Australia's Prime Minister Doesn't Get Why Kids Should Learn To Code 306
New submitter Gob Gob writes: The Prime Minister of Australia has come out and ridiculed an opposition policy aimed at teaching kids to code. In response to the leader of the Labor Party's question about whether he would commit to supporting Labor's push to have coding taught in every primary school in Australia, the Prime Minister said: "He said that he wants primary school kids to be taught coding so they can get the jobs of the future. Does he want to send them all out to work at the age of 11? Is that what he wants to do? Seriously?"
Tony Abbott ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Millions and lawyer? Wrong guy, he's not Turnbull (Score:2)
No, not unless he's had it slipped under the table to him recently.
When the government he was in some years ago lost power he had to take a pay cut which he could not afford so he took a mortgage out on his house to support his lifestyle.
Also he worked as journalist and never a lawyer (or economist) despite his education along those lines when he was one of those "perpetual undergraduate student" political types that infest Universities for many years at a time stirring
Doesn't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, because as soon as you're taught something you have to go out and get a job based on it. In another time this would have been like querying whether kids should be taught to read and write in primary school...
Re: (Score:3)
I started learning computer programming way back when I was 8 or 9 (1980/1981); our local community college had a class for kids in the evenings. Basic on a PDP11 running RSTS/e. I still remember the username and password (username:113,3; password: mercer).
Anyhow, exposing kids to coding at that age isn't about learning how to be a computer programmer. It's about teaching logic and how to break a problem down into smaller, more manageable pieces (think WBS in project management). Why do we make our kids tak
Re: (Score:2)
I have a theory that Germans make good programmers because of the German language itself. Stacks. Subroutines. Recursion...
That's funny, and makes perfect sense. FullWordsJammedTogetherDescribingCompleteConcepts();
Re:Doesn't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of teaching computer programming is not to make every child a computer programmer any more than the point of a biology class is to make every child into a biologist.
Re:Doesn't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought the point of biology class was to turn every child into a bit of a biologist, just as a programming class will turn them into a bit of a programmer ... just as I am a bit of a cook, even though I'm a pretty bad one and I don't work in a restaurant. This idea that there are "biologists" who dedicate their lives to it and everyone else is a "non-biologist" just promulgates both elitism on the one hand and ignorance on the other. Same goes for programming. You may never write an application in your life, but being a bit of a programmer is going to help you the first time you need to, say, formulate a complex Google query.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the point of classes was showing kids what is out there, so that at some point they might make an informed decision on what they want to pursue.
And of course, having a general idea about how stuff works is not bad either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope.
...except that it's pretty obvious that allcoolnameswheretak has a good point. Are you unable to deal with the idea that there might be several reasons to do something?
Re: (Score:2)
A surface level of skill will give you familiarity and occasionally some useful thinking/tools. Like all the basic courses in gen ed. I can't do real biology but I can look at something and better guess at how it breaths, moves, what it eats, fears...
Re:Doesn't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
We should certainly be providing a well rounded education, but let's not ignore where this whole push to code comes from. It's from the people who pay the coders, and they hate paying high wages. The same people who cry about a lack of engineers in general, who push for more H1B's, who want to drive down wages in the industry.
This doesn't have anything to do with benefiting the children, it's so Zuckerberg can be worth $28 Billion when he dies instead of $22 Billion - at the expense of those children.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think you can fix this problem by trying to teach more people how to program. Making students take math classes every year hasn't helped solve the problem of not having enough mathematicians. High level math is just something that is beyond the cognitive capabilities of most people. I'm not ashamed to admit that it's above my cognitive capability.
Programming, and more specifically, actual software development, as opposed to just being able to write a few simple functions like one would use in Exce
Re:Doesn't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does this come up in every discussion?
Programming is not special. It does not require a "special mind" or other magical in-born trait. Whatever cognitive skills you believe are requisite are shared by many other subjects. Nor is programming a particularly difficult skill to acquire -- children can, and often do, teach themselves. Odds are good that you taught yourself sometime around the age of 10, +/- a year or two.
