Well, this article struck me particularly hard (please don't scream if this ends up being long). My resultant reaction encompasses a few issues that I would like to address. What is the responsibility of a university/college when teaching computer science?

Computer science attracts individuals for many reasons. Some are interested based on the material while others are interested for the practicality. With that in mind, what should a university be teaching? Should a community college/ technical school teach something else? Does a higher level school have the responsibility to teach future computer scientists about ethics?

I firmly believe that it is the responsibility of any university to teach students of computer science about ethics and responsibility. Although one does not realize it at a simple glance, computer knowledge and skills can allow one to cause great harm. [If you don't believe me, read "Computer Related Risks" by Peter Neumann.] Most other disciplines that give students the ability to cause harm (biology, medicine, chemistry, military) requires some form of an ethics course related to the topic. Such a course should be mandatory for those studying computer science. With knowledge comes responsibility. Unfortunately, many computer scientists would take such a course as a joke. Breaking into other people's machines/systems, changing data, and purposely creating bugs/viruses is a hobby of some computer scientists. (I would like to believe that the equivalent is not true of doctors...) Unfortunately, our society actually rewards people who can cripple the government or who can cause viruses on unrespected programs (MS Word as an example). I would love to determine a way in which computer scientists could understand the power they have and, more importantly, acquire respect for that rather than use their knowledge in a negative manner. Why should technological harm be rewarded when physical harm is not?

Unfortunately the high demand for "computer programmers" allows a school system to produce two types of computer scientists - those who can think and develop and those who can program. The latter may as well attend a vocational school because, without the ability to think in a logical manner and understand what is happening, one's job is going to be slave labor. Unfortunately, many schools (and many students) prefer this type of teaching because it is easier and more immediately rewarding. Unfortunately, this does not benefit individuals in the future. It is extremely important to teach people how to think.

With that in mind, another important issue occurs. Should a unversity (at the undergraduate level) teach people a breadth of knowledge or a depth? [I feel as though Brown's view is depth over breadth.] In order to teach individuals about everything presented in this report, a program must either be unbelievably demanding or not include a depth in any of the fields. [Even in the ScB program at Brown, our programmers many never learn about operating systems, databases, robotics, computer graphics, ethics and many other essential requirements suggested by ACM.] With such a large demand in industry, it is very feasible for a computer scientist to enter the field with holes in her knowledge. How can this be addressed? What should be done? Personally, I feel as though a broad education aims students towards graduate level school while a deep education is more geered towards industry. Is one or the other bad? Which should be the goal of a university computer science education?

With the same thoughts in mind, should the focus of a university be theoretical or practical? The same issues arise as well as the same frustrations. More students prefer the practical but which is actually better for the students?

Engineering has devised a system to "certify" engineers (as does medicine). Should such a system be used for computer scientists? (Does such a system exist?) Would schools be willing to be a part of it? With such a hefty demand for ANYONE experienced in computers, it almost appears as though it would not matter. Would this system hinder universities or result in a more equitable system? (Do we want equity anyhow?) These are just some thoughts...

I've thought about the ethics a lot. Ever see that movie "War Games" with Matthew Broderick? It really was one of the first fear-of-technology-in-regards-to-the-pc flicks ever. It was at the end of the cold war and little Matthew decided that it would be fun to take his archain modem and pc and "hack" his way into the system...he thought it was a _simulation_ of the real thing so he played with the machine like a game. Then it turned out that it was the real thing. He almost made us bomb Russia because we thought that they were bombing us. Great flick. Now that was bad. But then again, that would never HAPPEN. First of all, no one is that good of a hacker. Secondly, even if they were, I don't think there's a whole lot we could do. Thirdly, those people would not stick through an education just to learn how to hack their way into nuclear war. The people that WOULD want to hack their way into nuclear war would pick it up on their own...ethics on that level there is no reason or identifiable justification for teaching it.

Now, because I know Danah's perspective, I know that she means on a more personal level. And, granted, on that level DOES come responcibility. But, I don't think that there is any way of teaching ethics on an interpersonal level...people who clearly cross boundaries should no doubt be prosecuted, but we can't teach them why it is wrong.

MY COMMENTS: Ethics may be very important, but I don't really understand how a mandatory course on ethics would help the matter. If someone has the power to be malicious and wants to be, a course that tells them that its not a good thing to do will most likely not help. Each person has to figure it out for him or herself the damage that they do when they don't act ethically; no course, book, nor lecture can teach them that. Overall, I think that if a course in ethics was made more interesting and more timely, more CS people might take it. It has to be something that encourages people to want to take it because the subject matter is made interesting, not because it's a core requirement.