起因是某大学到业界来收集反馈，以修正他们的computer related program. 以下是这个滑大毕业生的分享。给拿到UW SE 和 CS offer, 正在纠结（what a 甜蜜的纠结）的孩子一些新视角。

each prof has their own strengths and weaknesses, and likewise each program and course will too. The xxx school needs to decide which areas they want to focus on. It's impossible to "just make a good CS program" because the CS/SE landscape is too large. At UW, we have computer engineering, software engineering, and computer science. Though SE and CS look very similar from the outside, their fundamental principles are different: SE is more practical, forgoing theory; CS is very theory heavy, forgoing practicality. Which is better? Well you can't really compare them directly. They're both valuable in their own ways. I knew my theory was weak and engineering was "strong" going into uni, so CS helped to strengthen my weakness. Some people just want to build stuff and thought engineering would be cool or w/e. Some of the gripes I have towards some of my profs is that they were a bit stuck up or really siloed into their areas of expertise and would aggressively defend everything they do, waving off anything different or "better", which I would say is objectively toxic and unproductive. Nonetheless each prof having their own areas of strength will give the program one more strong point and expose students to that one area in depth.

后来还elaborated a little more about some prof siloed:

some profs were really siloed into their areas of expertise to the point where they're almost shunning/mocking real-life applications. Some were really good in their areas and a lot was learned, but to the people who didn't know more than what the profs said, they would've received lots of misinformation which needed to be unlearned.

also, my program was focused on theory, so it's difficult for me to say what practical aspects were missing, because that's not the focus.