"Oh, but only a few can be truly great", someone is bound to say in one form or another. Then we'd better not waste resources teaching children to write, as only a few will have the skill of Hemingway. Nor should we teach them arithmetic, as so few are capable of becoming great mathematicians.
The ability to write computer programs should not be such a large part of your identity. It's like seeing smug posts from folks who can drive a vehicle with a manual transmission -- a skill that took me an hour to learn, and a week to master. That does not make me special. Being able to write computer programs doesn't make me special. They're both simple skills anyone can learn.
Re:Doesn't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, because as soon as you're taught something you have to go out and get a job based on it. In another time this would have been like querying whether kids should be taught to read and write in primary school...
Unlike reading and writing there is absolutely no evidence supporting to faux claim that children must learn to develop computer programmes. Mark Zuckerburg et. al. are the social parasites.
You could say the same about a lot of subjects though - do children _have_ to understand maths, history, geography, art, music, etc? However, having a broad education is a Good Thing. Furthermore, being able to write simple code can be a massive help in many non-coding jobs.
For example, my wife is a hospital doctor - probably the last thing you'd expect that job to need is coding skills. However, she needs to do audits over records occasionally, and I end up writing simple Python scripts for her to process the data - she has no coding skills, so without me to do that she would be spending hours doing stuff manually that I can write code in minutes to do. She tells me that her IT classes at secondary school were almost entirely taken up by teaching about the health and safety concerns related to using computers, rather than actually learning how to use them. I'm 5 years older (which puts me in the BBC/Acorn era) and my GCSE level IT classes taught me some basics about word processors, databases, etc, but no coding - I learnt to code in my own time. Being _taught_ to code didn't happen until A levels in my case, by which time anyone who isn't planning to have a career in computing or electronics has opted out in favor of other subjects.
Re: (Score:2)
What jobs do you imagine existing in 10-20 years that don't require some understanding of programming? I thought my stepfather, as head greenskeeper at a golf course might have had one before he retired, but it turns out that the irrigation system that he had to use came with a domain-specific programming language for controlling it. A lot of farm equipment is moving in the same direction. Office jobs generally require either wasting a lot of time, or learning a bit of scripting (hint: the employees who
No kid should be forced to code ... (Score:3)
... but then, kids who are interested in making their own computer programs should be allowed to do so
And about politicians ...
Most of them only knows how to make a lot of hot air, so I am not surprised at all at that outburst from that PM of the land from down-under
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
... but then, kids who are interested in making their own computer programs should be allowed to do so
I think this is what the prime minister is trying to argue: most 11-year-olds just lack the cognitive functions to engineer software. It doesn't mean they can't write code, just not engineering software, because software engineering requires an architect, designer, lead programmer, and night-shift-programmer.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No kid should be forced to code ... (Score:4)
Most 11 year olds lack the cognitive functions to write novels, too, but that doesn't mean we don't teach them to write.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the difference is that writing is an important skill to have even if you aren't going to be writing novels. My life would be so much easier if people writing emails could just compose a few simple sentences that are easy to understand.
Programming on the other hand doesn't seem to be all that useful unless you want to actually write computer programs. And I say that as somebody who is a programmer. It's definitely not something that everybody needs to know how to do. There's so many other skills t
Re:No kid should be forced to code ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: No kid should be forced to code ... (Score:3)
Most kids are never taught to write well enough to later write a novel. That requires much more dedication and skill building. Heck, most people have trouble composing a cogent comment on Facebook.
It would be great if we taught all school children to think logically and in an ordered manner such that coding were the next practical step. But ... have you ever been outside your own home? As it is now, coders self-select. We should not make the mistake to assume that a high level of success among a
NBN (Score:5, Insightful)
I kind of agree (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a LOT to life, and not everyone needs to be doing the same things, or is even capable or willing to do those things. Everyone has different strengths and limitations. Even if you go on about how learning to code teaches a lot of associated skills, those same skills can be learned many other ways.
