Search News


Browse Archives

News

New 'Threads' for Computer Science

September 26, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Computer science -- like many dot.com businesses of a few years back -- has experienced a boom and bust in the last decade. First colleges couldn't expand programs fast enough to meet demand, but more recently students have been fleeing. The number of students taking Advanced Placement tests in computer science fell by 19 percent in the last three years -- even as other AP science programs were growing.

Fewer and fewer freshmen have been expressing interest in computer science. Some colleges have thrown up their hands, and pulled back on programs. Others have pushed to expand specialized fields -- such as video gaming.

The Georgia Institute of Technology is today unveiling what some experts believe is a much broader approach to the problem. The institute has abolished the core curriculum for computer science undergraduates -- a series of courses in hardware and software design, electrical engineering and mathematics. These courses, in various forms, have been the backbone of the computer science curriculum not just at Georgia Tech but at most institutions.

In their place, Georgia Tech is introducing a curriculum called Threads. There are two main parts to the curriculum:

  • In the first part, students pick two of eight possible "threads" of instruction. These are a series of courses -- with requirements that collectively are as demanding as the old core courses -- that relate to a use of computer science. For example, computational modeling deals with using computer science to represent natural and physical processes; intelligence deals with building "top to bottom models of human-level intelligence," and media involves systems "to exploit computing's abilities to provide creative outlets." There are a total of 28 possible combinations of threads that students may select. Many of the required courses will be taught involving material and faculty members outside of computer science.
  • Then in their first year enrolled, students will also track themselves by "role," picking among master practitioners (programmers), entrepreneurs, innovators or communicators. Academic advisers will work with students so that their role helps determine both their instructional choices and also their non-instructional education (making sure that entrepreneurs learn how to write business plans, for example). Students making the same "thread" choices could still end up with a different educational focus if they sought out different roles. The role is as much about having advisers keep students oriented toward a goal as about curricular requirements per se.

Underlying this approach is the view that "the one size fits all approach to computer science just isn't working anymore," said Richard A. DeMillo, dean of the College of Computing at Georgia Tech. The plans were developed by professors, who prepared a white paper outlying how this approach would create "symphonic thinking" graduates -- another way of saying graduates whose jobs wouldn't be outsourced, a fear keeping many out of the field.

"The really big change here is that we were willing to give up the idea of a core curriculum," said DeMillo. "If you have 90 percent of your courses occupied with the core, you don't have the flexibility to do anything creative."

Experts on computer science stressed that it's always dangerous to predict the impact that a major curricular reform will have. Georgia Tech's students are only now experiencing the new approach and it will take years to measure the results. But Andrew Bernat, executive director of the Computing Research Association, said he was very excited by the effort -- and saw it as significant.

"What I really like about this is that it's comprehensive," he said. Also key is that Georgia Tech has a large, respected computer science faculty and student body (when fully phased in, upwards of 1,200-1,500 students a year will be involved). "It's one thing for some outlier school to do something different, but it's a whole different thing when you have a big school that starts something this different. I think Georgia Tech clearly has the right people to try this, and it's really important that we try things like this."

Susan Merritt, dean of the computer science school at Pace University, said that she was also intrigued by what Georgia Tech is doing. For its master's program in computer science, Pace this year took its core of eight courses and cut that back to four (with the idea that many students may place out of two). At the undergraduate level, Merritt said that a major emphasis is combining computer science degrees with other departments, for example criminal justice or finance.

DeMillo said that what Georgia Tech is attempting is to take such approaches to the next level. That's because students won't be combining some computer science courses with some courses in other fields, but will have that instruction combined in all of their courses. "We've got interdisciplinarity not as something that is tacked on, but something that you have from day one."

Freshmen who were recruited for this fall's class were briefed on the Threads program, and enrollment is up 33 percent in the class. DeMillo noted that much of the recruiting of students wasn't talking just to them, but to parents. People are worried about jobs, and the effectiveness of Threads is that it creates clear career paths for students.

"A lot of this is the perception that jobs are going overseas," he said. "We haven't been presenting a very attractive career path for any person other than a narrowly defined superprogrammer. What we're trying to do is show an array of choices for careers."

Each of the tracks will also be constantly reviewed and revised, DeMillo said, and new tracks could be created. But the idea is to keep the tracks broad, and not to focus on this year's hot job, which could be next year's dud job. He predicted that colleges that try to retool computer science by focusing on hot jobs might have a few good years, but won't have much more.

"You can't be reactive in just seeing what's going on in a given industry. You aren't going to be in better shape by producing a whole generation of videogame designers and have that industry go away," he said. "You want to equip people to tell stories with technology. Now what they do with it is to design video games, but in the future it may be very different."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on New 'Threads' for Computer Science

  • This is what higher education is all about
  • Posted by William Sumner Scott, J.D. on September 26, 2006 at 9:05am EDT
  • This type of examination is a result of competition. The American way.

    Bill

    William Sumner Scott, J.D.

    wss@jefound.org

  • Go Tech!
  • Posted by RWH on September 26, 2006 at 1:35pm EDT
  • My oldest son has two undergraduate degrees from the University of Michigan, one in Cultural Anthropology and another in Computer Science. He is a “very successful” software design engineer at Hewlett-Packard. My youngest son is a senior at Michigan completing a degree in EECS (Electrical Engineering and Computer Science) and with very extensive minors in both mathematics (just for fun) and physics. I would have to say both of their computer science programs of study were fairly traditional.

