Foundations of Computer Science are not redundant

This is a reckless decision which is going to damage the reputation of UoL's Computer Science department.

This is a bit of a disgrace

The University of Leicester is being ridiculous.

Foundations of computer science provides the tools and methods upon which applications are built, including (and not limited to) to the areas of AI, computational modelling, data science and digitalisation. Without a team of researchers able to handle these tools and develop new ones, the originality, quality and scope of applications may be severely limited. This is likely to decrease the competitiveness of Leicester in the focus areas in which the management want to invest, as well as throw away other opportunities of a productive dialogue beween theory and applications. The most reputable research centres and universities worlwide which are ahead of the competition in applied areas value fundamental research for precisely this reason.

In addition to the many wise words by my colleagues noting the fallacy that just because foundations of computing are not sufficient, does not imply that they are not necessary -- I would add that where prunings like this have been attempted in the past, they have also proven self-defeating on pure business grounds: 1. The proposed actions project instability to an employment market in which stability will be at a premium for a foreseeable future, thus destroying business value across the institution. Staff will wisely think twice about trusting their career and their family's financial security to Leicester University, with wider long-term effects including to student satisfaction metrics. * Attempts by university admin to pick winners are necessarily backwards-looking and uninformed. In a fast-moving field, this is just fatal. I have seen instances of such prunings before. I recall a large London college did something similar the late 2000s, shortly after the financial crash. What was left of the pruned department quickly imploded, and they never recovered. This cruel decision would be a tragedy, for the staff concerned, and also for the university itself.

This seems like misguided short-termism, coming just at the moment that AI and Data Science researchers are starting new collaborations with logicians and theoretical programming languages researchers, to help make future AI systems trustworthy, explainable, fair and transparent.

History education isn't what it was ... but it has been plain for over a century that practical, engineering and computing solutions follow many years behind the foundational maths that underpins them (boolean algebra, groups, hamiltonians...)

When I started my PhD, a leading theoretical computer scientist told me and other new PhD students "the nice thing about working in theory is there isn't a new version of it every few years". That is, the hot applied topics come and go but theory is forever. This view is easy to caricature as confirming that theory is divorced from applications and reality. Such a caricature is troglodytic. The "highly theoretical" foundations of computer science and related areas of mathematics were the fountainhead from which today's "AI, computational modelling, data science and digitalisation" emerged: for just one example, work on neural networks underlying today's deep learning was the "highly abstract" theory of previous decades, and its applicability was only fully realized in the last 15 years, and depended on combining and applying deep ideas from several different areas of theory, including algorithm design, linear and comvex optimization, and high-level parallel programming. It is astonishing that the University of Leicester has decided to hamstring its future in pursuing today's narrow, short-term strategic priorities, decline to contribute to the foundations that will underpin the hot topics of future decades, and fail to educate its students with the foundational knowledge needed to adapt when today's hot topics inevitably are replaced by those of future years. That its competitors are protesting and not celebrating the University's blunder speaks to the degree to which its research strengths currently contribute to the diversity of the UK research landscape. I must also add that I was extremely grateful to be offered a post at Leicester in 2011, although personal circumstances eventually led me to decline it. This action by the University takes away any regrets I might once have had about this decision.

Shrinking research in computer science to areas which are currently in fashion is a huge risk. It is broad fundamental search that creates new areas. Moreover our western societies need to invest in education, since low qualified jobs disapeared.

To say that those in charge at Leicester are scientifically blinkered is the understatement of the year. What is pure today is applied tomorrow, and the line between today's "pure" and "applied" in CS, in this "age of algorithms", has never been so blurred.

This is shocking! Does the university want to develop and sell apps on the app store, or does the university also want to understand what can be achieved within data science? these are fundamental questions and can only be answered by a fundamental research, which only theory of computation can do.

This is a completely short sighted and shambolic idea from people who do not seem to understand Computer Science at all. Before AI became popular, it was born among people studying `foundations' and you will always need `foundations' people to derive and service the next and event this big idea. It seems U. Leicester wants to go on the path of becoming a software programming coaching shop?

The listed strategic areas (from my personal professional experience AI and computational modelling) depend heavily on Foundations of Computer Science. Today and in the near-term future (to say nothing of the medium-long term), research in those areas will falter, and also cannot be effectively taught, without close attention to Foundations.

What, is Dominic Cummings now the Vice-Chancellor of Leicester?

An extremely short-sighted view on things that will affect staff in the short-term and, in the longer-term, cause irreparable damage to the Leicester's ability to innovate across the breadth of computer science.

Emeritus Professor of Computer Science, Heriot Watt University. Foundations of Computing are key to robust programming language and system design, and software engineering, all of profound industrial and social significance. The UK is world leading in this area. It would be tragic to lose Leicester's expertise.

Senior Research Fellow, UCLouvain, Belgium. I understand Brexit is hitting the University of Leicester now. That came to effect because of the UK governmental short-sightedness. What makes the university people make the same mistake with the theory groups? AI, data science, etc. (you're about to focus on exclusively) are admittedly the buzzing technology of today. Had the theory people not done their research a century ago, those buzzing technologies of today would have never come to birth. Why did you choose to close your eyes on the buzzing technology needs of a century later to the theory research of today? Why short-sightedness again -- at the university admin level this time, albeit?

Professor of Theoretical Computer Science, University of Cambridge. Applied research flourishes best within a strong Computer Science environment that covers all aspects of the subject, including foundational ones. Universities should be seeking to create the science for future applications, and it cannot be predicted which piece of theory may become relevant. The proposal is short-sighted and ill judged.

Advances in societally important strategic areas emerge from strong foundations

Foundations of computer science are important. The clue's in the name. And in any case, even if you want to shift strategic direction, sacking existing staff isn't the way to do it.