I dunno, it just feels like all this "TEACH ALL KIDZ TO CODE, LOL" going around is a bunch of mutual masturbation and self-fellatio.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I am sort of conflicted on the issue. On one hand, this is a topic not for everyone. Every school should have a CS program, but it should be an elective. The closest thing to a required computer class these days should be on the art of typing, because hunt-and-peck is not the way to go on anything outside of a tablet / phone.
However, as someone who taught themselves programming in elementary school, I can see the value of a "CS-light" type class. Something that teaches the concepts of logic, flo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I am sort of conflicted on the issue. On one hand, this is a topic not for everyone. Every school should have a CS program, but it should be an elective.
I'm not sure why it should be elective at younger ages when other classes are not. e.g. when I was at school (before starting my GCSEs), I was _required_ to do art, music and French(*), all of which I was terrible at, and I'd argue were far less useful than some basic CS stuff.
(*) I'm actually in favor of teaching a second language to kids, and this has been shown to be a big help with mental development too. However, the current system here is to only start teaching a second language in secondary school,
Re:I kind of agree (Score:4, Insightful)
I get that everyone wants to teach kids to do what they like because they think they are the best version of human and obviously it is best for humanity if your life template is copied as much as possible, but I don't get why it is so obvious to everyone that getting everyone to code is so beneficial.
There is a LOT to life, and not everyone needs to be doing the same things, or is even capable or willing to do those things. Everyone has different strengths and limitations. Even if you go on about how learning to code teaches a lot of associated skills, those same skills can be learned many other ways.
I dunno, it just feels like all this "TEACH ALL KIDZ TO CODE, LOL" going around is a bunch of mutual masturbation and self-fellatio.
Whilst most jobs don't _require_ coding skills, a lot of them would be done more efficiently if people had those skills. I would argue that knowing some basics about coding is probably more useful to the "average person" than a large chunk of the history, biology, maths, art, geography, etc. classes that we send kids to today.
Of course, what's "most useful" shouldn't be the only criteria used in education - giving someone a well rounded education is also an excellent idea, but I think it's hard to argue that teaching people some basic coding skills wouldn't also fit into that.
Re: (Score:2)
I get where you're coming from, but we do need people to understand how computers work. For too many people, they are magic black boxes.
But, some people really can't get it at all. I wouldn't want to punish kids with a course where they have no chance of doing well, just to make myself feel better about my socialness.
If the class was sufficiently basic (no pun intended), it would probably be fine. There are people that are just awful at math, and yet they were able to pass grade school math classes.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you do need a basic class in programming, to demystify the "magic black box." They need to write a few simple programs to get the concept that "oh, it only does exactly what I tell it, and must be fed all the information it needs to compute the things I tell it to do." This is a necessary concept, and will *help* alleviate the problem of my aunt thinking a McAfee virus scan popup was the Chinese hacking her offline computer. People need that experience so they will view the computer not as a magic b
Re: (Score:2)
Which is exactly the view of people that were setting up high school maths syllabus in the 1980s. For some reason it's seen as far less important now, as if the computers have all gone away or something.
Re: (Score:3)
You could substitute literally any reasonably broad subject into your post and it would mean precisely the same.
In other words, it's perfectly possible to leave a large, broad subject out of general education. Most of the skills will be somewhat glanced upon in other subjects. Those that love it will probably find it anyway. But so what?
You could use exactly the same arguments to not teach science, or maths, or foreign languages, or English or art or "making things" (DT in the UK), or geography, or history.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but kids, like adults, have only so much time in a day.
And frankly, the way I see some kids overscheduled (especially since not all schools offer music and art) and gives them no time to be kids and *breathe*, some sacrifices have to be made somewhere.
I met one overly-harried parent of a TKD student that made sure her girls were not only doing TKD, but leadership and golf classes (her reasoning: "She'll never be a CEO if she doesn't learn how to play golf!"). The kid in question seemed barely interes
Re: (Score:2)
So replacing part of a school day which would not be considered giving them time to be kids or to *breathe* would stop them somehow?
I'm sure /. will ridicule it, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
I mostly agree with him.
