Texas A & M University University of Hawaii. Richard H. Austing Michael C. Mulder University of Maryland Bonneville Power

Transcription

1 AM.I Computer Science Udo W. Pooch RahulChattergy ineerin n Education in the 80's Texas A & M University University of Hawaii Richard H. Austing Michael C. Mulder University of Maryland Bonneville Power -Administration The computer's pervasiveness in the 1980's will demand even more professional talent, broader computer education, and perhaps even licensing of the computer professional. Industry, education, and professional groups must cooperate to meet these challenges. This paper offers an opinion as to what can be expected in computer science and computer engineering education in the 1980's. We initially examine the current status of undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education curricula development and treat international curricula development and accreditation efforts as auxiliary issues. Next, we discuss the need, supply, and demand for new graduates and those who continue their professional education, and follow with an assessment of the need for further cooperation between universities and industry. We also examine the effect of international cooperation and the impact of the registration and licensing issues. With these factors firmly in mind, we offer a profile of a computer science and computer engineering graduate in the 1980's, as well as a prognosis of the future, outlining the challenges that both academia and industry will face. Overview of curricula development The past few years have witnessed an accelerating pace of curricula development in the realm of computer science and computer engineering education. Professional societies, those in universities, and those in industry have been developing model curricula that mesh computer science and computer engineering, but only with much difficulty and sometimes heated debate. There is considerable concern among educators, individuals involved with the computer industry, and students that much must be done to provide cohesive programs in computer This article represents a consensus of the authors' views, but does not necessarily reflect their individual opinions or those of the organizations they represent. science and computer engineering programs at colleges and universities, and junior and community colleges. In far too many situations, the student is placed in a position of having to choose between a computer science or computer engineenng curriculum, rather than being able to choose a computer science and computer engineenng curriculum. The unfortunate result is that a student ventures into industry rn-prepared for the challenges that he will meet. Computer science, as the term is used in this paper, includes those areas of study addressed in the curricula reports of ACM's Curriculum Committee on Computer Science,1'7 and of the IEEE Computer Society Education Committe's Model Curricula Subcommittee.21 It is not intended to encompass predominately business or management oriented areas, such as information systems or information systems management. Areas for curriula improvement. Based on the recommendations in the ACM and IEEE Computer Society reports and as corroborated by actual developments in existing departments, it seems reasonable to project trends in computer science curricula (Table 1). The first two years of a BS degree program will contain a more rigorous and disciplined approach to programming, putting the field more firmly on a scientific base. Research in abstraction, correctness, and verification will provide results which can be incorporated into lowerlevel instruction in programming, but which will appear in a rigorous fashion in courses at the juniorsenior levels. This, in turn, will make the approach to languages at those levels more well-defined and organzed than it now appears to be. September / $ IEEE 69

2 70 Table 1. Areas for curricula Improvement and enhancement. Distributed systems, communication systems, and networks Modular system design concepts Software engineering concepts Computer-aided design tools and aids Tools/techniques for problem solving Application concepts (e.g., case studies, sizing and performance evaluation concepts) Availability, reliability, and maintainability (ARM) concepts System life cycle concepts Management concepts Communication skills and concepts These subjects represent areas for continuing computer science and computer engineering curricula Improvement and enhancement, and summarize the recommendations of the ACM Curriculum Committee on Computer Science and the IEEE Computer Society Education Committee's Model Curricula Subcommittee. The systems area, however, will not become as settled. The impact of mini and microcomputers and microprocessors on curricula has only begun to be felt. Both curricula reports recommended specific courses, but implementations of these recommendations will vary considerably. Logic and design courses will be introduced earlier in many curricula and extensive use of laboratories will be attempted. The implementation of such courses and laboratories may be severely impeded by the unwillingness of institutions and states to allocate the necessary resources. The need for departmentally controlled equipment laboratories will also grow because many more students at lower levels will have already had exposure to minis and micros. Again, funding for the laboratories may not be given. The solution to the funding problem is unclear since it is dependent on so many political and economic variables. Also unclear is the nature of the changes such laboratory oriented lower-level courses will impose on junior-senior level systems courses. In addition to appropriate equipment in sufficient amounts, changes in lower-level course content willrequire different teaching methods and in some cases retraining of faculty members. Traditionally, changes in faculty teaching techniques do not come easily. In spite of the availability of a wide-range of instructional aids, including classroom computers and terminals, the vast majority of computer science and computer engineering faculty share with faculty in other disciplines the same traditional methods-chalkboards, handouts, textbooks, and lectures. Need for study of applications. The problems connected with instilling more organization, science, and engineering into the field may be minor compared to the problems of integrating applications into curricula. There are already significant entreaties from other disciplines which rely on various applications to make computer science courses more appropriate for their students. Industry also continues to ask for graduates with more relevant training. Some departments offer a kind of practicum or topics course which enables students to address a problem from another discipline or one in an industrial setting. But any department which tries to meet application needs solely by offering such courses, while keeping most of the other courses in the curriculum relatively theoretical, will only be paying lip service to the problem. The applications of computers must somehow be integrated into curricula, but many computer science departments will have problems doing so in the 1980's. Electrical engineering departments which house a computer science currculum, however, will not be as affected by this problem. Training elementary and secondary teachers. An area of curriculum development which will be important in the 1980's relates to teacher training. Assuming that current trends will continue, computing will be taught in almost all secondary schools and in some, if not a majority, of elementary schools. The material presented will include both programming and study of the social impact of computing. The need for teacher training programs, or computer science education, will grow rapidly. There are a few programs in existence now (e.g., at the University of Illinois, Illinois Institute of Technology, and University of Oregon). Also, some materials have been prepared at the international level by the IFIP Technical Committee for Education's Working Group on Secondary School Education, WG 3.1, chaired by Wm. F. Atchison.22 However, there are just not enough programs or materials to meet the growing need. The development of programs in computer science education, both to train new teachers and to retrain experienced ones, will require the combined efforts of faculty in education and in computer science. Many departments will not have sufficient staff to give to these efforts. The alternative, namely having elementary and secondary teachers from other disciplines pick up information about computers as best they can and then teach it, can create more problems than solutions. Although we could say that adequate training in subject specialties is a problem of education in general rather than of computer science, computer scientists should nevertheless be deeply involved in curricula development in these areas. Curricula development in computer science and computer engineering Significant curricula development work began in the early 1960's. Prior to that time the major source of computer education and training was the computer manufacturer. To fill a widening gap between the demand for and the availability of computer personnel a large number of private computer schools COMPUTER