    What I like about the new Georgia Tech program (Threads) is (1) its “computer science” students will get their degrees and (2) (let’s pretend) get good jobs working for Microsoft, Intel, Google, Apple, and the like. In short order they’ll be mumbling to themselves, “Omigod, if I’m going to be successful here, I’ve got to surround myself with some real computer scientists” ... and they’ll be on the phone to my sons quicker than you can say Charles Babbage.

    I hope neither of my sons will ever be described as “symphonic thinking graduates,” but you can count on the fact that they’re both very bright, very broadly educated, and know one Hell of a lot about computer science.

    As for Threads ... well, they don’t call them the Ramblin’ Wrecks for nothing.

    By the way, I’m unalterably opposed to interdisciplinary courses in which students are exposed to an instructional “team” consisting of Professor A (a mathematician), Professor B (a linguist), Professor C (a women’s studies expert, ad infinitum. If you want a first-rate interdisciplinary course, find broadly and deeply grounded faculty (the true interdisciplinarians) and let them (individually) teach your students.

  • new threads curriculum
  • Posted by James L. Secor , Dr. at Sun Yat-Sen University on September 26, 2006 at 6:30pm EDT
  • Oh! What a mistake! This shows a decided shortsightedness that will be deadening. I'm here in China where education is species specific: there is no general core of study, only one's major. These students come out knowing absolutely diddly about anything other than their major. Indeed, they see their major as totally isolated from everything else; there is no connection. Yes. They can get jobs but they know nothing in the aggregate, they have no knowledge of life or how things relate to other things. I spend entire class periods (2 hours) talking about something that is directly related to the students' majors but is in another area that they are totally ignorant of. Let's call this a further move in the great 60's push for specialization. Yet...this is a move for the changing idea of what a college is for: from a place where one gains knowledge, college has become a vocational school. In actual fact, people attending vocational school are better prepared for their field of choice than people who go to college (believing it will get them a better job). Another move in fracturing the society and isolating people. Good for government. No idiot left behind.

  • Threads is a wonderful idea but...
  • Posted by Johnny Carroll on September 26, 2006 at 6:30pm EDT
  • I have been head of a department with a Bachelors program in CS related IT for several years at a small regional college in the midwest.

    The vision that is the foundation of a single program that allows students seemingly infinite CS-based interdisciplinary specialities is an important vision. However, right now, the concept of threads, as described above, does not easily fit into our system.

    We have to assess student outcomes in each program and, the way it is described, each thread might represent a completely different program from other threads. Also, even the outcomes in an individual thread might be different depending on a student's choices. Thus writing an assessment plan that focuses on student outcomes (the way our accrediting agency expects) for such a program would seem to be a difficult task.

    As I am a strong proponent of interdisciplinary programs, I would be very interested in knowing what the plans are in the area of assessment for this innovative program.

  • Posted by CS Chair on September 27, 2006 at 4:35am EDT
  • We have to assess student outcomes in each program and, the way it is described, each thread might represent a completely different program from other threads. Also, even the outcomes in an individual thread might be different depending on a student’s choices. Thus writing an assessment plan that focuses on student outcomes (the way our accrediting agency expects) for such a program would seem to be a difficult task.

    Too right. Bloody assessment mania threatens to make all our programs carbon copies of each other. We'd considered doing separate "tracks" at one point.

    That said one could simply assess the basics that the programs have in common.

  • Threads...
  • Posted by Jerrold Heyman on September 27, 2006 at 7:40pm EDT
  • An interesting concept. I would argue that starting it out with incoming Freshmen is too soon. How many 18-19 year olds know exactly what role/thread they're actually interested in?

    I can see it more as the ability to specialize after a base set of core courses are taught, and the student has a better idea of the field.

    jerry

  • Choosing a Path
  • Posted by Brian on September 28, 2006 at 2:45pm EDT
  • I am an undergrad majoring in Computer Science at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Although I have always known that I wanted to major in computer science, I still have a difficult time deciding which specialization I would like to persue. It seems to me that the 'threads' approach would be very appealing to ambitious freshmen; however, after a couple years some students may realize that a better specialization exists. This is part of the learning process, but if you begin by focusing to greatly on one specialization, then switching to a different specialization would be very difficult. I think that taking core classes in computer science, although maybe more broad than some would like, is the best choice because it gives the student a feel for the field as a whole. After a couple years of learning about computer science, a student should then be able to start specializing. But then again, that's just from the perspective of a current sophomore.

  • Threads
  • Posted by Kip Irvine on September 28, 2006 at 6:15pm EDT
  • I am an instructor in a Computer Science department at a large university. I find the Threads curriculum concept to be exciting, particularly since I have both a music composition and computer science background. I wonder, however, how graduates of this program will be prepared to enter more traditional MS and PhD programs in computer science? Perhaps they will have to backtrack and study core subjects.

  • THREADS
  • Posted by C. Price on October 9, 2006 at 12:45pm EDT
  • The THREADS idea is interesting and intriguing, but only that. I hate to think that we might cave-in to typical youthful impatience by skipping core topics. What do you release from a CS program in order to allow THREADS? This idea sounds sort of like bringing the idea of a masters degree down to the undergrad level. What then is the masters degree for?