I (and I'm sure MANY of us!) didn't learn any programming skills formally until college (and some not even there). I learned basic skills on my own because I thought it was fun, learned more formally in college, and really only made the decision to go into software engineering soon before graduation.
I just think kids are better off learning more general areas - math, physics, chemistry, writing/literature, social sciences, economics, and BASIC (pun intended) computer science/programming. Leave the specialization to a time where they know what that even means.
Re:I'm sure /. will ridicule it, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Computers are pretty integral to modern learning. At the very least, kids nowadays need to be able to use a computer just like they need to know how to wield a pencil. As far as basics... computer programming is an excellent real-world opportunity to put basic skills to practical use, especially logic and math.
BTW, you call chemistry "basic"? Why is chemistry of any practical use to anyone but anyone but a chemist? I can't recall a single instance in my life when I had to apply any sort of chemistry-based knowledge. Let's apply that same logic to computer programming. How often are these kids going to be interacting with computers in their lifetimes? Might it not be handy to understand how those computers work, and perhaps even know how to write scripts to automate tasks, for instance? Which of the two knowledge or skill sets (programming or chemistry) is more likely to have a direct impact on these kids lives?
TL;DR version: nowadays, computers ARE fundamental.
Re: (Score:2)
> BTW, you call chemistry "basic"? Why is chemistry of any practical use to anyone but anyone but a chemist?
Do you cook, or take any medications? A bit of knowledge of how they actually work can be invaluable, and the handling of precise quantities with expected results is also valuable. So is the discovery of margins of error: chemistry in a simulator program doesn't provide that.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, you call chemistry "basic"? Why is chemistry of any practical use to anyone but anyone but a chemist?
How about reading a basic food label and not being terrified? You wouldn't believe how many people are in favor of banning dihydrogen monoxide. Ignorance is ignorance.
Let's apply that same logic to computer programming. How often are these kids going to be interacting with computers in their lifetimes?
Another poster already made a similar point, but since you used the "let's apply that same logic" argument... do you really understand the engineering behind every technology you use in daily life? Of course not. And most people I assume understand even LESS, but can still use it just fine. Computers themselves are a TOOL used by non-engi
Re: (Score:2)
A general knowledge of chemistry is not going to tell you what "tocopherols" or "methyl salicylate" are, except perhaps for a vague hint based on the name. You'd be better off with a bit of computer know-how so you can just look that information up yourself as you need it. And if someone wants to ban dihydrogen monoxide... well, education will cure ignorance, but it won't cure stupidity.
Cars are tools used nearly exclusively for transportation. Thus, you only need to learn how to use them, and only when
Re: (Score:2)
A general knowledge of chemistry is not going to tell you what "tocopherols" or "methyl salicylate" are,
A vague hint? Methyl salicylate would be a methylated salicylic acid (which anyone who has taken organic chemistry has heard of), aka an ester, so likely used for aroma/flavor which would be very common in foods and probably nothing to worry about in an ingredient list (though I have never seen it so I assume you are trying to be clever or it has a more common name?)
Ok, of course had to look it up. Wintergreen, eh. I think my above guess was fairly close. And why? CHEMISTRY! So, do YOU know what an est
Re: (Score:2)
I can't recall a single instance in my life when I had to apply any sort of chemistry-based knowledge.
Let's apply that same logic to computer programming. How often are these kids going to be interacting with computers in their lifetimes? Might it not be handy to understand how those computers work, and perhaps even know how to write scripts to automate tasks, for instance? Which of the two knowledge or skill sets (programming or chemistry) is more likely to have a direct impact on these kids lives?
TL;DR version: nowadays, computers ARE fundamental.
Actually you applied different logic. "Many people interact with computers so it would be useful to know how they work" vs "I can't recall a single instance in my life when I had to apply any sort of chemistry-based knowledge".
