Computer science being counted as math credit sounds like a bad idea. Where is the equivalence between proving theorems and solving riders and being able to code something by calling a few APIs to make some stuff happen? Recently, I met a young man working on his PhD in physics at a top university. As we waited on the tarmac, we chatted a bit about life and career from the vantage point of my age and his. Despite his extensive education, he did not have a plan - not yet atleast. Which is not the worst thing for someone still in their 20s.
But when he talked about having picked up data analysis and programming along the way, I felt a twinge of disappointment. He seemed to value those skills as real and tangible - something that could get him a job in an investment bank. Yet, he persisted with physics as long as he did because he loved the subject.
Was it that such love does not convey into material things like a job or was it that coding has become equivalent of everything science, math and engineering? It would be great if people who loved pure sciences could reclaim the subjects from the ambiguous STEM pool where everything becomes lines of code.
But when he talked about having picked up data analysis and programming along the way, I felt a twinge of disappointment. He seemed to value those skills as real and tangible - something that could get him a job in an investment bank. Yet, he persisted with physics as long as he did because he loved the subject.
Was it that such love does not convey into material things like a job or was it that coding has become equivalent of everything science, math and engineering? It would be great if people who loved pure sciences could reclaim the subjects from the ambiguous STEM pool where everything becomes lines of code.
Comments