PERIPHERAL EQUIPMENT

Z IRANSNET CORPORA TION2005 ROUTE 22, UNION, N.J. 07083

201-688-7800

COUSTIC COUPLERS o MODEMS 9 THERMAL PAPERBBONS * INTERFACE MODULES o FLOPPY DISK UNITS

:Loj "r, Iii291:4api:*:YAM;aaa [011:4 I",k&j:l:I

ISeptember 1978

rently exist. Such direct support, however, carriesthe risk of excessive industry influence of academicaffairs, a danger which must be avoided.Another important challenge to industry and

academia is the setting of proficiency guidelines orstandards, by which graduates can be certified oreven licensed to practice computer science andengineering. If proper steps are taken now, industryand academia can establish a self-monitoring func-tion, negating the need for formaL legal registrationof professionals. But should such legally mandatedregistration become fact, it would have a substan-tial impact on curricula content and on job supplyand the demand.Computer science and computer engineering

educators, then, must make their curricula develop-ment work a response to the three major challengesdiscussed above. Computer education stands as theinterface between the computer industry and boththe current and next generation of computer scien-tists and engineers. The design of that inter-face-how well it matches student preparation to in-dustrial needs, promotes cooperation, and takes upthe issue of certification-will largely determine thecourse of our technological future. U

Acknowledgment

We would like to acknowledge the significant helpand input given us by Professor R. M. Aiken. Hisparticipation both at the "Oregon Conference onComputing-Problems of the 80's" and in thedevelopment of this paper is much appreciated.

References1. ACM Curriculum Committee on Computer Science,

"Curriculum '68, Recommendations for AcademicPrograms in Computer Science," CACM, VoL 11, No.3, Mar. 1968, pp. 151-197.

2. ACM Ad Hoc Committee on Self-Assessment, "ASelf-Assessment Procedure," CACM, Vol. 19, No. 5,May 1976, pp. 229-235.

3. ACM Committee on Self-Assessment, "Self-Assessment Procedure II," CACM, Vol. 20, No. 5,May 1977, pp. 297-300.

4. ACM Committee on Self-Assessment, "Self-Assessment Procedure III," CACM, Vol. 20, No. 9,Sept. 1977, pp. 621-624.

5. Advertisement for Cromemco Z-2 Computer System,Byte, Vol. 2, No. 8, Aug. 1977, p. 2.

6. Austing, R. H., Cotterman, W. W., and G. L.Engel,"Literature Resources and 'Computer Impacton Society and Computer Literacy' Courses," Proc.Computer Science and Engineering CurriculaWorkshop, Williamsburg, VA, June 1977, pp. 55-59.

7. Austing, R. H., Barnes, B. H., Bonnette, D. T., EngeLG. L., and G. Stokes, "Curriculum Recommendationsfor the Undergraduate Program in ComputerScience: A Working Report of the ACM CurriculumCommittee on Computer Science," SIGCSE Buletin,Vol. 9, No. 2, June 1977, pp. 1-16.

8. Austing, R. H., Barnes, B. H., and G. L. Engel,"ASurvey of the Literature of Computer ScienceEducation Since Curriculum '68," CACM, VoL 20,No. 1, Jan. 1977, pp. 13-21.

9. Bowles, K. L., "The UCSD Pascal Project,"EDUCOM Bulletin, Vol. 13, No. 1, Spring 1978, pp.2-8.

10. Chattergy, R., and U. W. Pooch, "A Proposed Pro-gram for Continuing Education for the IEEE Com-puter Society," Proc. Computer Science andEngineering Curiculum Workshop, Williamsburg,VA, June 1977, pp. 123-125.

11. Chattergy, R., and U. W. Pooch, "Continuing Educa-tion for the Professional: The Role of the ProfessionalSociety," Computer, VoL 10, No. 12, Dec. 1977, pp.124-128.

