This recent article cites that many universities are experiencing a sharp drop in computer science student enrollment. Many attribute it to outsourcing scares and a final acknowledgement that the dot Com bubble did indeed pop. It is no longer totally rad to be a computer scientist. I'm a computer scientist, so I can reflect on why I still have a job, and perhaps what the future has in store. For now:
"This fall, Vanderbilt University's computer science department is less than half the size it was in 2001. This year, enrollment fell again, to 61 students from 78 a year ago. Computer engineering has dropped as well."
But I am not worried about employment. I don't think certain categories of computer science majors should be worried, either. These categories are as follows:
1. Those who are extremely talented and can produce academic-quality research in computer science theory & algorithms.
2. Those who have a decent handle on the former, but also have some business acumen.
3. Those who have everything in 2 & 3.
I would argue I'm in category 2. I'm a decent programmer, and I actually retained some of the theory that the professors at my university attempted to bang in to my head. This guy, Stephen Bloom, is the one who made me realize I'm definately not at the top tier of category 1. Or maybe I'm just not that interested. I managed to scrap a "B" in both the classes I took with him. Stephen Bloom is in category 1. Here are some of his notes.
Warning: You may rapidly begin to feel stupid after reading these notes!
But I'm doing quite well even if I'm not in category 1 because I have a mix of business skills and technology skills. I would argue that people who understand business in the context of technology will be in demand for a long time to come.
I don't think I'm delusional, either. We're pretty useful. I can code an SE-friendly site, write copy, and author link-bait. I'm a hybrid. Like hybrid cars, we'll likely only get more popular. Too bad the ladies aren't influenced by the same criteria. I'm still rather single :(
Anyway, I doubt Stephen Bloom is in category 2 (or 3), as I've actually heard him tell a really stupid student "you! get in the garbage" when he got frustrated with him. Smart people can be very mean -- and just plain weird. Nevertheless, the guy is brilliant. And I doubt he'll be panhandling any time soon.
Lastly, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Bill Gates are the cream of the crop -- category 3. They have everything one needs to make it in the world: business skills, social skills, and brains.
Then there is category 4:
4. I did it because it looked lucrative. I'm not interested in it, I suck at math, and I can barely write a "hello world" program.
Those "scientists" are screwed; and a Dell operator will probably be replacing them soon.
But me? I'm not worried :)
September 26th, 2006 at 9:52 am
3. should read everything in 1 & 2 right?
September 26th, 2006 at 11:18 am
The real trick, I think, is being able to tell whether you're actually in category 4 when you think you're in another category. It's very difficult for some people to dismount their high horses and realize that they're not really the experts they think they are. On the flip side of the coin, there are perfect geniuses without the sense or the self-esteem to realize that their ideas are a cut above the rest.
September 26th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Very true, Stephen. I would even argue that MOST people have trouble knowing how good they are, it’s just plain hard. I bet Jaimie’s professor thinks that he is #1, and so do the other dozen or so professors in his field. I think this is why professors need great geographical and subject distances between them to not feel threatened, they are like lions in this respect. I wouldn’t be surprised if he thinks that he could be great at business too if he only "wanted to". We all delude ourselves to some extent, I, of instance, want to think that can figure out this SEO thing...
-Paul
September 26th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Maybe one of these ladies would be able to help you with your singledom?
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=136349&page=54
September 26th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Perhaps, Jaimie was nudging us to compare Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Bill Gates. Since I already tipped my hand a little on this one, I’ll substantiate it a little why I think Bill Gates is a proven genius, while Larry Page and Sergey Brin are still the case of "to be determined". Just don’t flame me too much for it please.
Both Microsoft and Google got a lucky break early on that they did not miss out on. The difference is that Bill Gates continued to run the company for many years and consistently was making good business moves and not missing opportunities.
As far as Google is concerned, I can trace a lot of its characteristics (that worked out well for them) to the techie University culture they came from. This techie orientation (with indexing of numbers, inurl: keywords and the like) and "information has to be free", a very much a University attitude, endeared them to the techie early adopters. This made the techie types rave about superiority of Google. This is not an unknown marketing tactics, and I am not convinced that it was by design. I went to a performance test drive organized by Chrysler, designed with very much the same intention. BTW, did you know that they have really nice high-performance cars?
