So, is it computer science or computer programming? This is only going to add a truckload of fuel to the already huge fire that is the confusion between computer science and computer programming.
But to be less pedantic, let's actually focus on what this will entail.
First of all, "learning to code" is as ambiguous as "learning a [natural] language". Not all natural languages are Latin, and not all programming languages are ALGOL.
Second, I am highly skeptical as to the intentions of this movement. Yet criticizing it is bound to get you labeled a cynic, a Luddite, an obscurantist or a combination of those. After all, teaching kids to code? How benevolent of them!
Not when you realize that the big moguls standing behind this are probably more concerned about having typists who can write instructions, rather than skilled programmers and computer scientists. I'm not saying this out of spite, but because of how they've presented their agenda (I'm referring to Code.org, primarily). The sugar coating, the testimonials from everybody besides actual computer scientists and their setting of sex quotas and affirmative action to create the illusion of desiring equality.
Notice how they all focus on the code. They rarely even use the word "programming". This should already set off an alarm.
As the proprietary software giants are standing by this, they are very likely to focus on proprietary platforms. They don't talk about this, of course. It's all about the code. About imagination, creativity and dreams. Have fun fulfilling your dreams on a locked down tablet with a TPM chip. The issue of software freedom, I believe, is more important than bashing instructions, which is a skill anyone can pick up, if they so desire. But there will be none of that. How many of these kids will be taught about GNU? I'm assuming none. But I'm sure there's going to be lots of Visual Studio and C#, plus iOS and Objective-C.
Ultimately, this will either drive away children from programming (depending on how it's taught, but let's face it: compulsory schooling is notorious for just how apt it is at sucking the life and fun out of learning... even more when Code.org is pushing for pay deductions on teachers whose CS classrooms consist of <40% females), or it will reduce the general quality of labor. Many will be uninterested, many will refine their skills, but many will become 9-to-5 enterprise monkeys as a direct result of this.
I really want to support this. I do. But it really keeps looking like learning to code is just a facade. Of course, the children will learn something, but the ulterior agenda and how their perception will be skewed is something distressing.
> Many will be uninterested, many will refine their skills, but many will become 9-to-5 enterprise monkeys as a direct result of this.
The kids in the Chicago Public School system are 87% from low-income families. If these course result in "many" of these kids becoming 9-to-5 "enterprise monkeys" then that would be a smashing success beyond anyone's wildest imagination.
This doesn't necessarily mean they'll work directly as programmers, or that they'll have high-paying jobs. There's lots of average coding jobs that are unremarkable. The workforce will also end up becoming diluted, a natural consequence of making a craft compulsory. Everything has trade-offs.
> This doesn't necessarily mean they'll work directly as programmers, or that they'll have high-paying jobs.
Being a "9-to-5 enterprise monkey" means having a job, and given the demographics of the pool here, if many get to that state as a result of this effort, its a big win.
> There's lots of average coding jobs that are unremarkable.
And it would be great if Americans from low income backgrounds were able to get the skills to do them rather being dependent on kinds of physical labor that are easily automated -- which likely means unemployment.
> The workforce will also end up becoming diluted, a natural consequence of making a craft compulsory.
I don't see how this follows. Making learning basic programming skills part of compulsory education might (though I don't see it necessary that it would) increase the number or proportion of people choosing to enter the programming profession that have a fairly low ceiling on how far they could go in the profession, but even if it did why would that be bad?
Where is the evidence for any kind of dilution that really is a "natural consequence" of this being harmful in any way.
> Everything has trade-offs.
Its actually quite possible for some options to be strictly superior to others. But, sure, most real choices have some degree of trade-offs. But where is the argument -- not just the bare assertions -- that the trade-offs here aren't desirable?
I know that $150k+ straight out of college is the norm on this board, but "unremarkable" "average coding jobs" are nonetheless a solid foundation for a middle class life. Just 1/3 that amount is enough to pull a family of four out of the "low-income" category, a category that encompasses the families of 87% of students in Chicago public schools.
