Mark Guzdial at ACM (Association of Computing Machinery) writes:
I have three reasons for thinking that learning CS is different than learning other STEM disciplines.
- Our infrastructure for teaching CS is younger, smaller, and weaker;
- We don't realize how hard learning to program is;
- CS is so valuable that it changes the affective components of learning.
The author makes compelling arguments to support the claims, ending with:
We are increasingly finding that the emotional component of learning computing (e.g., motivation, feeling of belonging, self-efficacy) is among the most critical variables. When you put more and more students in a high-pressure, competitive setting, and some of whom feel "like" the teacher and some don't, you get emotional complexity that is unlike any other STEM discipline. Not mathematics, any of the sciences, or any of the engineering disciplines are facing growing numbers of majors and non-majors at the same time. That makes learning CS different and harder.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 11 2018, @06:32AM
No. This is what happens. You pass. And you go out into the real world where THERE ARE NO JOBS IN TECH.
Then you go back to your former professors and you ask, why does anyone bother going to university when THERE ARE NO JOBS IN TECH.
And your professors will reply, oh well it's a gamble, and such a shame that THERE ARE NO JOBS IN TECH.
And finally your alumni association will beg you for donations from some of that big money they heard you would be making. Except you don't have any money because THERE ARE NO JOBS IN TECH.
THERE ARE. NO JOBS. IN TECH.