The same logic would be:
"I can't recall a single instance in my life when I had to apply any sort of chemistry-based knowledge".
vs
"I can't recall a single instance in my life when I had to apply any sort of programming-based knowledge".
or
"Many people interact with compute
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While computers are fundamental, programming them is not.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, you call chemistry "basic"? Why is chemistry of any practical use to anyone but anyone but a chemist? I can't recall a single instance in my life when I had to apply any sort of chemistry-based knowledge.
Among other things, knowledge of chemistry allows you to reject homeopathy and accept vaccinations.
Re: (Score:3)
BTW, you call chemistry "basic"? Why is chemistry of any practical use to anyone but anyone but a chemist? I can't recall a single instance in my life when I had to apply any sort of chemistry-based knowledge.
Sigh. I'm shit at math but I can easily recognize many places where more math would improve my life, especially since I like to make things and customize them. By the same token I never got any chemistry (it was not required, and by the time I got to college I had other interests) but I can recognize that it would be cool to have more of it. Even cooking is chemistry, and a lot of that fancy-pants "molecular gastronomy" (what, other food doesn't have molecules?) stuff is applicable to more mundane foods. Or
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you had highschool chemistry you would know that chewing medical pills is bad for you because it increases the absorption and surface area of the medication.
By the way I don't agree with teaching programming at such young age. Kids should be exposed to computers, but save the programming for high school.
Re: (Score:2)
Some basic knowledge is helpful for things like cleaning, cooking and building bo ... err ... homemade fireworks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I just think kids are better off learning more general areas - math, physics, chemistry, writing/literature, social sciences, economics, and BASIC (pun intended) computer science/programming. Leave the specialization to a time where they know what that even means.
On the one hand, I want to agree with you. My personal feeling is that kids (especially nowadays) should learn to play first, and spend sufficient time outdoors. I think schooling (12 years in my locale, excluding prescool), is mostly a waste of productive (from a kid's perspective) time, designed to keep kids occupied while their parents earn enough to pay the taxes.
On the other hand, there actually were some influences during my primary school days (late 1970's) that may have helped a lot to steer my int
Re: (Score:2)
I was referring to subjects traditionally taught in school, of source. I'm pretty sure everything you mentioned is better learned by just LIVING.
Though I do believe some of those skills ARE improved via a good liberal arts education - as well as, IMO, the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT SKILL learned in college: research.
I don't care what your field is, if you have learned to be an expert in researching, you can quickly pick up a huge variety of skills/information you need in order to adapt to your specific job. It
Re: (Score:2)
Totally - I can't even BEGIN to imagine what politicians and mainstream media think when people talk about coding. I'm guessing it's somewhere in between Office Space, Hackers, and Swordfish, which would explain a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely - I agree with a programming overview, just that the details of computer science/programming beyond "this is basically how it works" is better left to college courses, same as anatomy for premed or fluid dynamics for ME, etc.
Coding: Language Skills (Score:5, Insightful)
Learning to code is like learning a second language. It teaches you to think in the mindspace of the computer, so to speak... that is, the kids are learning about logic, arithmetic, flow control, and other such concepts. Once you get the basics down, learning other languages becomes much easier. Even if those kids don't become programmers, the familiarity they get with computers and the higher lessons learned should still be worthwhile.
Those of us who program for a living nowadays probably started programming on our own when we were younger. My first lessons were self-taught, thanks to an Apple II I had access to, as well as a book that taught AppleBASIC (and one designed for kids, of all things - I wish I could find that book somewhere). Later in college, I decided I wanted to become a programmer, and picked up Pascal, C, and C++ quite easily, thanks to my earlier lessons in BASIC.
As long as the curriculum is solid, this seems like a positive thing. I wonder if it's difficult to find qualified instructors, though?
Re: (Score:2)
Now the beginning programmer has to learn a fairly deep api that they dont really understand (..beginners..) just to do something simple like draw some pixels. For a beginn
Re: (Score:2)
Learning to code is like learning a second language.
Speaking from experience, I learned c# in elementary, and, yes, it's like a native language to me (albeit structured, not natural, still). Not so with C++ or Spanish.