12. Cosine Committee, Computer Science in ElectricalEngineering, Commission on Engineering Education,Washington, DC, Sept. 1967.

13. Committee on the Undergraduate Program inMathematics, Recommendations on theUndergraduate Mathematics Program for Work inComputing, Berkeley, Calif., 1964.

14. Desaultels, E. J., "On Computing Facilities for Com-puter Science," Computer, Vol. 7, No. 11, Nov. 1974,pp. 39-48.

15. Denning, P. J., Letter to "ACM Forum" Commen-ting on ACM Vice-President's Letter on GraduateEducation, CACM, VoL 20, No. 10, Oct. 1977, p. 774.

16. Engel, G. L., "A Comparison of the ACM/C3S and theIEEE/CSE Model Curriculum Subcommittee Recom-mendations," Computer, VoL 10, No. 12, Dec. 1977,pp. 121-123.

17. Golde, H., and A. Shaw, "Why a Separate ComputerFacility for Computer Science Education?," Tech.Report 74-06-11, Computer Science Group, Universi-ty of Washington, June 1974.

18. Hamblen, J. W., "Academic and AdministrativeComputing: Where Are We?," EDUCOM Bulletin,Vol. 12, No. 1, Spring 1977, pp. 2-8.

19. Homeyer, F. C., "An Experimental MicrocomputerCourse (A Case History)," SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 9,No. 4, 1977, pp. 41-44.

20. IBI Newsletter, Intergovernmental Bureau for Infor-matics, Rome, Italy, No. 23, Oct. 1977.

21. IEEE Computer Society Model Curricula Subcom-mittee, A Curriculum in Computer Science andEngineering-Committee Report, Rev. 1, IEEE Com-puter Society, Long Beach, Calif., completed Nov.1976, published Jan. 1977.

22. IFIP Working Group 3.1, Computer Education forTeachers in Secondary Schools: Aims and Objectivesin Teacher Training, AFIPS, Montvale, NJ, 1972.

23. Irby, T. C., "Teaching Software Development Usinga Microprocessor Laboratory," SIGCSE Buletin,Special issue on the Seventh Technical Symposiumon Computer Science Education, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1977,pp. 113-118.

24. Landis, F., "What is the Real Need for ContinuingEducation in the Aerospace Industry?," EngineeringEducation, VoL 61, No. 8, May-June 1978, pp.893-897.

25. Lecarme, O., and R. Lewis, editors, Proc. IFIP Se-cond World Conf on Computers in Education,American Elsevier, New York, 1975.

26. Maguiere, R. B., and L. R. Symes, "Effects ofLaboratory Facilities on Computer Science Cur-riculum," SIGCSE Buletin, Special issue on theSeventh Technical Symposium on Computer ScienceEducation, VoL 9, No. 1, 1977, pp. 1-5.

COMPUTER82

27. McCracken, D. D., "Trends in Graduate ComputerScience Education (Will They AU Find Work?),"ACM Vice-President's Letter, CACM, VoL 20, No.10, Oct. 1977, pp. 683-684.

28. Mulder, M., editor, Special Supplement on ComputerScience and Engineering Education, Computer, Vol.10, No. 12, Dec. 1977.

29. Mulder, M., et aL, "ECPD Accreditation Guidelines,"Computer, Vol. 11, No. 2, Feb. 1978, pp. 67-69.

30. Mulder, M., "A Recommended Curriculum in Com-puter Science and Engineering," Computer, Vol. 10,No. 12, Dec. 1977, pp. 72-75.

31. Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., Letter to "ACM Forum" Com-menting on ACM Vice-President's Letter onGraduate Education, CACM, VoL 20, No. 10, Oct.1977, pp. 774-775.

32. Ramamoorthy, C. V., "Computer Science andEngineering Education," IEEE 7rans. Computers,VoL C-25, No. 12, Dec. 1976, pp. 1200-1206.

33. Scheepmaker, B., and K. L. Zinn, editors, Proc. IFIPWorld Conf. on Computer Education, ScienceAssociates/InternationaL New York, 1970.

