L' Eomot Inversé (9/12/2013)
patrickmcginnis59 10839 (9/12/2013)
can't tell who wrote this comment
'Thanks for pointing that out. I've fixed the quote tags in that message, so it should now be clear who wrote what.
Because we know that many of the really great people in computing/IT/database had not a single academic qualification in computing or in IT or in database. Surely we shouldn't restrict ourselves to people who have more academic qualifications in the field than Alan Turing or Fred Williams or Grace Hopper or John McCarthy or Tony Hoare or Ted Codd or Cliff Jones or Chris Date - if they hadn't been allowed to work in computing we wouldn't have got anywhere near where we are today - they might never have been a relational model to give rise to an RDBMS like SQL Server. Do you think that no-one should have been recruited to work on computers before about 1958, since there were no academic qualifications in Computing or IT way back then? :hehe:
Alan Turing: PhD from Princeton
Fred Williams: Doctorate Magdalen College, Oxford
Grace Hopper: Ph.D. in mathematics from Yale
John McCarthy: Ph.D. in Mathematics from Princeton
etc etc
Given the time and the contributions, these guys had some pretty solid academic chops and while not disrespecting the ability they in all likelyhood displayed before these academic achievements, they none the less weren't uneducated. Given the state of the art at the time, the sorts of academics they pursued were exactly what you would expect from someone doing the sort of work they did.
I'm not saying that there aren't counter examples of folks without academic qualifications attaining success in computers, but I'm pretty surprised that folks who actually did have the chops were used in the unattributed quote to highlight the supposed uselessness of academics.
The comment you are responding to says nothing about any academic qualifications except those in IT/Computing. So why tell me what I already know, that the people mentioned all had PhDs in mathematics (except Williams, whose PhD was in Electrical Engineering and Jones, whose PhD was in Computer Science but was taken long after the work that made him famous, and Hoare, who never had an earned PhD at all)? PhDs in mathematics (or in electrical engineering) are not academic qualifications in computing (and neither is a BA degree in Litterae Humaniores, which is what Hoare had).
I'm simply intending to make an argument for the benefits of academics. I would use the folks in this list to highlight their respect for academics and recommend that they did not necessarily commit an error in their pursuit of and association with academic qualifications, and additionally, that the areas of study most likely proved useful in their subsequent work, ie., were not entirely irrelevent to their field of endeavour and in fact may have been the best choice at the time.
Because we know that many of the really great people in computing/IT/database had not a single academic qualification in computing or in IT or in database.
Maybe it would be interesting to consider what phd's were available at the time that many of these folks did NOT choose and instead pursued studies in mathematics, engineering or other non CS studies. For example, should we wonder why Mr. McCarthy or Mr. Turing did not pursue their education in the field of computer science? Would that help us determine whether all the present day companies are mistaken in desiring job candidates with academic credentials in relevent fields?
edit: spelling