3 were established in the 1950's. With encouragement from industry and guidance from the professional societies, computer education developed in institutions of higher education in the 1960's. At the 1963 ACM annual conference a panel session was held dealing with education in computer science and computer engineering. The results of this panel were reported in the April 1964 issue of the Communications of the ACM. This work in turn led to the preliminary recommendations for an undergraduate program in computer science, made by C8S-the ACM Curriculum Committee on Computer Science, and published by that group in With the support of a grant from the National Science Foundation this work was expanded into a more comprehensive set of recommendations known as "Curriculum '68."' About the same time, but independently, the Cosine Committee of the Commission on Engineering Education prepared guidelines for computer science in electrical engineering'2 which recommended an undergraduate course program. The mathematics community also indicated an interest in computing curricula development by publishing the Recommendations on the Undergraduate Mathematics Program for Work in Computing in 1964," which represented work by CUPM-the Committee on the Undergraduate Program in Mathematics. The roughly simultaneous publication of the Cosine Committee recommendations and "Curriculum '68" established computer science and engineering education as an area of study and research. Numerous papers and reports, both by individuals and by working groups of the professional societies, have been prepared and published since This work has included additional reports by the Cosine Committee, interim reports of activities of CIS, an -additional series of recommendations by CUPM, and development of guidelines in the area of information systems by C'EM-the ACM Curriculum Committee on Computer Education for Management. Formal and informal special interest groups dealing with questions of computer science and engineering education have also been formed and have provided a continuing forum for discussion. Discussion of the history trends of computer science and engineering education is presented by Ramamoorthy.2 Undergraduate curricula development. The most recent work done in the area of curricula development was published in final form in November 1976 by the IEEE Computer Society2l and in preliminary form by the ACM in June The essence of the curricula were published in Computer in December 1977,28 with a fine comparison of the two recommended curricula written by Engel.'6 The three fundamental block organizations are reproduced for comparison in Figures 1, 2, and 3. Twelve institutions are known to be currently using the curricula recommendations, with many more analyzing them at this time. Constructive criticism of the reports September 1978 CORE COURSES: cs-i COMPUTER PROGRAMMING-1 CS-2 COMPUTER PROGRAMMING-2 CS-3 CS-4 GS-5+ ASSEMBLY LANGUAGE INTROUCTION TO INTRODUCTION TO I ELEMENTARY PROGRAMM ING COMPTRGAZTO FILE PROCESSING LEVEL _ oz ~~~~~~~~~~~~ADVANCED CS-6 CS-7 Ci-8 OPERATING SYSTEMS DATA STRUCTURES ORGANIZATION OF AND COMPUTER AND PROGRAMMING ARCHITECTURE-1 ALGORITHMS ANALYSIS LANGUAGES ELECTIVE COURSES: CS-9 OPERATING SYSTEMS AND COMPUTER ARCHITECTURAL-Il CS-15 THEORY OF PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES CS-lU COMPUTERS AND SOCIETY CS-16 COMPILER WRITING LABORATORY CS-11 ADVANCED SYSTEMS PROGRAMMING CS-17 AUTOMATA, COMPUTABILITY, AND FORMAL LANGUAGES CS-12 MINICOMPUTER LABORATORY CS-18 NUMERICAL MATHEMATICS: ANALYSIS CS-13 DATA BASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DESIGN CS-19 NUMERICAL MATHEMATICS: LINEAR ALGEBRA CS-14 ANALYSIS OF ALGORITHMS Figure 1. Block diagram shows ACM computer science undergraduate curriculum recommendations made in 1977 by C3S-the ACM Curriculum Committee on Computer Science." has dealt with areas of omission, but has not disagreed with the content of the reports' recommendations. Feedback indicates that prerequisites and corequisites should be more completely defined, and that business information systems, data processing, health information systems, and other related areas should be included in the computer science and engineering field. Another important suggestion calls for the recommendation of courses for "tracks," i.e., specialized programs of study, such as in software engineering. The professional societies are developing such "tracks." The undergraduate curricula is generally acceptable, insofar as industry, academia, and government have worked through professional societies to generate recommendations and guidelines that are workable. The potential effects of several of the above problems become significant when considered by community colleges which offer or plan to offer two-year computer science programs. Currently the majority of community colleges offer programs which focus mainly on areas of business oriented computing (e.g., data entry, data processing, operations, business applications programming). Computer science curricula do exist, but mainly as transfer rather than as terminal programs. Their content is therefore influenced by the four-year institutions to which the community colleges' students normally transfer, hence the influence of the undergraduate recommendations on the community college programs. Most of the faculty in community colleges are not prepared to offer a computer science program. Their computer backgrounds often derive from business and industry experience, where many of those who are part time are also employed. This situation is unlikely to change substantially by the middie 71

4 COMPUTER ORGANIZATION AND ARCHITECTURE DIGITAL LOGIC THEORY OF COMPUTING SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INTRODUCTORY SE-3~~~~~~T-VICU SRUCTURES S 0101~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~T- GIGT ~~~~~~~~ LOGIC C ARCHITECTURE - INTERMEDIATE - DL-4 0O-4 T SE- COCU 3R CMPTRcoTN LN CRORAMMING DESG 'KMCRO /DITEUTED TASAOA1(UOAANArO RUSE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~DATA ND SYSTE -. DEVICE L DITA K~~~~~~~~~~~- Figure 2. Computer science and engineering curricula flow diagram summarizes the recommendations published in January 1977 by the IEEE Computer Society Education Committee, Model Curriculum Subcommittee." PREREQUISITES CONCURRENT LABORATORIES A ADVANCED 14 CORE CURRICULUM 1980's. However, there will be a large number of science majors in the work force IRIILIIP0RMNgraduate LA who have computer master's degrees. Some of these graduates IDl6lTALLOPOIN will be interested in teaching and may be qualified to do so in community colleges. Hiring such persont t y L/ A SE 2 INTRODUCTION nel will add a useful diiiiension to at least some pro/\ \ / ~~COMPUTER INICOMPUTER OATA o5 v I grams, will strengthen transfer programs, and may,2 DL-2 ) ORGANICEZATIO-N lmlot LABORATORY Ihelp alleviate the problem of growing enrollments in lower-level computer science courses in four-year In addition, such personnel could be programs. z,3 DL-4, DL-3 helpful in recommending computer equipment and TAL in utilizing mini- and microcomputers in courses. SE S It is doubtful that community colleges will incorpsrocessor GPROOAMNGIN )LABORATORYiJ r-dl-4 porate full-blown computer science programs into their curricula for purposes other than transfer. The job market trend is clearly in the direction of hiring graduates with no less than a bachelor's degree. SEG 6However, Hamblen's survey'$ indicates that there < CO-3 are approximately ten job possibilities for every bachelor's degree graduate in computing, so there is at least a possibility that two-year graduates can -T SE-7 find employment, probably as entry-level programopera ING mers, in such a job market. SY\STEMS CO-4 SYSTEMS l MICPOl R-ESIGN PROGRAMMING Graduate curricula development. Development of TRANSE a graduate curricula has not evolved at the same rate WRITING as work in the undergraduate area. Both the IEEE Figure 3. Diagram Illustrates the sequence of laboratories for the Computer Society and the ACM are actively working on graduate curricula but are one to two years IEEE Computer Society's curriculum.)1 DL1 SE-1 X /-IXa XiG COMPUTER,