Re: (Score:2)
Th
Re: (Score:2)
While it may be like learning a second language, I personally feel learning to code in elementary school would be like learning a second language without understanding the concept of punctuation. Now, before getting all flustered, hear me out.
Using a programming language successfully means using math concepts that elementary school students usually haven't been introduced to yet and requires strict formatting control, something they're still working on in elementary school with their primary language. Ass
Re: (Score:2)
Learning to code is like learning a second language.
As someone who knows (with varying degrees of proficiency) English, French, C#, JavaScript, Perl, PHP, and VB.NET... no it isn't. Human languages are WAY harder to learn, both in terms of having far more information, and in terms of being highly irregular and unpredictable (and that's not to start on trying to understand people pronouncing things quickly and slurredly). I'm still crappy at French after 15 years, but I've learned several programming langu
Re: (Score:2)
Are you in an environment where you listen to and speak French daily? I learned French in high school myself (three years), but honestly, there's a huge difference between learning an hour a day in a classroom only and actually using it to communicate with others each day. When completely immersed, younger children can actually pick up most of a new language in a month or two, while adults will likely take a bit longer, perhaps half a year to a year. My parents and grandparents were immigrants, so they e
Easy to grasp... (Score:3, Funny)
We need to start seeing programming languages as a modern replacement of the semantics of mathematics, rather than something separate. Mathematics is just programming expressed in the form of symbols. Take calculus for example, the equations describe dynamic systems and the symbols used are type of functions or methods. Programming is thus calculus and a program is a formal math proof. Many people will have issues with Math, but not demonstrate the same issues when it comes to code. Children can be offered a choice between math and programming, but still learn the same set of skills. I personally have issues with understanding and working with the traditional presentation of math equations, but this vanishes when I express those equations in code to such an extent that I'd have the same capability as someone with a Masters or PhD in mathematics. Some people are just wired differently and we need to understand that a one-size-fits-all approach to learning does not gel with how the brain works.
Tony Abbot doesn't understand... (Score:2)
Tony Abbot doesn't understand anything that isn't making him and his mates a lot of dosh RIGHT NOW!
It gets better. . . (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
"I only touched her back your honour" was his defence when he forced his way into a political meeting with a bunch of thugs, ran onto the stage and groped the speaker in front of an audience. The other time, the theft of a traffic sign was seen as minor so while he was found guilty no conviction was recorded.
Re: (Score:2)
Which Technology? (Score:2)
Do we want the kids to be perfecty prepared to build 1990's technology? Remember, you are reading this on a WEB PAGE. Web pages were not even invented until the mid-1990's.
I sympathize with those who want kids to be prepared. But we used to call computer technology, and what we should today call cell phone technology, is changing so fast that almost anything you learned in school will be obsolete before you can get a job using it.
For example, in college I learned FORTRAN and CDC 6400 assembler language
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no point in teaching... to anyone who doesn't care about it.
So, we should eliminate all of elementary school altogether?
Re: (Score:3)
So they get to know if they're good or bad at it (Score:2)
Missing the point (Score:2)
The summary misses the main point of the story. Tony Abbott ridiculed the concept of teaching children to program in response to a question by the opposition leader when his own government of which he is the leader already has a policy in place to fund teaching children to program (although not to make it compulsory).
Learn to read, learn basic math (Score:2)
Sorry - but writing code is no great secret: all you need to be is smart. Reading and basic math skills will go much further to achieving the goal of preparing kids for their future cube bound existence.
I will also point out that there are way to many programmers with no expertise outside of programming. One trick ponies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The two statements you made are kind of at odds with one another.
Coders ARE too often one-trick ponies, I agree. But at least they learned some other subjects while they were at school. Literature, biology, chemistry. Even if they don't use them, they know a few things here and there.
The biologists, chemists and writers of the future will now know a little bit of coding. They won't remember much, probably, but they'll know a little. Nobody's trying to teach these kids to be experts any more than school is t
Don't make kids learn to code (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are be so pressing on kids to learn coding? If a kid wants to learn coding, they'll learn coding, if they don't want to, they won't. If we start forcing kids to learn computer programming it will be no better then when we force kids to take Shakespeare, Drama, History or Art. Don't make kids learn anything they aren't interested in, because when you do that, they'll never give it a real shot.
