I really wish the computer science degrees and even online courses spent like 30 mins on the history of computer science.
The entire existence of this field has been dependent on those non job-training liberal arts degrees.
A 4 year cs degree dumps you into heavy math, physics, and intro CS + Data structures in your first year to weed people out who cant cut it.
Second year teaches fundamentals of CS (discrete math, concept of languages, understanding algorithms at least at a basic level).
Third year is filled with more practical fundamentals (OS, DB, computer architecture + field specific courses the student wants).
Finally the fourth year pieces everything together with more advanced versions of prior topics (algorithms for example) + repeated practical applications of all the concepts from years 1-3 to hopefully put the student on at least an 'ok' footing post graduation.
I guess you can try to make the first lecture or two in CS101 about the history but most students don't even know if they want to pursue this journey. Would talking about Alan Turing's history really be appropriate in that class? I don't know really.
That course has 28 credits in first year, 3 of which are spent on computer science (arguably 3 more on "Roadmap to Computing"). Second year has a little more. Third and fourth year are heavy on CS/SE topics, but still have some time allocated to others.
I don't disagree with students learning Calculus and Statistics and even Physics as part of a CS course, and I think it's excellent that they take at least two courses in English composition. But you can't look at that four-year curriculum and say nothing could possibly be cut (turned into an elective) in favour of a History of Computers module.
Its also possible that the department wanted to round out the students education by providing something not related to STEM each semester.
Note: these reasons I listed are just a guess based on my experience with the university.
I still find it difficult to justify the placement of this course as a hard requirement because of how the rest of the STEM courses are structured. YWCC 307 is a very fluid course so maybe it can be squeezed in there? Anyway my point is that it is tough and I still feel that way.
Completely agree here. This would fall under the umbrella of liberal arts, which a lot of CS-only folks seem to find little to no value in.
Most concepts in computer science--especially when it comes to programming--are fairly easy to learn if you're good at learning. Reading something and understanding it to the point that you can write a proper college level essay about it trains that muscle, which is a different skill than rote memorization.
Because the history I know has it being 99% created by men with engineering skills doing paid work for large corporations.
The computing industry does not refer to people sitting in rows doing calculations by hand.
I am obviously not saying that the human computers are the same as digital computers, that's your misinterpretation. I was explaining the context that digital computers grew out of, it was a female field. E.g. Mauchley and Eckert designed the ENIAC to be used for the same tasks as human computers were (firing table calculations), and as digital computers were used in this context, the workforce in the eventual digital computer industry reflected that of the human computer context. If you are interested in learning more, there are many books on the ENIAC project. Just pick one, it will mention the women involved. "ENIAC, the triumphs and tragedies of the world's first computer" is a good general overview which you can read in a day, free online at https://archive.org/details/eniac00scot
If you're particularly interested in the women involved, there is a shorter text available here: https://web.archive.org/web/20151122025204/http://pcfly.info...
Please read a post before you reply to it. Your reply is emotional and not constructive. Nobody is out to get you, I am only interested in weeding out misconceptions about computing history.
Britain once led the world in electronic computing. But when the industry squeezed out female employees, it wrote its own epitaph.
In 1944, Britain led the world in electronic computing. The top-secret codebreaking computers deployed by the British at Bletchley Park worked round the clock to ensure the success of D-Day and the Allies’ win in Europe. At a time when the best electronic computing technology in the United States was still only in its testing phase, British computers literally changed the world.
After the war, British computing breakthroughs continued, and British computers seemed poised to succeed across the board, competing with US technology on a global scale.
...
Even when electromechanical and then electronic computers came in, women continued to do computing work. They programmed, operated, troubleshooted, tested, and even assembled these new machines. In fact, IBM UK measured the manufacturing of computers in “girl hours” (which were less expensive than “man hours”) because the people who built the machines were nearly all women.
Meanwhile, the British government, the largest computer user in the nation, called their computer workers the “machine grades” and later, the “excluded grades”—excluded from equal pay measures brought into the Civil Service in the 1950s. Because their work was so feminised, the government declined to give them equal pay and raise their pay to the men’s rate on the basis that the men’s wage was almost never used. Therefore, the lower, women’s wage became the default market rate for the work. So concentrated in machine work were women that the majority of women working in government did not gain equal pay.
The uni I went to did, in multiple classes, to the point where you could almost predict the "war story" you were about to be told :D
I taught university-level computer science and I'm not a historian by any stretch of the imagination. I know something about the history and might mention things in passing but I don't think I could legitimately teach it to other people!