3 added 8 characters in body
source | link

It sounds like these students may be perfectly suited to a wide range of roles in a professional environment, just not the most glamorous or 'obvious' jobs. Ultimately, everyone finds their level and a good team often has a mix. Given that these students are close enough to employment thatthey should already have started thinking about what sort of jobs they are expecting to be looking for.

They need to decide if the theoretical stuff is something they need to be able to handle (and get a good mark in the course), or if they need to start widening their skills elsewhere, or focusing on something more narrow.

Obvious as it seems, you need to explain to them (and their peers) that in 5 years time, the state of the art will have moved on. More coding tasks will be automated, and new fields will be emerging. Not all of them will be architecting the next big thing, but they might be working on a part of it, or testing it, or rolling it out, selling it or supporting it. Theory will help in all of these areas, so they shouldn't write it off as irrelevant.

To expand on how this is different from say maths as a subject at the same level, most of the maths being learnt at that level is (a) likely to have a practical application for many careers (as complimentary knowledge most of the time) and (b) form useful practice in the art. Maths (even at engineering degree level) remains a completely practical subject, whereas CS has a slightly tricky mix - consider the paths to degrees in theoretical physics and practical (discrete component) electronic engineering.

It sounds like these students may be perfectly suited to a wide range of roles in a professional environment, just not the most glamorous or 'obvious' jobs. Ultimately, everyone finds their level and a good team often has a mix. Given that these students are close enough to employment that should have started thinking about what sort of jobs they are expecting to be looking for.

They need to decide if the theoretical stuff is something they need to be able to handle (and get a good mark in the course), or if they need to start widening their skills elsewhere, or focusing on something more narrow.

Obvious as it seems, you need to explain to them (and their peers) that in 5 years time, the state of the art will have moved on. More coding tasks will be automated, and new fields will be emerging. Not all of them will be architecting the next big thing, but they might be working on a part of it, or testing it, or rolling it out, selling it or supporting it. Theory will help in all of these areas, so they shouldn't write it off as irrelevant.

To expand on how this is different from say maths as a subject at the same level, most of the maths being learnt at that level is (a) likely to have a practical application for many careers (as complimentary knowledge most of the time) and (b) form useful practice in the art. Maths (even at engineering degree level) remains a completely practical subject, whereas CS has a slightly tricky mix - consider the paths to degrees in theoretical physics and practical (discrete component) electronic engineering.

It sounds like these students may be perfectly suited to a wide range of roles in a professional environment, just not the most glamorous or 'obvious' jobs. Ultimately, everyone finds their level and a good team often has a mix. Given that these students are close enough to employment they should already have started thinking about what sort of jobs they are expecting to be looking for.

They need to decide if the theoretical stuff is something they need to be able to handle (and get a good mark in the course), or if they need to start widening their skills elsewhere, or focusing on something more narrow.

Obvious as it seems, you need to explain to them (and their peers) that in 5 years time, the state of the art will have moved on. More coding tasks will be automated, and new fields will be emerging. Not all of them will be architecting the next big thing, but they might be working on a part of it, or testing it, or rolling it out, selling it or supporting it. Theory will help in all of these areas, so they shouldn't write it off as irrelevant.

To expand on how this is different from say maths as a subject at the same level, most of the maths being learnt at that level is (a) likely to have a practical application for many careers (as complimentary knowledge most of the time) and (b) form useful practice in the art. Maths (even at engineering degree level) remains a completely practical subject, whereas CS has a slightly tricky mix - consider the paths to degrees in theoretical physics and practical (discrete component) electronic engineering.

2 Compare with other subjects
source | link

It sounds like these students may be perfectly suited to a wide range of roles in a professional environment, just not the most glamorous or 'obvious' jobs. Ultimately, everyone finds their level and a good team often has a mix. Given that these students are close enough to employment that should have started thinking about what sort of jobs they are expecting to be looking for.

They need to decide if the theoretical stuff is something they need to be able to handle (and get a good mark in the course), or if they need to start widening their skills elsewhere, or focusing on something more narrow.

Obvious as it seems, you need to explain to them (and their peers) that in 5 years time, the state of the art will have moved on. More coding tasks will be automated, and new fields will be emerging. Not all of them will be architecting the next big thing, but they might be working on a part of it, or testing it, or rolling it out, selling it or supporting it. Theory will help in all of these areas, so they shouldn't write it off as irrelevant.

To expand on how this is different from say maths as a subject at the same level, most of the maths being learnt at that level is (a) likely to have a practical application for many careers (as complimentary knowledge most of the time) and (b) form useful practice in the art. Maths (even at engineering degree level) remains a completely practical subject, whereas CS has a slightly tricky mix - consider the paths to degrees in theoretical physics and practical (discrete component) electronic engineering.

It sounds like these students may be perfectly suited to a wide range of roles in a professional environment, just not the most glamorous or 'obvious' jobs. Ultimately, everyone finds their level and a good team often has a mix. Given that these students are close enough to employment that should have started thinking about what sort of jobs they are expecting to be looking for.

They need to decide if the theoretical stuff is something they need to be able to handle (and get a good mark in the course), or if they need to start widening their skills elsewhere, or focusing on something more narrow.

Obvious as it seems, you need to explain to them (and their peers) that in 5 years time, the state of the art will have moved on. More coding tasks will be automated, and new fields will be emerging. Not all of them will be architecting the next big thing, but they might be working on a part of it, or testing it, or rolling it out, selling it or supporting it. Theory will help in all of these areas, so they shouldn't write it off as irrelevant.

It sounds like these students may be perfectly suited to a wide range of roles in a professional environment, just not the most glamorous or 'obvious' jobs. Ultimately, everyone finds their level and a good team often has a mix. Given that these students are close enough to employment that should have started thinking about what sort of jobs they are expecting to be looking for.

They need to decide if the theoretical stuff is something they need to be able to handle (and get a good mark in the course), or if they need to start widening their skills elsewhere, or focusing on something more narrow.

Obvious as it seems, you need to explain to them (and their peers) that in 5 years time, the state of the art will have moved on. More coding tasks will be automated, and new fields will be emerging. Not all of them will be architecting the next big thing, but they might be working on a part of it, or testing it, or rolling it out, selling it or supporting it. Theory will help in all of these areas, so they shouldn't write it off as irrelevant.

To expand on how this is different from say maths as a subject at the same level, most of the maths being learnt at that level is (a) likely to have a practical application for many careers (as complimentary knowledge most of the time) and (b) form useful practice in the art. Maths (even at engineering degree level) remains a completely practical subject, whereas CS has a slightly tricky mix - consider the paths to degrees in theoretical physics and practical (discrete component) electronic engineering.

1
source | link

It sounds like these students may be perfectly suited to a wide range of roles in a professional environment, just not the most glamorous or 'obvious' jobs. Ultimately, everyone finds their level and a good team often has a mix. Given that these students are close enough to employment that should have started thinking about what sort of jobs they are expecting to be looking for.

They need to decide if the theoretical stuff is something they need to be able to handle (and get a good mark in the course), or if they need to start widening their skills elsewhere, or focusing on something more narrow.

Obvious as it seems, you need to explain to them (and their peers) that in 5 years time, the state of the art will have moved on. More coding tasks will be automated, and new fields will be emerging. Not all of them will be architecting the next big thing, but they might be working on a part of it, or testing it, or rolling it out, selling it or supporting it. Theory will help in all of these areas, so they shouldn't write it off as irrelevant.