5 away from recommendations and guidelines. To date the development of graduate curricula has been a function of the individual university, and in fact depends on the interests of the graduate staff members available at a given institution. Hence, various institutions have become known for graduate education in specialty areas. The development of graduate curricula should also involve industry. University-industry cooperation could create a graduate-level environment characterized by mutually beneficial interaction between graduate education and research and local industry. Continuing education curricula development. The most challenging area of curricula development work involves those courses and programs commonly grouped under the term "continuing education." The term refers loosely to instruction aimed at the professional, i.e., someone with a basic degree who is not seeking an advanced one, who desires a "no nonsense" level of instruction and wants information which he can immediately use on his job. The employer may even be the driving force behind the individual's involvement. It is clear that this type of curricula development is very dependent on the need of local industry, and probably incorporates "hands on" instruction with theoretical considerations kept at a minimal essential level. The already large market for this type of education will continue to grow rapidly due to the professional need to keep up with -new technology such as the microprocessors. Again, the professional societies are attempting to develop curricula recommendations and guidelines for continuing professional education. The IEEE Computer Society's committee includes a large number of industrial people who have experience with continuing education. Even more activity in this area is needed, not only due to the rapid growth of technology and the desire of professionals to grow educationally, but also because of the expressed desire of industry, which has up to now assumed most of the responsibility for continuing education, to share the load with academia. The need is especially pressing because normal channels of information transfer-e.g., texts, journals, structured courses, etc.-are too slow to keep up with current technology. The structured education of a computer professional has traditionally ended with his undergraduate training in a university. For the major part of his productive life he is expected to continue to learn "by osmosis" from his peer group. The computer industry's rapid pace of technological development makes this learning process inadequate. Generally accepted estimates state that the available knowledge in most areas of computing science and related technologies doubles approxiimately every 5-8 years. Continuing education can clearly assist a computer professional in acquiring this new knowledge in a rapid and systematic manner. However, this potential is not achieved by the conventional forms of continuing education offered by universities and industry, which are too fragmented and limited in scope. A step-by-step procedure for the development of continuing education programs has been developed by Chattergy and Pooch.10'11 Continuing education curricula guidelines and recommendations are expected to be available within two years from the professional societies. The practicing professional wants "no nonsense" instruction-information of immediate relevance to his job. Closely allied to continuing education programs is the matter of self-assessment. Many computer professionals will want to know whether or not they are keeping up in their areas of specialty. Selfassessment is one attempt to provide a means for doing so. The ACM Committee on Self-Assessment, chaired by Terry Frederick, has published three selfassessment procedures-one dealing with programming skills and techniques,2 another with system organization and control, and information representation, handling, and manipulation,3 and another with internal sorting.4 Additional procedures are in preparation. The reaction has been favorable enough to suggest that self-assessment procedures will be used extensively after further development work. In addition to providing individuals with a means for estimating their knowledge in specific areas, the existing procedures also provide pointers to references for further study, hence their continuing education component. Self-assessment procedures should evolve into effective instruments for both self-evaluation and continuing education, helping fulfill the professional needs of the 1980's. Universities and colleges should give greater recognition to continuing education as a distinct sectioxn of the spectrum of education, and provide increased leadership in the planning and offering of continuing studies. Universities and colleges should also cooperate to a more significant extent with industry, government, and professional societies in such programs, in order to achieve the most benefit for the student and the best utilization of people resources. These programs might be regarded as coop or internship programs in reverse. Some rather specific conclusions about continuing education seem to be unavoidable:24 Most professionals are not interested in continuing education as now defined; they are simply interested in learning how to do their current job better. They will respond to skill training rather than to formal education, and they will demand an immediate pay off in terms of recognition, responsibility, or salary. The long-range development of continuing educacation is closely tied to the overall attitude of management to its professional staff members and their needs. September

6 74 Continuing education can only be effective if all levels of a company (industry) give it active support. Universities and colleges will probably play only a relatively minor role in the future growth of continuing education (technical) courses, until industry insists that they develop courses and programs. The professional societies can provide a mediating service between academia and industry. The need for specific technical courses should be established by surveying individual professionals, as well as by noting the interest of management and the trends of technologies. Advisory committees composed of members from academia, industry, and government should be helpful in the long-range estimation of technologies, trends, and developments, and their impact on the needs for various technical courses. The motivation for and rewards of continuing education should include (1) formal recognition by employers via enhanced responsibilities, financial rewards, and/or job reclassification, (2) certification and/or accreditation of individuals for completion of continued education courses or programs, and (3) recognition of continuing education by employers as a valid element in personal professional development. Curricula accreditation. The issue of computer science and engineering curricula accreditation continues to be important. It is clear that established and maturing programs in computer science and engineering look to accreditation as a valuable if not necessary step toward recognized competency. Thus far the IEEE Computer Society, as a constituent member of ECPD-the Engineer's Council for Professional Development, has worked in two important ways with that organization. First, the Computer Society has cooperated in the development of the ECPD accreditation guidelines for computer science and engineering programs,29 by which all programs seeking accreditation are now evaluated. Second, the Computer Society has provided lists of computer professionals who have served and will continue to serve on accreditation teams. It is clear that ECPD accreditation will become increasingly desirable, if not absolutely necessary, to institutions offering computer science and engineering programs. This will be true because of the desire of students to attend institutions which have been judged to have acceptable computer science and engineering programs, and because of industry's demand for graduates of accredited universities. The computer science and engineering accreditation guidelines should be reviewed yearly and updated as needed. The review should be conducted by both industry and the professional societies. Effects of changing technologies. Continuing innovations in computer technology, and the continuing expansion of the role of computing in society, will greatly affect computer science and computer engineering education in the next decade. Impact of microsystems. The proliferation of microcomputer systems will have an enormous impact on computer science and computer engineering education. For example, it is now possible to purchase an "off-the-shelf" computer kit for $5955-and this price will continue to decrease. Various universities are just beginning to set up mini- and microcomputer courses and to acquire mini- and microcomputer systems, although articles discussing the use of such systems in computer education have already appeared in the literature.11, 7 Having worked with large systems for many years (both batch and time-sharing), we now find ourselves faced with the different challenges and opportunities offered by small systems, i.e., the inherent restrictions of small systems and yet their accessibility and availability for student "hands-on" experience. This evolution in technology raises a number of questions for educators. How can we best (re)structure our curricula to take advantage of such systems? How should a mini-micro laboratory be organized for teaching and research? What should be the mix of time spent on standard course work and time spent on development efforts? How can we best retrain ourselves in order to take advantage of these systems? Though educators have tried to adapt to this farreaching change in technology, only recently have articles appeared describing the integration of the use of microsystems into computer science curricula.'9'36 Although each paper covers different topics in varying degrees of depth, almost all of the authors agree that a micro-lab facility can provide students with exposure to concepts and problems such as actual hardware, computer operation, operating systems, backup procedures, program size problems, inter-computer communications, scheduling, maintenance, and computer management. These are the kinds of problems students will encounter after graduation. A mini-micro laboratory can offer students actual experience, previously unavailable, in dealing with such problems.26 In addition to general discussions concerning the establishment of such labs, papers are now appearing which cover specific courses designed to use Although a few caveats are ex- such facilities.923 pressed, most of the comments are phrased as "good news." However, some of the authors caution readers about the problems involved in simply operating a laboratory'7 as well as in maintaining the system and keeping the faculty involved. Although many people correctly assumed that there might be a lack of good software for the new microsystems, they did not necessarily foresee that there might also be more problems with the hardware than initially anticipated. Furthermore, the experience of several groups shows that with a variety of operating systems and software packages in use, a considerable degree of software support is re- COMPUTER