While I agree to some extent, I think you do need to give kids the initial push into trying something they have never done before - for the most part, unless it is a universally fun activity, people won't see how they could enjoy something until they've actually had a serious go at it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not be picky -- dark coding, dark hardware, and dark theory might be fun, too.
Submitter doesn't get it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is truth in his question. (Score:4, Insightful)
Another useless subject - yay! (Score:2)
Another subject that will be 100% useless for 99% of students.
Remember when you had to know the periodic table by heart. Needed it for test and never thought about it again for the next 20 years.
There is more and more information to learn. Maybe we should rethink how schools work in general. Look for children with talents in certain areas and base the curriculum on that.
Of course this violates bullshit rule number 1 which states that "everybody is the same" ....
Re: (Score:2)
So in other words ridiculous rote learning teaching METHOD in a particular subject, i.e. chemistry means an unrelated subject is useless?
Re: (Score:2)
I went to University and concentrated on computing science classes. I've been a professional programmer for 15 years.
But while I was at University, I also took courses in comparative literature, invertebrate paleontology, geology, meteorology, atmospheric fluid- and thermo- dynamics, and philosophy. You know what? It turns out that I'm really interested in those 'useless' subjects that I didn't really need, but was forced to take. As I look into the future, I'm thinking of leaving the software industry and
Coding? How About 12 Years Schooling? (Score:2)
Programming has no future beyond 20 years (Score:2)
Is he right for the wrong reasons? (Score:2)
I'm unconvinced by all of these initiatives to teach programming to kids. And I say this as the father of a teen who is already a pretty darned good programmer - precisely because I see how unusual it is.
Coding is fun stuff, but really, what's important here is the ability to create models (abstraction) and the ability to do structured problem solving. If you teach these skills with coding, you introduce a lot of overhead in the form of language syntax, compilation problems, libraries, IDEs, and other stuff
Right conclusion, wrong reason (Score:2)
Kids don't need to be taught to code - not because they're too young to learn (I was coding since I was maybe 10 years old?) but because there's already a glut of coders in the workforce. The shortage was a now well-understood hoax made by a few US tech companies who employ coders.
Kids should at least be familiar with coding. (Score:2)
I feel kids should at least be familiar with coding. Learning how computers execute instructions and do what they do is akin to learning about how oxygen combines with fuel in combustion in a science class, or how cells divide in a biology class.
They don't have to know extreme detail, just have a basic idea of how the world works. And in today's world that includes computers.
The language doesn't even matter. Even old-school BASIC is a good language to use for the class, because it's easy to understand and t
Re: (Score:2)
STOP THE PRESSES! Talk about nothing else! It is IMPOSSIBLE to talk and think about more than ONE problem at a time! Always and only focus on the most important issue ever!
Like adware.
Re: (Score:2)
Like programming, I try to address on issue at a time instead of writing one giant spaghetti function that does it all.
Fwd: Bad (Score:3)
In my childhood I was taught (simple) woodworking, music (playing flute), theater (acting), sewing, swimming, etc.
Not solely for perspective jobs, just for getting an idea what the world turns
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He is an idiot, and his position is founded on sand; I think the position that everyone should be a computer programmer is also founded on sand, but I actually understand *why*.
This important distinction is missed by the general public, and so public policy is a popularity contest. Smart people incorrectly think X, people get behind the guy. In the case of coding skills and technology in education, it's computer nerds thinking they understand market economy, sociology, and primary education. Being abl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm so glad I got the opportunity to learn to code in primary school. It was the volunteer school music teacher who took extra time to show me, and it wasn't too long before we had vector graphics flying around the screen in 6502 assembly.
This was one of the things that kept me out of trouble. I already had a different race and family background to the other kids. On top of that was smart enough to feel a bit alienated, but not so smart to be singled out as obviously gifted. Coding gave me a chance to feel
Re: (Score:3)