Skip to main content

Foundations of Computer Science are not redundant

1,046 Comments

E
Emo Welzl
5 years ago

ETH Zurich, Switzerland. With this step UoLeicester establishes itself, and its students, as pure consumers of the established and foreseeable, without any ambitions to contribute to nowadays unforeseeable and disruptive future developments. This will significantly lower its potential to recruit the most ambitious faculty, and again, students. It’s a stigma the school will have to live with. It’s less an issue for the field of TCS, since looking at the hirings of top universities, it is well understood that developments like machine learning and quantumX grew out of fundamental research, and even nowadays successful companies were initiated by people who were well footed and innovative in, and inspired by theory (e,g, Google).

W
Wan Fokkink
5 years ago

I'm professor of Theoretical Computer Science at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam as well as professor of Model-Based Systems Engineering at Eindhoven University of Technology. The first chair is pure theory, the second focuses on application of formal methods in industry. Both go hand in hand. Killing of the internationally highly regarded foundations of computer science research at Leicester is utterly incomprehensible and downright crazy. It seems the same mistake must be made time and again: a reorganisation based on some fashionable research trends in favour of more classical research, especially foundations, only to find out after some time this was a very bad idea and has to be reversed.

U
Ulrik Pagh Schultz
5 years ago

Theoretical Computer Science is critically required for the creation of correct and scalable software, which is fundamental to topics such as AI and data science.

D
Dr Matthew England
5 years ago

Progress in applied research requires strong foundational reserarch!

I
Iain Murray
5 years ago

Professor of Machine Learning, University of Edinburgh, also with an applied industry position. Speaking for myself. This decision is bad for academia, bad for education, bad for industry. But even if you were only to act selfishly, it's bad for your reputation as an employer and a University.

S
Sam Staton
5 years ago

Throughout my career I have had a very high regard for the FOCO group in Leicester. It is widely regarded as one of the best foundations groups in the country if not the world. In all the work I have done connecting to foundations of AI, I have used the research outputs from members of Leicester FOCO directly and extensively.

A
Alexandra Silva
5 years ago

Theoretical Computer Science is at the core of many developments in applied areas, it has been for decades, and it will be for many decades to come. This move from the University of Leicester will undermine the trust of researchers in ever applying for jobs there and is an attempt to threaten a research area. It is a short-sighted decision and will have negative effects in the long term for both Leicester and the UK.

M
Magnus M Halldorsson
5 years ago

Shortsighted

B
Bartek Klin
5 years ago

Removing foundations while promoting shameful ideas, such as the truly embarrassing "Creative Computing BA BSc" programme, is not "shaping for excellence". It is shaping for obscurity, mediocrity and low status.

J
Juraj Hromkovic
5 years ago

Without good fundamentals there does not exists any excellence in applications

T
Timothy Griffin
5 years ago

Pure maths is the foundation of Computer Science.

J
James Woodcock
5 years ago

I am a professor of software engineering and a consulting software engineer. My work with industry has been marked by eureka moments when I have known exactly the right theory to solve a practical problem. So I see the truth in Christopher Strachey's observation that the separation of practical and theoretical work is artificial and injurious. Practice without theory is uninformed and theory without practice is sterile. Theory and practice need to be used together for greatest effect. There really should be no clear-cut distinction between theoretical, practical, or experimental work in computer science. A good theory leads to a beautiful and practical program. A good theoretician is needed to implement such a system, mixing theoretical and practical work, including system architecture, design, and programming. This is why our best students are always theoreticians who can program.

J
Joel Day
5 years ago

Isolating applied research from the foundations will only be to the detriment of both. The wider research community, both nationally and internationally, recognises the value of strong foundational research. This plan will likely result in reputational damage to the University, both as a research institution and as an employer, both of which will make it substantially harder for the University to "shape for excellence" in the future.

M
Matthias Heintz
5 years ago

Foundations are needed to make sense of and understand the more complex topics building upon them. This is the case for research as well as for the undergraduates and postgraduates studying Informatics: they have to learn how to walk before they can run. Thus, they have to learn the foundations of Computer Science, before they can focus on AI, data science, computational modelling, etc.

A
Andreas Pieris
5 years ago

*short-sighted*, of course

J
Jaroslaw Was
5 years ago

As the Head of the Institute of Applied Computer Science of AGH University of Science and Technology in Cracow, I fully support the petition.

P
Prof Natalio Krasnogor
5 years ago

Removing foundations is like doing a lobotomy to a computing department.

A
Andy King
5 years ago

Utter madness

J
Jan Bergstra
5 years ago

The move as proposed in Leicester University embodies a manifest lack of ambition. With quantum computing as the "next hype" to come it is implausible to downgrade core computer science in favour of data science. Profiting from a hype is not the same as surrendering to it!

A
Andreas Pieris
5 years ago

Such a short-sided view. Foundations of computer science are important -- no one can question that. But even if we put the scientific aspect aside, how can an employer think in this way, especially during a pandemic? This is scandalous!