7 Udo Pooch,Richard Austing, and Mike Mulder (left to right) considered computer science and engineering education issues. quired simply to perform routine maintenance. If there are not adequate provisions for support staff, the responsibility for maintenance falls on faculty members who generally don't have enough time to do the necessary troubleshooting. However, the experience of most groups indicates that the problems do not cancel out the advantages to be gained in using mini-micro laboratories. Other questions can be raised as to how the evolution of these microsystems specifically affects people concerned with computer education. Some of the most important points are: Many more students finishing high school will have had some course work and experience using a computer. More departments in colleges and universities will require their students to take (additional) computer courses. More people in the community who return to the university will want to take computer courses. Graduates of degree programs wil be returning to universities to learn about recent computer developments. Tracking. The first point above indicates that many introductory computer courses might need revamping, since students will finish high school with a working knowledge of programming and computer systems. Already a number of universities are offering "tracks" for students based on their pre-university computer experience. tvidence seems to suggest that this will become an even more widespread practice. Such a "track" system will be reinforced by other departments' increasing needs for specific types of computer courses for their students. Although such "service" courses already exist, they will become even more prominent in the future, providing the impetus for creating different tracks in computer science and computer engineering curricula. If, however, computer science and computer engineering departments decide they do not want to promote these offerings, then the other departments will start developing their own versions. A precedent-the proliferation of statistics courses-illustrates this trend. September 1978 At this point one might ask why a separate tracking system is needed. The basic reason involves the difference between the mathematics backgrounds of computer science majors and non-computer science majors. At most universities, computer science majors must take calculus, usually in the form of two one-year sequences covering both single and multivariable calculus. Students not majoring in computer science, however, often do not have the necessary math background to take many upperlevel computer courses. Therefore courses stressing applications and effective use of systems, and which do not require sophisticated mathematical explanations, must be developed to meet these students' needs. This is not meant to belittle the role of mathematics, since a solid background in mathematics (particularly discrete mathematics) is as important today as it has ever been for computer science majors. The service course concept receives additional support when a third point is considered. As microsystems become less expensive small businesses, service organizations, and homemakers will be able to afford them. Their availability will promote even more widespread use, resulting in many people returning to colleges and universities to learn about them. Most of these people will not be proficient in mathematics. Furthermore, their interest will primarily center on using a microsystem for very specific types of applications. Their background and motivation will definitely lead them to various types of service courses. With appropriate planning and foresight, it should be possible to structure some courses to meet the needs of these returning students as well as of the non-computer science majors described in the preceding paragraph. Not only would this be an excellent use of resources, but it would also serve as a valuable service to the community. Computers and society. In discussing aspects of computing that are important to the "citizen-atlarge," it would be remiss not to focus on the "computers and society" course. As taught at various schools, this type of course takes one of two approaches-it either attempts to teach some programming as well as discuss issues, or it does not teach programming but introduces some of the 75

8 basic terminology and concepts of computer systems before discussing various topics. It is not the purpose of this paper to describe the content of such courses or debate the relative merits of one approach as opposed to the other. The interested reader can obtain this information from an ACM study funded by the National Science Foundation.6 The point is that "computer and society" courses are becoming more common, and that one of the biggest challenges of the 80's may be to educate the average citizen about computers. In particular, people should be able to separate fact from fiction with regard to computer-related stories on TV and in newspapers and popular magazines. Furthermore, they need to be made aware of important issues related to the use and misuse of computers. They should have the opportunity to acquire enough information to form intelligent opinions on such vital questions as the implications of centralized data banks, the pros and cons of electronic funds transfers, the viability and effectiveness of computer-assisted or computer-managed instruction, and the security of computer systems that contain and process top secret information. Most people today do not simply think of the computer as a powerful tool. They ascribe to it (often unconsciously) many human attributes. A major effort is needed to raise their level of consciousness so they can put the computer into proper perspective. Such mass education will not be accomplished through normal classroom means. It will require the use of mass communication techniques. One first thinks of educational programs on public television and possibly on radio as ways to tackle this problem. However, more innovative solutions are required to impress on the general public the importance of understanding these issues and taking an active role in their resolution. With continued advances in computer technology, it might be possible in the next decade to teach TV courses to a home audience equipped with terminals and computers. As this home audience acquires a certain level of expertise, it can also be exposed to important issues such as those discussed previously. For people without computer equipment, programs can be devised which draw on "story themes" to illustrate the use of computers. More avenues need to be explored in order to find the best techniques for educating the most people about computers. This is not only one of the biggest challenges facing educators in the 1980's, but is also an area for ongoing work well into the 2000's. Without a broad base of public understanding, many important computer-related issues will be decided by a few people, and many important computer applications will be curtailed or blocked due to public misunderstanding and misinformation. Matching the need, the supply, the demand To date there has not been an oversupply problem for computer science and computer engineering graduates. These professions have experienced a high number of job offers per graduate and a very low rate of unemployment. Few students are taking computer science courses simply because they are fun and challenging. The growth in the number of programs and departments of computer science and computer engineering (created in response to the large numbers of students) has been phenomenal This growth is expected to continue. There is also a great demand for graduates in other fields who have a background in computing or at least have some knowledge of how to use computers in their disciplines. Today and for the foreseeable future, professionals with a degree in computing will enter a "sellers' market." Colleges and universities have not been able to keep up with the demand for graduates at all levels-bachelor's, master's, and doctoral. Several recent reports and letters have analyzed and assessed the future job market for students receiving PhD degrees in computer/information science and related areas.'4,27'1436 Studies predict that the job market will remain strong for graduates of PhD, master's, and bachelor's programs (see Figures 4, 5, and 6), although there is some disagreement over how degree programs should be structured and where programs in computer science and computer engineering should be located. Obviously these supply and demand curves must cross at some future time, so we ndust begin planning now for the inevitable job crunch already being experienced in other disciplines. Students from other departments are increasingly interested in computing courses because they are concerned about getting jobs. They simply are more employable if they have some knowledge of computing, whatever their major. This concern, more than any other cause, is creating the need for more service courses. As noted previously, however, some of these courses can serve other audiences in addition to non-computer science majors, if carefully planned. Thus the challenge of the 80's in this area of curricula planning is to carefully follow the trends in Figure 4. Past and projected numbers of computer science degrees the job market. Yearly reports such as those done by Taulbee and Conte'5 will be very valuable. In awarded annually. 76 COM PUTER

