
How long will there be computer science departments? - fogus
http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2012/09/20/how-long-will-there-be-computer-science-departments/
======
RodgerTheGreat
How long will there be English departments? Every professional needs to be
able to communicate ideas in writing. One would assume that in time English
would be absorbed into other departments that applied it.

~~~
apl
I'm equally confused by his point about non-statistics departments doing more
statistics than their "proper" counterparts. While that may be true, the bulk
of cutting edge research in a given field always comes from specialists. I've
never heard of substantial statistical advances arising in psychology
departments (even though they're arguably one of the biggest "consumers" of
statistics out there).

It's a bit like trickle-down economics.

~~~
stakka
I think you have to look 'up' the stream. Physics has given statistics some of
the biggest ideas in the recent past. I think biology is relatively mathless
unless it's *omics crap, and then again you have non-statisticians
contributing to stats. Also plenty of CS stuff for stats.

~~~
jamessb
There are definitely other mathy areas: crystallography, biophysics,
computational neuroscience, theoretical ecology, and applications of
simulation methods like CFD and FEA to physiology, . . .

But yes, most biological research doesn't require much mathematics.

------
deveac
From the comments on the linked article's site:

 _> I currently work in a bioinformatics group, and have been in computer
applications for science for 20 years. I do not think Bioinformatics will be
going back to biology, I see it as going back to computer science and biology.
As the tools get better, there will be less and less need for people that
understand both – there will still biology computer applications, but it will
be commercialized and individual labs will not have their own developers. You
can already see the trend starting. Statisticians do not write their own stats
programs, they buy SAS or download R, in 10 years biologists will be doing the
same._

I tend to agree with this.

More than computer science departments going away, I see other departments
following the lead of Schools of Business Administration. Essentially every
SBA now offers a degree that is essentially a 'Management Information Systems'
degree, which instructs on how to take the specialized applications that exist
out there and leverage them in your firm to accomplish any number of
organizational goals.

I could see a trend where more and more departments develop their analog to
this, suited to their specific discipline.

------
leothekim
I think that, though computer science has permeated a number of different
fields, its core study remains more relevant than ever. There are important
theoretical problems in CS and so much more potential to be unlocked in other
fields s.t. the core study remains necessary to understand how it can be
better applied.

Also, there are areas in computer science that wouldn't be 100% applicable to,
say, bioinformatics (e.g. cryptography) but may be very applicable in a much
more generalized sense. I don't think we've delved into computer science for
long enough that its study can be relegated and subjugated within other
fields. That it is taught alongside courses in other fields speaks more to its
practicality than its diminishing relevance as a standalone field.

~~~
coliveira
I think there is a danger in Computer Science departments trying to become
more theory oriented in order to survive. If applications are moving to their
own departments in Business and Bioinformatics, CS may decide to become more
theoretical. If this happens, though, growth in terms of research money will
become even harder to find.

~~~
_delirium
I've heard that discussed at some CS conferences as the "mathematics
trajectory", which a lot of computer scientists think is best avoided.
Essentially, becoming a pure discipline with little funding (because the
applications work has gone elsewhere), and with a position in the university
that's largely internally funded by your professors teaching intro-level
"service" courses for other departments, the way math departments get a lot of
their teaching credits by teaching Calc 101 and similar.

------
Chris_Newton
I don’t see the problem here as long as we really are talking about computer
science. The University of Cambridge has two departments within the
mathematics faculty already, one studying pure maths and statistics, the other
applied maths and theoretical physics. Separating computer science research
and teaching into a third element doesn’t seem inconsistent with that approach
to me (though that’s not how the Computer Laboratory in Cambridge actually
became what it is today).

Now, if we’re talking about teaching people to program simple software tools,
as a useful practical skill like modelling something using calculus or writing
a clear report, that’s a different question. There is room in the world both
for specialists who are experts in a field and study the hard problems and for
practitioners who aren’t experts but know enough to get useful things done. A
full computer science course in a dedicated department is not a good fit for
the latter group, who really need solid basic programming skills and perhaps a
little software engineering knowledge.

------
jonnathanson
With respect, I think the author confuses the roles of specialization and
generalization. There are general skills within the domain of Computer Science
that can be applied to other fields. Just like there are general skills from
Statistics that apply across other fields, or general skills from English, or
general skills from various disciplines of Mathematics. One can apply these
skills across disciplines without needing to specialize, per se, in the
discipline from which the skill derives.

Alternatively, one can decide that the skill's parent discipline is worth
specializing in. If I'm a Biology major, and I discover that I am getting a
kick out of the Statistics skills I employ in my major, even more so than I
enjoy my major, I can decide to major in Statistics instead. This does not
obviate the need for the two fields as separate fields of study. Nor does it
present any real indication that one field is going to be collapsed into the
other. The sets of Biology and Statistics have many intersections, but they
are not the same set.

And that's the key: the fields are intersecting, and occasionally even
overlapping, but they're not entirely so.

At the risk of sounding even nerdier, maybe this concept comes more naturally
to those of us who've played an RPG or two in our day. Think Skyrim, if you've
played it. You can build a melee fighter who draws a few skills from the magic
skill tree. Or you can be a pure mage. Or a pure fighter. Or what have you. At
the same time, there are only so many skill points you're allotted -- so you
can't pick all of each tree. It works the same way in life, really. It's
probably better to be a master of one trade with a few skills from the others,
than to be a jack of all trades and master of none.

This has been my daily admission of dorkitude. Thanks for listening.

