To the editor:

As a fellow Matherite, I sympathize with Jacob R. Drucker’s recent column “CS50 and the Humanities,” where Drucker laments the CS50 office hours in Mather and the water-gate scandal that ensued. His post was obviously whimsical, not to be taken too seriously, but I decided to take it too seriously anyway and respond to some of the assumptions buried in the piece.

Computer science is often painted as the pragmatic path for college students. A concentration in computer science, people say, is a calculated career investment—one that will be painful now, but worth it in the future. On the other end of the supposed spectrum lie the humanities, where those who appreciate thought for the sake of thought spend their time. These allegedly more enlightened individuals “focus more on the arts and literature ... on philosophy ... [and] on community,” enjoying the leisurely lifestyle made possible by the productivity-obsessed computer scientists.

This spectrum—practically-motivated CS50 office hours on one extreme and French salons on the other—is a false construction. Computer science is an inherently beautiful, rich, and intellectually rewarding field of study. To write a new computer program is as satisfying to the computer scientist as writing a poem, a work of fiction, or a piece of music would be to her colleagues on the other side of the aisle. To study computational complexity is to ask questions just as fundamental as those pondered in epistemology. The humanities do not offer the only sanctuary for pure scholars.

Surely some students study computer science with, as Drucker writes, “loans to pay back, and booze to buy” in mind. Many more pursue the subject because they sincerely enjoy it. The misconception expressed in the Drucker’s column is that computer science must be studied solely because of its value in the job market. This fallacy has leaked beyond the humanities and into the computer science field itself. I have heard peers and professionals deride the pursuit of a computer science Ph.D. because of its relatively low marginal contribution to career opportunities. The possibility that computer science is intrinsically worthy of further study is too often ignored.

The Crimson column ends with the suggestion to “go read a book.” I don't need to suggest that you turn on a computer. But when you do, think of it as more than a productivity-saving device. Look at the machine as both a work of art from the computer scientists of the past and a canvas for the computer scientists of the future. Buried beneath the lines of code flying around at CS50 office hours, there are only ideas. 

 

Tom Silver '16