9 fact, similar studies will probably be required in the near future in order to gather reliable statistics on how the job market absorbs graduates from bachelor's and master's programs. As supply catches up with demand, more attention will be given to the aspects of improving the quality, since the demand for quantity will have leveled off. An important goal now should be "controlled growth" in order to protect the future market as well as to serve current needs. Our emphasis here on job market trends does not imply that departments should structure their curricula to meet the needs of employers. Far from it! Computer science and computer engineering educators are as deeply commited as educators in other disciplines to offering students solid background knowledge as well as highly specific technical expertise. A degree in this area does not denote a "training license." It is a sign of an educated person who has learned how to solve problems in a logical manner, using the computer as a tool. However, it is a fact that in a period of rapid expansion such as computer science is still experiencing, curricula will continue to be designed which emphasize job training aspects rather than broader educational goals. It is imperative that such programs be upgraded and weaker ones not initiated. This is a very complicated and potentially sensitive problem, but one that educators cannot afford to shirk. With demand outstripping supply, there is concern that the needs of industry are not being met,30 that ill-prepared graduates are being hired anyway because of the rapid growth of computer technology and applications. The weaknesses of some graduates' preparation include inadequate digital systems and software engineering background, inadequate familiarity with software tools and aids, and inadequate project management, policy and decision-making, and legal training. In the future as competition (particularly international competition) becomes intense, industry will be required to be even more creative and productive than at present. The solution to matching the needs of industry with the instructional backgrounds of students lies with both the acadenic community and industry, but more specifically with cooperation between the two. With such cooperation, the student will be more completely prepared to meet the increasingly more complex challenges industry offers. Even more importantly, feedback from industry to educators will have been established. In the next section we examine the nature of this cooperation and feedback in detail. The need for cooperation between universities and industry As stated previously, one of the major reasons for the creation of computer science and engineering programs is to produce educated and well-prepared graduates who will contribute to the economic welfare of their employing company. The newly graduated professional will contribute in a number of ways to his organization as his experience increases. His first contribution is usually at a September 1978 Figure 5. Past and projected numbers of computer science pro- grams. Figure 6. Past and projected average numbers of degrees per pro- gram. technical level, the next at a technical management level, then at a middle management level, and finally at a corporate management or other high level. Probably the two most important and productive times are the technical contribution period (first level), and the middle- or higher-level management period (third and fourth levels) where policy is made. It appears that academia prepares graduates for the first level and yet offers very little training or guidance for the other three levels. Hence, it appears that formal training should be made available (possibly on a continuing education basis) for a graduate to not only add to his technical knowledge, but to also become versed in technical management and the complexities of corporate policy-making. The lack of such training results in the "armed camp" technical outposts that exist within many computer companies. The above problem and suggested solution is only at the surface of a more general problem-i.e., in77

10 78 dustry and academia each perceive a large displacement (sometimes called a chasm) between their respective goals and objectives. How many times have we heard "Well, it's only academic anyway!" or "Industry is just interested in dollars next week, certainly not technology five years from now!" Industry should invest heavily in programs at local and regional colleges and universities, in the form of dollars, equipment, and rotating staff. This investment should involve more than just a "working relationship." A cooperative environment should be constructed in which the quality and type of instruction and research activity is continuously monitored, and staff members are rotated between the college or university and the local industrial community. Far fetched? Hardly, if we look at the relationships that Stanford, MIT, and Carnegie- Mellon have established with industry, to name a few. In these examples dollars from industry, superior students, and staffs which support industry with relevant (not necessarily applied) research have been the keys to successful cooperation. Without such cooperation we run the risk of a substantial slip in the competitiveness of the computer industry, and a dwindling demand for graduates of computer science and computer engmeerng programs. Resource availability and control There are two issues which will affect the nature and growth of computer science and engineering programs. The first is the amount of funding that will be available for equipment, and for support of the programs themselves; the second is the question of who will control computer facilities and equipment procurement for the programs. Funding. The nature of resource allocation, in terms of money for instructional aids, computing facilities, research support, and faculty salaries, is a measure of an institution's commitment to computing. Assuming that the fiscal crunch will continue into the 1980's, colleges and universities will find it increasingly more difficult to support the expanding student interest in computers and the corresponding demands for programs in computer science and engineering. Administrators will be forced to shift resources from existing programs in other disciplines to the more heavily populated computer-oriented programs (shifts of this kind, though not always in the direction of computer science and engineering departments, are already occurring). Private institutions which are not heavily endowed or which have not already made substantial commitments to computing will be severely limited in what they can do. Their graduates may suffer in the competition for jobs or places in graduate schools. Also, their efforts to recruit students may be adversely affected if they cannot provide an adequate program in computing. Accreditation guidelines which demand a certain level of excellence could have an impact on such institutions. Educational institutions within state systems are and will be competing with one another for appropriations. Within such systems an attempt to bolster an inadequately supported computing program in one school could decrease the effectiveness of a more well-established program in another institution. Obvious solutions to this problem involve allocating more money throughout the system, or denying computer science and computer engineering programs to some institutions, or reducing the level of support for programs in other disciplines. Contract and grant funds represent a major source of funding at the graduate level, and can also provide an impetus for improving programs at the undergraduate level. Funding for research in the more theoretical aspects of computer science is still available, but seems to be decreasing in dollar amounts as compared to support for applications oriented research. Indeed, a continuing trend in this direction should influence undergraduate and graduate education in computer science and engineeering in the 1980's, as the results of applications oriented research find their way into courses and programs. Control. The progress and success of computer science and computer engineering programs also depend, in varying degrees, on who controls the computer facilities. Computer science and computer engineering departments need freedom of access to computers in order to develop and test programming languages and operating systems and to evaluate performance. A computer center can provide this access if the control of the center is in the hands of a person who understands the needs of the departments. A department itself can provide the necessary access if it maintains its own computing laboratory and is able to acquire the appropriate equipment for it. Educational computing in state universities is a highly visible and expensive activity, making it a target for external control. In a college or university with autonomy, either or both of the above opportunities are possible. In such a situation the decision would be an internal one, and could be different for different institutions. In a state system, however, each component institution may not have as much control over computer facilities and acquisition as would be desirable. Indeed, the trend seems to be in the direction of increased state control over computing. The impacts of such control will differ among states. In the worst case, computer science and engineering departments will have no effective input into decisions about computer equipment and will not be able to acquire or maintain laboratory facilities. The effects under those conditions could be disastrous to a department or program. Generally, the more removed that control over equipment facilities and acquisition is from the educational institution itself, the more likely it is COMPUTER