~~~
aangjie
While i agree with your point, i think the article(as a whole) doesn't really
contradict with your argument. It does presume(nay project) that at some point
in the timeline of mankind CS departments will perish. but my imagination
tells me that would not be because people don't study it, but rather because
there is not enough funding(as dictated by the economy) to support a separate
dept. for computer science. Note that doesn't say anything about the scope of
work, or scope for the subject to revolutionize the world/science as
we(mankind/humanity/perhaps even transhumans :-P ) know at that instant in the
timeline. So unless you think it follows from your argument that CS, will
never reach a position to be considered by a majority of population to be
undeserving a separate department, i don't see a conflict at all. That's all i
have to show off my nerdiness..:-P

~~~
jonnathanson
I think that's fair, and well said. But I guess I just don't think that day
will come. There will always be people who want to specialize in CS -- in the
actual _science_ of computers, and not just coding -- and these people will be
different from the people who want to code, but don't want to get too deep
into the weeds in the theory. Perhaps we'll see a day where CS and programming
are separated out, and CS becomes a purely theoretical discipline, while
programming is more like "Applied" CS. It's my understanding that this is
already happening at some schools. But I don't think CS is in danger of
disappearing as a distinct discipline.

I could be wrong, obviously, and I am not steeped heavily enough in the
politics and ways of the world of academia to know for sure how these things
go. But the fundamental discipline seems pretty distinct from others, even
others like it.

In undergrad, for instance, I had the great fortune to take a CS class from
Dr. David Gelernter. We didn't touch a single line of code in that entire
semester, but I learned more about the fundamentals of computers than I have
in any other class. Conversely, I had friends in the class who were bored to
tears, or frustrated to kingdom come, by the subject matter -- who found the
whole class impractical and not immediately useful. The phrase "intellectual
masturbation" was tossed around pretty frequently. But honestly, different
strokes for different folks. And that fact will keep CS alive and distinct.

~~~
justincormack
Is there a "science" of computers? Not sure its science, maybe it is Maths? Or
a part of Physics?

------
EvaPeron
I might imagine one day C.S. departments might merge back into the Maths
department, where (IMHO) C.S. most properly belongs.

~~~
johndcook
I could see theoretical CS merging back into math, and software engineering
being part of engineering. The latter is more likely than the former.

~~~
reinhardt
I don't see anything merging back. The trend towards more and more
specialization and compartmentalization has been going on forever and there's
no reason to believe it will be inverted any time soon.

------
imr
Why are math departments still around? My engineering professors insisted on
teaching probability and linear algebra.

------
ChuckMcM
Gosh what a silly argument, claim that 'computer science' as a discipline will
fade away based on the evidence that computer classes are taught in different
disciplines.

That claim is simple to rebut with the example of mathematics, which are
taught in various forms for nearly every department and yet there are still
mathematics departments.

It would have been insightful to observe that basic computer science knowledge
is becoming an essential part of any curriculum. That elevates it to the level
of 'broadly applicable skill' like math, and composition. I believe its
important as early as secondary school but those courses are still foundering
for direction (I've seen 'intro to powerpoint' as a computer class which is
more like 'typing' was than basic computer skills)

------
scottschulthess
As long as there are computer science students.

------
rexreed
Answer: for a long time to come. As long as there are students looking for
credentials and certification in the form of degrees, there will be programs
that cater to them.

You should see some of the outlandish courses and degrees offered by some
schools.

------
xaa
As a bioinformatician, I've been asked all of the following questions by
(postdoc and above) biologists:

\- What is a binomial distribution?

\- What is the difference between a probability and a p-value?

\- If I have p-values for a case and control group, can I just subtract the
log10 p-value for my control from my case group?

From fellow "bioinformaticians", research scientist level and above, I've been
asked:

\- How can I load this MySQL dump you sent me into my database? phpMyAdmin
doesn't read MySQL dumps.

\- What is a likelihood ratio (from a PI!!)

So, needless to say, I feel that I have some good job security.

------
capkutay
Does this writer assume CS is simply a tool used in other industries? There
should be CS departments as long as we want to advance the power and reach of
computing.

------
mcguire
How long will there be physics departments? Physics is just theoretical
engineering and chemistry. Most actual users of physics are engineers or
chemists; why would anyone need a separate physics department?

------
tocomment
So when will job interviews stop asking about red-black trees?

------
rmprescott
> How long will there be computer science departments?

Um...isn't that a form of the Halting Problem? ;D

