One of the major mistakes of the ignorant is the misconception that the study of computer science just means that you learn how to program. This could not be further from reality.
Technical schools have been churning out trained monkeys under this pretext. Is there anything special about Cirque du Soleil -- or can anyone that learns acrobatics do what they do?
There is obviously something more to it than just the observed execution of acrobatic training. There is an understanding that transcends the skill itself. Teaching acrobatics will never equate to training Cirque du Soleil performers. Teaching programming will never equate to training computer scientists.
And what would be the point exactly in pontificating about it on this blog?
Computer scientists inherently understand little nuances that most people never know exist until they run unceremoniously into them.
Say for example, that you operate a business that has an immediate cash flow problem. You know that salary and benefits are your largest drain on cash -- so you propose terminating some employees. You want to be fair so you choose employees that are part of "underperforming" departments. You create a spreadsheet to document cash savings projected out a year to show your supervisors and get their approval. Done. Problem solved.
Maybe. How accurate was your savings projection? Did you model reality correctly? Did you account for little nuances like employment contracts? Hope so, because calculating ROI (return on investment) in that slick little spreadsheet should really take into account severance packages.
For example, you wouldn't want to end up terminating an employee "to save money" only to discover that you missed the fact that their contract stipulates that upon termination you owe them a year's salary plus benefits.
Yes, it is easy to nitpick from the sidelines. Still, a textbook Dilbert moment for sure.
Posts