11 that a department will not have access to the proper kind or quantity of equipment needed for teaching and research. Computing is a highly visible, expensive operation which non-computer oriented legislators and budget personnel can earmark for centralized control by one state agency, to the possible detriment of computer science and engineering programs. The effect of international competition and cooperation As mentioned earlier, the US computer industry will be faced with increased competition from the international computer community. Foreign firms continue to take an aggressive posture, indicative of the higher percentage of GNP that countries such as Japan, England, West Germany, and France are devoting to research. An increasing portion of this research deals with computing systems development. It appears that technical papers coming from outside the US are of higher quality than in the past. Academia and industry are perhaps not rising to this challenge to the US position in the computer field. It is clear that they can, yet they seem not to be doing so. It is interesting to note that in the countries mentioned above the government, in one form or another, encourages research and development. The US also does to a degree, but what is needed and what is lacking is, once again, cooperation between the US computer industry and universities and colleges. Before the government is asked to step in and help, we suggest that such cooperation be fostered to fully exploit our industrial and academic resources. The risk of not doing so is to lose our technological position to others. In regard to the international cooperation effort, it is significant to note the number of copies of model curricula reports21 requested by parties outside the US and the number of informal inquiries, made by major institutions throughout the world, for both curricula information and for guest lecturers to discuss curriculum development. It should also be noted that several inquiries came from eastern bloc countries. It is clear that the rapid growth of the computer science and engineering field has made curricula development a concern not just in this country but throughout the world. We can expect that joint development efforts may eventually occur. Cooperation among computer societies. It is not only important that persons interested in computer education be willing to cooperate with those in other disciplines, but also necessary that they improve communications among themselves. Athough duplication of effort is a widespread problem, it is particuarly endemic to computer-related fields since they have evolved so quickly and often in a"helterskelter" manner. A number of projects have been attempted to help control this tendency. For some years the American Federation of Information Processing Societies has promoted and coordinated cooperative projects among its member societies (which include almost everyone in computing who belongs to a professional society). Through their Education Committee, AFIPS is considering sponsoring a National Education Conference in the summer of This would bring together people from different backgrounds who are united by a common goal-improving computerrelated education. The two largest societies-the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and the Association for Computing Machinery-are spearheading this effort. This venture is another example of the cooperation between these two groups to work together to avoid duplication of effort. This proposed conference will be preceded by another cooperative effort in August 1978, when ACM's Special Interest Group for Computer Science Education cosponsors a technical symposium with the IEEE Computer Society (through its Education Committee). This symposium should help both groups prepare the groundwork for the 1979 Conference, which will be broader in scope. As computer education continues to grow and flourish, it is evident that communication is the key to preventing the "re-invention of the wheel." How can we get information about what has already been done to people starting new programs? How can we best share information -from current projects with the widest audience? Cooperation on all levels, through publications, conferences, and informal meetings involving people from various professional societies, is one of the best solutions. By getting more people from different societies involved in sharing ideas at meetings, and by obtaining broader circulation of current thoughts through publications distributed to more than one society at a time, some duplication can be avoided. Steps in this direction have already begun, but more attention to such projects will be required in the future. The above emphasis on the national scene is intended; cooperation on an international scale is extremely important but will not be successfully achieved until a basis of cooperation exists among computer societies in this country. Certainly there have been a number of successful international conferences under the aegis of the International Federation for Information Processing. In- addition to the triennial conference IFIP organizes, it also sponsors a number of working conferences. Its Technical Committee on Education has sponsored two International Computer Education Conferences as well as several working conferences.26'88 These efforts have attracted representatives from a large number of countries and have thus been able to achieve a certain measure of success in disseminating current thoughts and ideas about computer education. However, these meetings are attended primarily by representatives from developed countries. Thus, means must yet be found to help less developed countries implement computer education programs. The problems involved with the transfer of technology are well-known. There is no easy way to take material and curricula that we or other technologically advanced countries have already developed and simply rework them for less advanced countries whose cultural economic, and political situations are entirely different. Therefore, new projects and ideas are needed, such as the promotion of faculty exchanges between countries. Of course, this is often difficult since it -is necessary to September

12 find someone from a developed country who understands the cultural nuances and social and economic difficulties of the less developed country. Furthermore, the educator coming from the less developed country has the roughly parallel problem of adapting to a different culture, as well as to a host of new technical details. However, such exchanges have already taken place and have been very successful, since they have promoted continuing international ties between specific institutions. Specific one-toone institutional cooperation presents the most effective way to promote computer education in less developed countries. Since people respond better to other people' than they do to money or material exchange of programs can do more than anything else to promote the spread of technology. It would be remiss not to mention the efforts of various international organizations. UNESCO and OECD have sponsored conferences and produced working reports analyzing and discussing various aspects of extending effective technical education. The IBI-Intergovernmental Bureau of Infor- Table 2. Profile of a computer science and engineering graduate of the 1980's. ACADEMIC TRAINING Digital systems. System organization. Software engineering. Data base structures/management. Operating systems/architectural. Theoretical aspects of systems. Distributed processing/communications systems networks. Microsystems (single chip systems to multi-bit sliced). Computer-aided design tools and usage. Considerable experience with sizing applications. Understanding of economic analysis of digital systems design, and of project management techniques. Understanding of management/policymaking and economics. INDUSTRIAL TRAINING Part-time assignment to local industry not to exceed six months. Part-time assignment to university staff member to assist in relevant research project in support of industry. ENVIRONMENT Three to six months provided to learn the company, the system, the procedures, and the specific job. Within six months will be able to design digital systems used in product lines or applications. Immediately able to construct a product/application proposal, including economic analysis in cooperation with other team members. Be ready to cope with intense competition for company resources, and to expect intense external competition from firms involved in the same market area. CONTINUING EDUCATIONAL TRAINING Be ready to supplement undergraduate/graduate.training with formal training offered by local universities or the company itself. Based on current assignment, and own personal growth objectives, be able to select the proper set of course materials. Be ready to pass a certification/recertification examination. 80 matics-has been very active in promoting the international dissemination of information through their quarterly newsletter, various working conferences, and more recently through eight IBI-UNESCO regional meetings devoted to an Intergovernmental Conference on Strategy and Policies for Informatics.20 Efforts such as these are important and certainly help convince key figures in various governments of the need to support computing in their countries. Just as important, however, are the accomplishments forged by educators working in their individual areas of specialization. The challenge for the 80's is to implement a strategy for international development of computing education on a broadly cooperative and permanent basis. The impact of registration and licensing of computer professionals The pressure to require registration and licensing of engineering personnel-including computer scientists and computer engineers-can be expected to contipue. The IEEE Board of Directors approved a policy statement in February 1977 recommending "that all practitioners responsible for their activities or the activities of their subordinates, be licensed to practice." The statement also recommended that the present industrial exemption be dropped. Although the IEEE has recently retracted the statement, it has nevertheless generated a large amount of criticism, concern, and yet careful thinking about the issue of registration and licensing. The retraction resulted from a negative reaction from the IEEE's constituent societies, and the organization has since reverted to the rather mild tone of the prior policy. This issue is not over and it will be raised again. It will have an impact on curricula development in the form of more course work stressing the legal, ethical, professional and even societal obligations of practicing engineers. Should registration eventually become accepted (or even possibly become law), it would have a profound impact on the way in which computer science and engineering is practiced, as well as on the number of those who are allowed to practice. Therefore professional societies, educational institutions, and industry must in the future consider self-verifying or self-certifying of professional competence in the computer science and engineering field. Where necessary course material must be added to curricula to assure that practicing engineers understand the non-technical issues that affect their profession. Since society may demand it and since it may also have intrinsic professional value, we must consider some form of certification of competence, perhaps done on a periodic basis. The computer science and engineering graduate of the 80's The new employee in the 80's will be a graduate of a four- or a five-year program in computer science and engineering at a major university. This in- COMPUTER

