I'd not worry too much about picking a major yet. Or rather, students typically need a couple of years in undergrad to figure out what exactly it is that they want, what motivates them, where their interests lie, etc.
I've seen top-students who got fed up with the field, or with academics in general, and moved into industry after a bachelors. I've also seen average performing students discovering a love for research and going that route successfully. And anything in between.
Heck, even discovering that a field isn't for you and switching majors or dropping out for a bit is fine.
So, I recommend going someplace/some major you feel at home and then try as many different courses and activities until you discover what drives you. Then decide where to go next from there.
Is it? It'll take a while for fertilizer and sun placement to take visually effect, and there's risk that short term effects aren't indicative of long term effects.
How can you verify the recommendations are sound, valid, safe, complete, etc., without trying them out? And trying out unsound, invalid, unsafe, incomplete, etc., recommendations might result in dead plants in a couple of weeks.
> I guess what I'm saying is that an undergraduate CS degree is just a vocational degree.
I think my undergraduate CS degree contained exactly four courses that I would classify as pure vocational in nature: the first class everyone had to take was to learn to program in Delphi; a class on functional programming; a class on GUI programming; and a class on object oriented programming. After that, all classes were either:
- mathematics, from analysis, statistics, writing/reading proofs, to loads of discrete mathematics
- formal methods, from proving correctness of programs, modeling, to different methods to analyze complex systems
- theory, from automata theory, language theory, compiler theory, database theory, relational algebra, to complexity and computability
- odds and ends, such as ethics, philosophy, history
Then, each trimester, we also had an engineering project where we would have to apply theory. There were no vocational classes associated. If we had to, or wanted to, use a tool, language, system, we had to learn it by ourselves first. Nevertheless, these engineering projects can be seen as vocational in nature too, of course. Still, that makes for about one vocational class a year (of about 15), and three engineering projects a year.
So, when people talk about undergraduate computer science degrees, I always assume their experiences are not dissimilar to mine.
Certainly, if all you're after is a degree (the certificate), not much effort is needed. On the other hand, if you want to, you can get more out of college. Which brings me back to my "good computer science education": it depends a lot on the aims of the student and how she approached her learning. That is not to say that there are no computer science programs that is basically vocational training, nor that there are programs that are very theoretical in nature, of course, but if you want, you can get more value for your money than a degree.
> Would you think someone needs a CS degree if they already have a good understanding of the books?
To be a programmer? No. But, at least to me, programming related matters is but a small part of computer science. Which makes Knuth's books such a great resource: it goes into detail in that small, yet quite large, field of programming.
I agree with you. It might make for an interesting course: the teacher develops instructional materials fitted for the class she's teaching, using Knuth's chapter as a reference and foundation, guiding and challenging students to dig deep on this topic. I'd like such a class, both as a teacher and a student, I think.
Everyone with a good computer science education should be able to digest his books. I know that around here college education is often derided as outdated, impractical, too costly (which is a USA-ian problem), or outright irrelevant, but what Knuth writes about ain't rocket science yet important for many a programmer to understand. He writes in a quite readable style about the fundamentals of programming and computer science theory that's relevant to that programming. I know most programmers mostly glue together prefab components into working systems that successfully serve millions, but if one wants to go beyond the surface, to ask why it all works the way it does, a good computer science education is an advantage.
I've seen top-students who got fed up with the field, or with academics in general, and moved into industry after a bachelors. I've also seen average performing students discovering a love for research and going that route successfully. And anything in between.
Heck, even discovering that a field isn't for you and switching majors or dropping out for a bit is fine.
So, I recommend going someplace/some major you feel at home and then try as many different courses and activities until you discover what drives you. Then decide where to go next from there.