The real break for Google was the lucky strike with the "one link – one vote" idea (that I argue worked great at first but no longer works). What this allowed them to do was to create a user-friendly search that allowed an average user:
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=46764
http://www.datablunder.com/userlogs/view/27
http://www.dontdelete.com/
to find some useful information and think that they are just as technically savvy as the raving techie guy at work. This proven to be a powerful combination, but to what extent it was designed vs. stumbled upon is a question for me.
What I think was Google’s real by-design contribution, it was the AdWords. When everybody was competing on how to design more intrusive ads Google went the other way. One can argue that it was also in the general anti-marketing University mindset, but this was a brilliant and well executed system.
Unfortunately for Google it provides no lasting competitive advantage, as we all know Yahoo and MSN have already implemented similar systems. I argue that the only real advantage Google still holds is the strength of its brand. However, its credo of being "Do no Evil" company may prove to be a hindrance for them too, as they cannot be too aggressive with its business moves. I very much agree With Microsoft when they say that the competition in the search market is not over yet, and Google has all its eggs in the search basket, so they are extremely vulnerable. If the search traffic dries out on them they are really screwed.
So lets look at Google in 10 years and see if they prove to be a lasting success or a one trick pony, and if it turns out to be the former, then how much Larry Page and Sergey Brin are responsible for it. For now I say they are just smart guys with a very big lucky break. Bill Gates on the other hand IS a genius.
-Paul
September 26th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
Perhaps, Jaimie was nudging us to compare Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Bill Gates. Since I already tipped my hand a little on this one, I’ll substantiate it a little why I think Bill Gates is a proven genius, while Larry Page and Sergey Brin are still the case of "to be determined". Just don’t flame me too much for it please.
Both Microsoft and Google got a lucky break early on that they did not miss out on. The difference is that Bill Gates continued to run the company for many years and consistently was making good business moves and not missing opportunities.
As far as Google is concerned, I can trace a lot of its characteristics (that worked out well for them) to the techie University culture they came from. This techie orientation (with indexing of numbers, inurl: keywords and the like) and "information has to be free", a very much a University attitude, endeared them to the techie early adopters. This made the techie types rave about superiority of Google. This is not an unknown marketing tactics, and I am not convinced that it was by design. I went to a performance test drive organized by Chrysler, designed with very much the same intention. BTW, did you know that they have really nice high-performance cars?
The real break for Google was the lucky strike with the "one link – one vote" idea (that I argue worked great at first but no longer works). What this allowed them to do was to create a user-friendly search that allowed an average user:
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=46764
to find some useful information and think that they are just as technically savvy as the raving techie guy at work. This proven to be a powerful combination, but to what extent it was designed vs. stumbled upon is a question for me.
What I think was Google’s real by-design contribution, it was the AdWords. When everybody was competing on how to design more intrusive ads Google went the other way. One can argue that it was also in the general anti-marketing University mindset, but this was a brilliant and well executed system.
Unfortunately for Google it provides no lasting competitive advantage, as we all know Yahoo and MSN have already implemented similar systems. I argue that the only real advantage Google still holds is the strength of its brand. However, its credo of being "Do no Evil" company may prove to be a hindrance for them too, as they cannot be too aggressive with its business moves. I very much agree With Microsoft when they say that the competition in the search market is not over yet, and Google has all its eggs in the search basket, so they are extremely vulnerable. If the search traffic dries out on them they are really screwed.
So lets look at Google in 10 years and see if they prove to be a lasting success or a one trick pony, and if it turns out to be the former, then how much Larry Page and Sergey Brin are responsible for it. For now I say they are just smart guys with a very big lucky break. Bill Gates on the other hand IS a genius.
-Paul
September 27th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
If you can speak both geek and business then there will always be a place for you in the IT world. The get rich quick people that took the web design course through those great infomercials may have some challenges. The true Technology professionals that have a passion for what they do will always find themselves at the front of the IT job line.
Cheers
Craig
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:50 pm
Guess I'm level 5.
I'm a businessman that likes to think about where tech is headed, but haven't seriously worked with computers since last century.