Originally Posted by Alchemist11

Admittedly I don't know much about software, except:

"People who are worth a damn will be fine in a recession."

Not necessarily. There are tons of jobs that just become useless when nobody's buying, but before a couple years ago they were totally fine and important and relevant.

Apparently what I implied was not clear enough. If you have some skill set, you are going to be valuable. Whether that be to an employer, or to the general public, you will have something to offer. Say for example, a programmer (seems fitting, lol). If you work for company X, writing code, and you've been there for 20 years yet that company needs to shutdown because it's gone bankrupt. What do you do? Many from Company X may be unemployed for a long time. But the clever, worthwhile programmer, lets call him Bill, will use his smarts to make at least ends meat. Bill recognizes he has certain skills that he can offer. He will find either another company who will hire him, or he will work for himself offering something either to companies' or to the public. Bill knows he can do something well, and Bill will find a way through using his skills to survive.

Originally Posted by dmzz

If you work for company X, writing code, and you've been there for 20 years yet that company needs to shutdown because it's gone bankrupt.

But that's not what we're discussing, you're talking about people who just graduated. Of course if you've been working for 20 years, do a good job, then you'll survive a recession. However, recessions mean fewer jobs, which mean fewer recent grads get a chance to establish themselves, regardless of what program they're in.

Originally Posted by dmzz

Go look at the recruitment rate from the Software Eng. programs last year.

Recruitment rate? That sounds like statistics to me.

Statistics? That sounds quantitative to me...as in nothing to do with 'gems who happen to be particularly skilled and get a job anyway, despite the recession.'

No, it's a statistic, meaning you look at the total number of people who got hired from each program. Given that it's a recession, I throw into question the validity of such statistical figures (and with good reason...it's heavily biased given the situation).

In other words, like I said, to make a conclusive study you need to eliminate variables such as the economy and do a study over the course of 20 years or so to do so. So what you've done (by considering only one year's worth of data) is bring in statistical data which, although I'm sure is sound data, does not conclusively show either one is more qualified than the other.

I mean if you only look at one year, for all you know the 'console wars' are creating a demand for one specific type of computer skillset.

In particular, note that Computer Science has the luxury of having been around for many years, and the advantage of other people who graduated making a good name for McMaster...Software Engineering on the other hand, is brand new. This is another variable which needs to be eliminated, as it has nothing to do with skill.

(Note that this has nothing to do with your notion of 'experience makes for a superior employee' (which is obviously true) and I'm only challenging your conclusion...which stems from last year's employment rates)

Originally Posted by dmzz

Sources: Uncle head of .Net Framework @ Microsoft. Sees Gates on a weekly basis. Father President & CEO of his own company with heavy Software focus. Brother recent Software & Game Design grad.

Also, I'm a mathematician...I don't fold to 'proof by intimidation' or 'proof by appeal to authority'...just something to keep in mind. A logical conclusion follows a logical argument, not 'my friend told me so.'

so Mowicz, you're implying that Comp Sci has an unpredictable future...which isn't helping either

But this field is growing exponentially...so your argument still fails

Growing exponentially maybe because....the planet's population is growing exponentially?

Growing exponentially compared to what? Software engineering? Or just in general? If it's in general, who's to say that software engineering is not also growing exponentially, making your point moot?

Originally Posted by Afzal

so your argument still fails

I don't have an argument, and I was implying no such thing (about the stability of computers)...and even if I did, how does it logically follow that my 'argument' (whatever that is) fails? How can I possibly be implying that computers are unpredictable, if computers are on both sides of the argument?? "Computers > Computers" ?

I'm simply poking holes in the method of proof used to determine that computer science > software engineering...namely, that the statistics are biased (being based only on one year), hence flawed. My opinions regarding computers are irrelevant because, I could be the biggest idiot of all time and wrong about a million things, but he's still using flawed statistics.

I mean guys, come on...with one data set you can't even make a line of best fit, let alone have it be meaningful. S: It's like asking one person what the best movie of all time is, the concluding that their response actually is the best movie of all time.

Originally Posted by Alchemist11

Growing exponentially maybe because....the planet's population is growing exponentially?

Growing exponentially compared to what? Software engineering? Or just in general? If it's in general, who's to say that software engineering is not also growing exponentially, making your point moot?

i'm saying that the computer's field is growing at an exponential rate... it is not a comparative term but an absolute one

there's simply no evidence which could even hint that there will be lesser employment in this field in the next 5 to 10 years

my point is you both are arguing on an unpredictable future

Originally Posted by Afzal

so Mowicz, you're implying that Comp Sci has an unpredictable future...which isn't helping either

But this field is growing exponentially...so your argument still fails

Supposedly my argument (which I've pointed out, I have no argument here) is flawed because I'm saying Comp Sci is unpredictable...yet the punch line is:

my point is you both are arguing on an unpredictable future

(=><=)

EDIT: To avoid confusion, that's not a smilie...it's two arrows pointing at each other.

Originally Posted by Mowicz

Supposedly my argument (which I've pointed out, I have no argument here) is flawed because I'm saying Comp Sci is unpredictable...yet the punch line is:



(=><=)

EDIT: To avoid confusion, that's not a smilie...it's two arrows pointing at each other.

are are arguing that citing the stats is not correct, aren't you?

No...the rules of statistical inference are telling you that using one data set to justify a conclusion is subject to a huge margin of error. I'm simply drawing attention to that fact.

That's not an argument...it's like pointing out that the sky is blue.

--------------

And actually, my last post was supposed to point out that you simultaneously dislike the fact that I was (allegedly) saying the future of computer science is unpredictable (and for some reason, this contradicts the laws of statistics?), then you turned around in your next post and explicitly stated that the future is unpredictable.

Originally Posted by Mowicz

No...the rules of statistical inference are telling you that using one data set to justify a conclusion is subject to a huge margin of error. I'm simply drawing attention to that fact.

That's not an argument...it's like pointing out that the sky is blue.

--------------

And actually, my last post was supposed to point out that you simultaneously dislike the fact that I was (allegedly) saying the future of computer science is unpredictable (and for some reason, this contradicts the laws of statistics?), then you turned around in your next post and explicitly stated that the future is unpredictable.

i said unpredictable = fact

i disliked that it doesn't conform to the stats since they were taken in recession = personal preference

Originally Posted by Afzal

i disliked that it doesn't conform to the stats since they were taken in recession = personal preference

No, this is not personal preference, it's a fact that such data is heavily biased. Having one data set is subject to large amounts of error...I mean for all you know, this one data set could be an outlier.

(See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier )

One piece of data doesn't prove or show anything...To give one last attempt at explaining why one data set is bad, suppose I flipped a coin once...it comes up heads. Can I then conclude that every time I flip a coin, it will come up heads? Does a coin only have one side? Clearly this is a bad conclusion...and it comes from the fact that if I took more data (ie. flipped the coin 1000 times), I'd likely discover that there's more than one side...but from a single flip, there's no way to tell.

This is analogous to the situation we're discussing here. We have one set of data which indicates more comp sci grads were hired last year than software eng. However, if we look at more years, this may not be the trend and could just be a 'special circumstance.' I'm not claiming it is or isn't, I'm simply saying "We don't know." Particularly since I've pointed out two potential problems with this particular data set (One being the recession, the other being that Software Eng is a brand new program that hasn't made a name for itself yet).

I'm sorry, but if you can't understand such a basic idea, it's no longer worth my time responding...but it's not just my opinion. It's fact.

(I also highly encourage you to take a statistics course...I'd imagine it'd be quite helpful for computer science)