Computer Science Enrollment Up 10% Last Fall 173
dcblogs writes "Computer science enrollments increased 10% last fall, according to the Computer Research Association. At the peak of the dot-com era, the average enrollment in computer science departments was 398, but by 2007 it had declined in half. Enrollments now average 253 students per department. Enrollments have now increased in the last three years. The CRA's annual survey tracks students enrolled at Ph.D.-granting institutions. Compared to the dot-com era, the interest today in computer science may be 'a more reasoned response to a field that seems positioned at the hub of just about every national priority.'"
What is ironic about the dot com era... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I've got jobs, you looking for work? (Score:4, Insightful)
RECRUITERS DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT YOU.
To them, you are a commodity, a way to make sure little Johnny gets his new XBox 360 game, and nothing more.
If you want to find a job, you have to market yourself to the companies at which you would like to work. Get to know the company, try to meet the people in the department in which you are interested, make yourself available to these people, offer to volunteer on a project, etc. If you work this plan at several companies you will be much more likely to find a job that you fit and that also fits you.
Re:What is ironic about the dot com era... (Score:4, Insightful)
That depended. If you were in a college that taught according to the market (ie: Java and web applications) rather than according to the discipline, you were ruined.
If you were in a college that gave you a flexible background, skills that were transferrable across the industry, and exposure to a range of languages, you could find work that paid damn well after the crash.
Colleges should NEVER focus on what the marker wants this week. Even without the crash, what's wanted today will NOT be what's wanted 4 years down the road and won't even begin to resemble what's wanted when you're 20-30 years in. If you want to survive in an industry that evolves faster than you can learn a new skill, you have to have learned all the skills you will ever need in the business by the time you step out into the world. Everything beyond that point HAS to be pure reference work for the latest syntax. Do that and the market is irrelevant. You will always be employable.
Actual science degree or vocational training? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm surprised about this statistic as well as happy. I was pretty much sure CS and other science work was completely written off by US students as nonviable. After all, it's easier to go into investment banking or management consulting, and the course load is much easier for a bigger payoff.
Some people have posted sentiments along the lines of -- "is this actual CS being studied, or a checkbox for an IT job?" Being in IT, I can say that having a background in a science or engineering discipline (doesn't matter which one) is a huge asset. The abiltiy to logically break down a system or problem, analyze dependencies and troubleshoot separates a really good IT guru from the guy who just got out of a certification class. (If you have this ability naturally, then great...but most people need to actually practice on something to get good at it, hence the degree.) This also can lead to more job satisfaction -- I enjoy my job because my company gives me interesting problems to solve, partially because they know I'll be able to deal with the "interesting" stuff better than someone who can just follow directions. I have a non-CS background (chemistry,) but the same scientific, logical reasoning applies. For example, when ýou're trying to figure out a poorly documented application with no access to the developers or support, and something goes wrong, this kicks in. Someone who just took a certification class will (may!) know how to drive the product's GUI or CLI, and often changes six things at a time in the vague hope that something will work. A science-trained individual is much more likely to methodically approach troubleshooting, and understand how what they do possibly affects connected systems. There are huge exceptions in both cases, and I've seen them, but it's a good rule of thumb that someone with a science/engineering background is going to be a better candidate for a job. Maybe my judgement is a little clouded since I'm in systems integration, where this skillset is even more important to have. Anything outside of a formulaic procedure, or a situation where you actually have to come up with the procedure is better staffed by someone who can deal with the higher-level work.
One interesting side effect of this is that if enrollment in good CS programs gets high enough, employers will no longer be able to sell the "we can't find qualified Americans to do our jobs." Like I said, I only agree with them to a point -- there's a lot of bozos in our field that don't belong and are better suited to other professions. However, there are a lot of good, qualified people out there...they just don't work cheap and are usually employed unless a major layoff/restructuring leaves you without a seat.
Re:What is ironic about the dot com era... (Score:4, Insightful)
Since the job market is awful, it is good to be in school now.
That statement probably should be qualified. There appears to be a price bubble in education at the moment, forcing many students to take loans with onerous terms ( impervious to bankruptcy ). And there's no certainty that the U.S. economy will offer jobs that would let even reasonably-sized student loans be paid off in a reasonable amount of time.
So honestly, the best I hope for is that the education price bubble will have popped by the time my young kids are done with high-school.
Re:Actual science degree or vocational training? (Score:4, Insightful)
> "we can't find qualified Americans to do our jobs."
Of course they will continue saying this. The qualification they are talking about is accepting being paid in the equivalent of 10 Rupies a day.