13 dividual will have a blend of backgrounds'-a knowledge of classical electrical/electronic engineering, a strong mathematical ability, a moderate familiarity with the theory of computing, heavy "hands on" experience with digital systems, and a complete working knowledge of software engineering techniques. He will be well-versed in the technical ethical and economic aspects of the computer industry and may well have spent time in an apprenticeship or internship in industry. Furthermore, the individual may have passed a certification test. He will also be motivated to continue his education. Table 2 sketches this profile in more specific detail. A student who graduates with a degree in computer science or computer engineering should also be able to communicate effectively. Though courses in mathematics and computer science will continue to dominate curricula, more emphasis should be focused on courses that provide students opportunities to improve their communication skills. Employers and educators are becoming increasingly concerned about the inability of many graduates to express themselves clearly. Since projections now indicate that current graduates will experience three to four major job shifts in their lifetimes, it certainly behooves us to graduate a person who can think and communicate well enough to sell his own technical abilities to an employer. Consider, for example, the points extracted from a luncheon talk by Dr. Morris Irving (Table 3) describing the qualities one firm-bell Labs-seeks in a computer science graduate. As is often the case, it is easier to identify the problem than it is to solve it. Thus, one can ask, "How do we propose to attack this problem?" Various promising alternatives exist. We can encourage students to take communications courses such as writing and public speaking, and implement courses or projects that require well-written and carefully documented reports. We can assign "team projects" so that students learn to work as a group to solve large, poorly formulated, and sometimes incomplete problems. We can develop students' communication skills during their "onsite" experience in local business and industry. Finally, we can make sure our students are aware of the importance of communication not only through the methods discussed above, but also by our own example. Table 3. Comments extracted from a luncheon talk by Dr. Morris Irving, Bell Labs, at CSC '78. Qualities looked for (in order of priority) in hiring: 1. Ability to speak and write clearly 2. Solid background in mathematics 3. Solid foundation in computer science fundamentals 4. Problem solving ability 5. Thorough knowledge of the software development process 6. Ability to design the "people part" of a system 7. Managerial ability ISeptember 1978 Reader Service Number 6 Prognosis for the future The prognosis for computer science and engineering education for the 80's is for continuing good health. This opinion is supplemented by the knowledge that the future will hold known as well as unknown challenges. Due to the concerted efforts of academia, industry, and the professional societies, firm educational guidelines and curricula recommendations have been established and published. One direct challenge, then, is to continue this curricula development work, making certain that such guidelines and recommendations result in appropriate instructions for students preparing for careers in industry. It is quite clear that the demand for wellprepared individuals will continue to grow. The challenge will be to produce graduates who quickly fit into industrial settings and who are motivated to continue their education. Probably the most significant future challenge is the development of mechanisms for academiaindustry cooperation. International competition will dramatically emphasize the need for such cooperation. Co-op programs, internships, sponsored cooperative research, and guest instructors from industry are but a few examples of the direction such cooperation will take. It is quite clear that industry should, and will, provide substantial dollars to academic institutions. Models for such support cur- I DESCRIPTION DECwriter PURCHASE PRICE 0_ PER MONTH 12 MOS. 24 MOS. 36 MOS. $1,495 $145 $ 75 DECwriter III... 2, DECprinter I... 1, VT52 DECscope... 1, $ VT100 DECscope... 1, VT55 DECgraphic CRT 2, ADM 3A CRT HAZELTINE 1400 CRT HAZELTINE 1500 CRT. 1, TI 745 Portable... 1, TI 765 Bubble Mem... 2, TI 810 RO Printer... 1, TI 820 KSR Terminal.. 2, Data Products , QUME, Ltr. Qual. KSR. 3, QUME, Ltr. Qual. RO.. 2, DATAMATE Mini floppy 1, FULL OWNERSHIP AFTER 12 OR 24 MONTHS 10% PURCHASE OPTION AFTER 36 MONTHS ACCESSORIES AND PERIPHERAL EQUIPMENT COUSTIC COUPLERS o MODEMS 9 THERMAL PAPER BBONS * INTERFACE MODULES o FLOPPY DISK UNITS :Loj "r, I ii 2 91:4 api:*:yam;aa a [01 1:4 I",k&j:l: Z IRA NSNET CORPORA TION 2005 ROUTE 22, UNION, N.J

