letters to the editor
DOI: 10.1145/1562164.1562167

computer Science Does matter

It was disappointing that two competent computer scien- tists—Matthias Felleisen and Shiram Krishnamurthi—took such a narrow view in their

Viewpoint “Why Computer Science

Doesn’t Matter” (July 2009). For them

programming is apparently the es-

sence of computer science, at its best

when coupled with mathematics prac-

tice; therefore the science and engi-

neering don’t matter in the contest for

young minds in high school.

They wrote, but did not justify, that “programming is our field’s single most valuable skill” (what about the ability to abstract?); that graphics is “frosting” (really?); that the “three Rs” are the driving force in the K– 12 curriculum (a view no longer shared by leading educators); and that leading CS educators want to emphasize engineering and science while marginalizing programming (say again?). This odd amalgam of unfounded assumptions led them to the untenable conclusion that hiding computing in a mathematics curriculum strengthens CS in high schools.

Their extended example of “ imaginative programming” illustrates a genuinely creative way to make high school mathematics more engaging. It also seemed to be an argument for more CS, not less; CS and computational thinking can provide students valuable concepts and frameworks for understanding complex subjects while making courses more interesting to them.

I agree with them that the ETS decision to abolish AP tests in CS was deplorable, and we should all be working to reverse it.

Education leaders have long known that the best way to get K– 12 schools to teach a particular subject is for universities to require that their students have prior education in that subject. This strategy has been particularly effective in California, which has a dominant, respected university system. If we want entering freshman to have more rigorous preparation in computing, we

need to work on our respective universities to require it. In some cases, it may be as simple as instituting the requirement in one’s own department.

Felleisen’s and Krishnamurthi’s exhortation to hide behind mathematics makes no sense. We should instead be proactively making the case not only for CS qua CS but for CS as a powerful conceptual tool in a variety of endeavors.

They were right to call attention to the early stages of the university curriculum. Ignoring them, CS will never attract the students it wants. Here, because the definition of CS comes to the fore, consider two principles: Insisting on a narrow definition of a field is not a sound idea in a period of growth and discovery, as it limits innovation. And we know from experience and research that the best way to motivate students to learn the fundamentals is to show them how they are used. A broad definition and relevant examples help all students, especially those who have decided to not major in computing.

Peter a. freeman, Atlanta, GA

 

Matthias Felleisen and Shiram Krishnamurthi (July 2009) referred to my and Andrew McGettrick’s “The Profession of IT” column “Recentering Computer Science” (Nov. 2005), claiming we sought to marginalize “our field’s most valuable skill (programming).” That is not what we sought or accomplished. We wrote because we were deeply concerned about an external view of the field that marginalized us because it deeply misunderstands what we mean by programming. We speculated that the public perception that CS = programming, coupled with the narrow public view of the definition of “programming,” cast the entire field in a poor light. We wrote that programming is an essential core practice that won’t disappear. We suggested that recentering our own thinking (making it less focused on programming while including more engineering and science) would help

build a much stronger curriculum and public image.

Peter J. Denning (past president of ACM), Monterey, CA

authors Respond:

Freeman correctly recognizes that we called for additional CS education, not less. He can certainly try to convince schools to introduce computing but will likely meet the response that it’s already provided in the courses that teach Word and Excel. This is indeed what we’ve learned from our 14 years in the trenches of outreach.

Our vision offers students a strong foundation for abstraction, engineering, and science—with compelling content from the bottom up, not by fiat imposed from the top down.

matthia felleisen, boston

Shriram Krishnamurthi, Providence, rI

 

acm content Wants to Be free Addressing the question of why ACM doesn’t adopt the open-access model for its publications in his Editor’s Letter “Open, Closed, or Clopen Access?” (July 2009), Moshe Y. Vardi wrote that “‘free’ is not a sound business model.”

Though he was rebutting the conventional wisdom that “information wants to be free,” here the word “free” meant freedom, not price. Freedom is not a sound business model. It is not a business model at all but rather a mode of social interaction that human beings value and aspire to achieve.

Moreover, ACM is not a conventional business enterprise, describing itself, right on the Communications masthead, as “the world’s largest educational and scientific computing society.” As such, its mission is not to generate profits by implementing business models, sound or unsound, but to promote the open exchange of ideas. This means ACM publications should be, as defined by the Budapest Open Access Initiative ( http://www.so-ros.org/openaccess/read.shtml), available to the public, so everyone is able to “read, download, copy, distribute,