Computer Association of SIUE - Forums

In light of the recent debate concerning the importance between a computer nerd and a computer scientist I thought it might be constructive to discuss this in a broader sense.

In the computer science field alone there are numerous titles. From software analyst to database manager to the lowly tech support. What does all this mean though? Does being a level 3 system administrator make you any better of a person than a level 1 or 2? Even in the educational field at universities titles are a big thing. I can recall of at least 3 past professors that insisted on being called doctor, and if you didn't your were punished.

Aren't these titles nothing but words? Personally I don't care what you call me as long as it is accurate. I will be the first one to tell you what I am. If you want to do a logic argument if your a computer scientist and if your a computer nerd, then you are a computer scientist nerd

 :-D .

Brad Ty Nunnally
CAOS Vice-Pres.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." ?

My title is "Programmer/Analyst Engineering Scientific Level 1".  I was offered another job with the same company at the same time as a "Software Engineer."  Same pay, same job.  The difference is which division of the company I work for.

Titles are meaningless--unless you're CIO or the Pope or something.  What matters is what you actually do at your job.  The level is somewhat meaningful as it affects your pay, sometimes cubicle size, who gets laid off, etc.  It doesn't necessarily mean you're any better at your job, though.  Just like having a degree.

Speaking of such, the only title of mine I care about is on my degree: Master of Science.  Sounds powerful, doesn't it?   :-D In fact, I'm going to insist that everyone call me Master. ;-) [img align=left]http://members.aol.com/browrob549/emo/whacky084.gif[/img]

Well, titles serve more than one purpose.

Titles are a system of classification. Classificaton systems are an important knowledge concept we use to divide the world to make it easier to reason and make decisions.

For example, we all have a classification for "dangerous animals". When we see a member of this class, we stop, we steer clear, we run in the opposite direction.

One area of machine learning studies what makes a good class. This is called "Conceptual Clustering". Clustering members into classes that share a common set of attributes.

I did my dissertation in this area and studied a model of clustering that traded off perdictability with predictiveness: how predictable is an attribute of a class and how predictive is a class of an attribute.

The point is that titles can be a useful classification system. For example, they help us predict who can be the most helpful in answering a question: tech support or a level 3 system adminstrator or a db manager.

The example BlueDragon gives is using a title as a sign of respect. This is more of social issue.

This reminds me of a branch of sociology know as 'labeling theory'.

The basic idea is that when people are ascribed with some particular classification by society, they tend to live up to the expectations of that classification. The image that a person perceives society to have of them tends to become the image they have of themselves.

This is usually applied to theories of crime, as it's believed that labeling a person as a 'delinquent' or a 'criminal' will often lead them to become that, even if they weren't previously. This is one of the reasons you will sometimes hear of juvenile criminals being released with only a warning; there's an expectation that not applying a criminal label to them may reduce the chances that they will repeat their crimes.

Similarly, I expect that calling a person a 'nerd' may lead them to act in ways they perceive as proper for that role. Since the label 'nerd' characterizes a type of behavior that is considered deviant, this can have the effect of distancing the person from society.

An argument could also be made that titles are often the basis for prejudgement. Hence, a person who is called 'Dr.' will generally be afforded more initial respect than a person simply called 'Professor'.

From either argument I would state that it's quite significant what names we choose for ourselves and others.

An interesting point too is that titles can make someone sound much more important/intelligent than they may actually be.  For instance, to the IRS I am Chief Technical Officer for Advance Security Products, Inc.  But does that mean I have a corner office and make > $100,000/year?  I wish.  I do a whole lot there, but I am CTO because we only have 4 employees, and I know the most about technical stuff (computers, websites, html, etc).  I'm not putting myself down or saying that I am incompetent or don't deserve it, I'm justing pointing it out as an interesting side argument.

~tfizzle

While titles are not of much use in convincing people of your intelligence, they are useful in describing what you do.

Differences in the job responsibilities associated with a title vary from company to company.  This is most evident in the job search process.  For example, if I put "Scientific Analyst Level 1" on my resume, what did I do in that job?  Or, if I'm looking for a job that in my company might be called "Systems Engineer Level 2", what might this job be called at another company?  As far as I know, there is no standard definition of these titles in computer science as there is in other professions, like the difference between a proctologist and a dermatologist.

Would it be helpful if an organization like ACM gave guidelines like "if your job responsibilities are x,y,z, then you are a