14 82 rently exist. Such direct support, however, carries the risk of excessive industry influence of academic affairs, a danger which must be avoided. Another important challenge to industry and academia is the setting of proficiency guidelines or standards, by which graduates can be certified or even licensed to practice computer science and engineering. If proper steps are taken now, industry and academia can establish a self-monitoring function, negating the need for formal legal registration of professionals. But should such legally mandated registration become fact, it would have a substantial impact on curricula content and on job supply and the demand. Computer science and computer engineering educators, then, must make their curricula development work a response to the three major challenges discussed above. Computer education stands as the interface between the computer industry and both the current and next generation of computer scientists and engineers. The design of that interface-how well it matches student preparation to industrial needs, promotes cooperation, and takes up the issue of certification-will largely determine the course of our technological future. U Acknowledgment We would like to acknowledge the significant help and input given us by Professor R. M. Aiken. His participation both at the "Oregon Conference on Computing-Problems of the 80's" and in the development of this paper is much appreciated. References 1. ACM Curriculum Committee on Computer Science, "Curriculum '68, Recommendations for Academic Programs in Computer Science," CACM, VoL 11, No. 3, Mar. 1968, pp ACM Ad Hoc Committee on Self-Assessment, "A Self-Assessment Procedure," CACM, Vol. 19, No. 5, May 1976, pp ACM Committee on Self-Assessment, "Self- Assessment Procedure II," CACM, Vol. 20, No. 5, May 1977, pp ACM Committee on Self-Assessment, "Self- Assessment Procedure III," CACM, Vol. 20, No. 9, Sept. 1977, pp Advertisement for Cromemco Z-2 Computer System, Byte, Vol. 2, No. 8, Aug. 1977, p Austing, R. H., Cotterman, W. W., and G. L. Engel,"Literature Resources and 'Computer Impact on Society and Computer Literacy' Courses," Proc. Computer Science and Engineering Curricula Workshop, Williamsburg, VA, June 1977, pp Austing, R. H., Barnes, B. H., Bonnette, D. T., EngeL G. L., and G. Stokes, "Curriculum Recommendations for the Undergraduate Program in Computer Science: A Working Report of the ACM Curriculum Committee on Computer Science," SIGCSE Buletin, Vol. 9, No. 2, June 1977, pp Austing, R. H., Barnes, B. H., and G. L. Engel,"A Survey of the Literature of Computer Science Education Since Curriculum '68," CACM, VoL 20, No. 1, Jan. 1977, pp Bowles, K. L., "The UCSD Pascal Project," EDUCOM Bulletin, Vol. 13, No. 1, Spring 1978, pp Chattergy, R., and U. W. Pooch, "A Proposed Program for Continuing Education for the IEEE Computer Society," Proc. Computer Science and Engineering Curiculum Workshop, Williamsburg, VA, June 1977, pp Chattergy, R., and U. W. Pooch, "Continuing Education for the Professional: The Role of the Professional Society," Computer, VoL 10, No. 12, Dec. 1977, pp Cosine Committee, Computer Science in Electrical Engineering, Commission on Engineering Education, Washington, DC, Sept Committee on the Undergraduate Program in Mathematics, Recommendations on the Undergraduate Mathematics Program for Work in Computing, Berkeley, Calif., Desaultels, E. J., "On Computing Facilities for Computer Science," Computer, Vol. 7, No. 11, Nov. 1974, pp Denning, P. J., Letter to "ACM Forum" Commenting on ACM Vice-President's Letter on Graduate Education, CACM, VoL 20, No. 10, Oct. 1977, p Engel, G. L., "A Comparison of the ACM/C3S and the IEEE/CSE Model Curriculum Subcommittee Recommendations," Computer, VoL 10, No. 12, Dec. 1977, pp Golde, H., and A. Shaw, "Why a Separate Computer Facility for Computer Science Education?," Tech. Report , Computer Science Group, University of Washington, June Hamblen, J. W., "Academic and Administrative Computing: Where Are We?," EDUCOM Bulletin, Vol. 12, No. 1, Spring 1977, pp Homeyer, F. C., "An Experimental Microcomputer Course (A Case History)," SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 9, No. 4, 1977, pp IBI Newsletter, Intergovernmental Bureau for Informatics, Rome, Italy, No. 23, Oct IEEE Computer Society Model Curricula Subcommittee, A Curriculum in Computer Science and Engineering-Committee Report, Rev. 1, IEEE Computer Society, Long Beach, Calif., completed Nov. 1976, published Jan IFIP Working Group 3.1, Computer Education for Teachers in Secondary Schools: Aims and Objectives in Teacher Training, AFIPS, Montvale, NJ, Irby, T. C., "Teaching Software Development Using a Microprocessor Laboratory," SIGCSE Buletin, Special issue on the Seventh Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1977, pp Landis, F., "What is the Real Need for Continuing Education in the Aerospace Industry?," Engineering Education, VoL 61, No. 8, May-June 1978, pp Lecarme, O., and R. Lewis, editors, Proc. IFIP Second World Conf on Computers in Education, American Elsevier, New York, Maguiere, R. B., and L. R. Symes, "Effects of Laboratory Facilities on Computer Science Curriculum," SIGCSE Buletin, Special issue on the Seventh Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, VoL 9, No. 1, 1977, pp COMPUTER

15 27. McCracken, D. D., "Trends in Graduate Computer Science Education (Will They AU Find Work?)," ACM Vice-President's Letter, CACM, VoL 20, No. 10, Oct. 1977, pp Mulder, M., editor, Special Supplement on Computer Science and Engineering Education, Computer, Vol. 10, No. 12, Dec Mulder, M., et al, "ECPD Accreditation Guidelines," Computer, Vol. 11, No. 2, Feb. 1978, pp Mulder, M., "A Recommended Curriculum in Computer Science and Engineering," Computer, Vol. 10, No. 12, Dec. 1977, pp Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., Letter to "ACM Forum" Commenting on ACM Vice-President's Letter on Graduate Education, CACM, VoL 20, No. 10, Oct. 1977, pp Ramamoorthy, C. V., "Computer Science and Engineering Education," IEEE 7rans. Computers, VoL C-25, No. 12, Dec. 1976, pp Scheepmaker, B., and K. L. Zinn, editors, Proc. IFIP World Conf. on Computer Education, Science Associates/InternationaL New York, Sibley, E. H., Letter to "ACM Forum" Commenting on ACM Vice-President's Letter on Graduate Education, CACM, VoL 20, No. 10, Oct. 1977, pp. 775, Taulbee, 0. E., and S. D. Conte, "Production and Employment of PhD's in Computer Science-1976," CACM, Vol. 20, No. 6, June 1977, pp Weaver, A. C., "Microcomputers in the Computer Science Curriculum," SIGCSE BuUetin, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1978, pp Richard H. Austing is an associate professor in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Maryland. He is currently involved in the administration of the educational program of the department in addition to offering courses in the areas of file processing, data structures, and computers and society. His activities in computer science education include vic-chairmanship of ACM's Education Board, membership in ACM's Special Interest Group in Computer Science Education and in ACM's Curriculum Committee in Computer Science, chairmanship of the Committee of Examiners for the GRE Advanced Test in Computer Science, and chairmanship of ICCP's Certification Council for the Certificate in Computer Programming Examination. Austing holds a PhD in mathematics from the Catholic University of America, an MS in mathematics from St. Louis University, and a BS in mathematics from Xavier University. Rahul Chattergy is an associate professor of electrical engineering at the University of Hawaii. He has had extensive consulting experience in the area of on-line computer systems for business applications. He has also published on the subjects of optimization, simulation, and microprogram- Dr. Chattergy received his DIC in 1964 from the Imperial College, London, and the MS and PhD in system science from UCLA. His research interests include computer architecture, simulation, and software engineering. He is a member of Sigma Xi, ACM, and IEEE. Udo W. Pooch is an associate professor of computer science at Texas A&M University. An active consultant and lecturer, he has published widely on such topics as timesharing systems, operating systems, computer graphics, minicomputers, psycho- metrics, and simulation. He has developed extensive microcomputer software and taught minicomputer and microprogramming courses at such places as USCS Summer Institute and Texas A&M University Summer Institute. He was awarded the 1974 Texas A&M University Distinguished Teaching Award, as well as the 1974 College of Engineering Teaching Award. He has been an ACM National Lecturer since 1974 and DPMA National Lecturer since Pooch earned a BS degree in physics from UCLA and a PhD in theoretical physics from the University of Notre Dame. A member of ACM, IEEE, ASA, ORSA, SIAM, SCS, and APS, he has served as reviewer for a dozen journals and chaired numerous sessions at conferences. September 1978 Michael C. Mulder is a staff electrical/ computer engineer with the BonneviUe Power Administration, working on the t application of computing systems and technologies to the power industry. Earlier, at Sperry Univac, he was prin0^ _ cipal systems design engineer, section manager, and group manager of ad! vanced systems processors. His exrperience includes most areas of medium- and large-scale system design, development, and analysis. An active member of the IEEE Computer Society, he is chairman of the society's Education Committee and of its Model Curriculum Subcommittee, a Distinguished Visitor, and a member of the society's Board of Governors. He is a member of the graduate faculty of the University of Portland, a member of the graduate council, and an appointed member of the State of Oregon Advisory Council for the Oregon Institute of Technology. An author of numerous technical papers, he received a BSEE and MSEE from Oregon State University, an MS in nuclear engineering from the University of Washington, and a PhD in electrical engineering from Montana State University. He is also a registered Professional Electrical Engineer and a member of the electrical engineering ECPD accreditation team. 83