34. Sibley, E. H., Letter to "ACM Forum" Commentingon ACM Vice-President's Letter on Graduate Educa-tion, CACM, VoL 20, No. 10, Oct. 1977, pp. 775, 781.

35. Taulbee, 0. E., and S. D. Conte, "Production andEmployment of PhD's in Computer Science-1976,"CACM, Vol. 20, No. 6, June 1977, pp. 370-372.

36. Weaver, A. C., "Microcomputers in the ComputerScience Curriculum," SIGCSE BuUetin, Vol. 10, No.1, 1978, pp. 171-176.

Udo W. Pooch is an associate pro-fessor of computer science at TexasA&M University. An active consult-ant and lecturer, he has publishedwidely on such topics as timesharingsystems, operating systems, computergraphics, minicomputers, psycho-metrics, and simulation. He has devel-oped extensive microcomputer soft-ware and taught minicomputer and

microprogramming courses at such places as USCSSummer Institute and Texas A&M University SummerInstitute.He was awarded the 1974 Texas A&M University

Distinguished Teaching Award, as well as the 1974 Col-lege of Engineering Teaching Award. He has been anACM National Lecturer since 1974 and DPMA NationalLecturer since 1976.Pooch earned a BS degree in physics from UCLA and a

PhD in theoretical physics from the University of NotreDame. A member of ACM, IEEE, ASA, ORSA, SIAM,SCS, and APS, he has served as reviewer for a dozen jour-nals and chaired numerous sessions at conferences.

Richard H. Austing is an associateprofessor in the Department of Com-puter Science at the University ofMaryland. He is currently involved inthe administration of the educationalprogram of the department in additionto offering courses in the areas of fileprocessing, data structures, and com-puters and society. His activities incomputer science education include

vic-chairmanship of ACM's Education Board, member-ship in ACM's Special Interest Group in ComputerScience Education and in ACM's Curriculum Committeein Computer Science, chairmanship of the Committee ofExaminers for the GRE Advanced Test in ComputerScience, and chairmanship of ICCP's Certification Councilfor the Certificate in Computer Programming Examina-tion.Austing holds a PhD in mathematics from the Catholic

University of America, an MS in mathematics from St.Louis University, and a BS in mathematics from XavierUniversity.

Rahul Chattergy is an associate pro-fessor of electrical engineering at theUniversity of Hawaii. He has had ex-tensive consulting experience in thearea of on-line computer systems forbusiness applications. He has alsopublished on the subjects of optimiza-tion, simulation, and microprogram-

Dr. Chattergy received his DIC in1964 from the Imperial College, London, and the MS andPhD in system science from UCLA. His research interestsinclude computer architecture, simulation, and softwareengineering. He is a member of Sigma Xi, ACM, andIEEE.

Michael C. Mulder is a staff electrical/computer engineer with the BonneviUePower Administration, working on the

-t application of computing systems andtechnologies to the power industry.

-0^ _ Earlier, at Sperry Univac, he was prin-cipal systems design engineer, sectionmanager, and group manager of ad-

r- ! vanced systems processors. His ex-perience includes most areas of med-

ium- and large-scale system design, development, andanalysis.An active member of the IEEE Computer Society, he is

chairman of the society's Education Committee and of itsModel Curriculum Subcommittee, a Distinguished Vis-itor, and a member of the society's Board of Governors.He is a member of the graduate faculty of the Universityof Portland, a member of the graduate council, and an ap-pointed member of the State of Oregon Advisory Councilfor the Oregon Institute of Technology.An author of numerous technical papers, he received a

BSEE and MSEE from Oregon State University, an MSin nuclear engineering from the University ofWashington, and a PhD in electrical engineering fromMontana State University. He is also a registered Profes-sional Electrical Engineer and a member of the electricalengineering ECPD accreditation team.

September 1978 83