> Code.org is pushing for pay deductions on teachers whose CS classrooms consist of <40% females)
I think that's a grossly misleading characterization. Code.org is offering a small ($750) stipend to teachers who successfully complete a course. That is not pay, that's a minor incentivizing bonus. A further $250 is given to teachers whose class had at least 7 female students. (NOT 40%; if you have 7 females and 25 males, you still get that $250.)
Calling that a "pay deduction" is misleading at best. Calling it a percentage-based quota is flat incorrect.
So having actually seen what Code.org's small hour of code assignment was (my sister in 6th grade had to do it), I can say that it's not as evil as you're making it out to be. For one, they're not taught a specific language -- they're given visual blocks to work with (and the ability to show the corresponding javascript).
I assume that without real instruction you're not going to learn the theory, and yes someone will have to advocate for OSS, but it seems that the goal is more basic -- not to pump kids full of impressions that 'this way is the only way' and 'just type code don't think no think'.
One thing I noticed more from my sister than the hour of code was that thought processes for programming that we take for granted haven't been implanted, and need to be taught. For example, my sister when faced with a path for the zombie to take would start by telling the zombie to move forwards many times then take a left... etc etc. Conditions and loops are introduced gradually and the idea that you would use a loop to do multiple things instead of just manually doing it is part of this. How should kids understand complex CS concepts without this? They need to start somewhere.
Disclaimer: I worked on Code.org's beginner tutorials.
Why do you assume that there is some sinister agenda? Why can't you believe that a couple of smart, charming, and lucky brothers decided to spend some of their wealth and time doing what they feel is right? Why can't you believe that some of the smart & lucky folks they've made friends with in their careers want to help?
It's no secret: Better computer science education is beneficial for tech companies. These companies want more engineers. Does the involvement of volunteers from Microsoft/Google/Twitter/Facebook/etc instantly mean that everyone of us at Code.org that really believes we're helping students world wide are bad people for choosing to accept (or soliciting) help from large, influential organizations? Does institutional or celebrity support inherently corrupt philanthropic endeavors? That's such an insane world view to me.
By the way, the word "code" is a marketing decision. It's easier and more fun to say. It's a catchy domain name. It's not about correctness, it's about being impactful.
If you want to support this, but you have concerns, then maybe you should do some research before spreading FUD. Curriculum details are widely available: http://code.org/educate
Tutorials vary wildly in goals, approaches, quality, scope, etc. You can find many at http://code.org/learn including our own (open source github.com/code-dot-org/) and many others, generally utilizing JavaScript or other non-proprietary technology.
The "big moguls" would love more skilled programmers and computer scientists. I don't know why you think the evil employers want less skilled workers, but that makes no business sense.
"Disinformation" would be an accurate description of your claim.
Code.org is not "pushing for pay deductions on teachers whose CS classrooms consist of <40% females" as you claimed.
The actual proposal: [1]
* isn't about teacher's pay, its about classroom funding rewards being paid by Code.org [2]
* doesn't refer to % of class that is girls, it pays $750 if 15 or more students reach a certain goals, and $1,000 if, of those 15 or more, 7 or more are girls.
[2] Direct quote: "These rewards are not cash prizes for teachers - they are classroom rewards. This program is not permanent, it's a one-time campaign to see if rewards can help grow the pool of C.S. teachers and increase total enrollment (especially by girls)."
Very well. This is still trying to incentivize equality through what is essentially bribery. At least they don't intend on doing it regularly, not for now.
The rest of my claims still stand. In fact, the affirmative action is probably one of the lesser worries. There's other, much bigger reasons.
> Very well. This is still trying to incentivize equality through what is essentially bribery.
Its not incentivizing equality.
The major incentive is for getting any set of 15 or more students through the program. This is 75% of the potential reward.
The minor incentive is for getting 7 or more girls in the set of 15 or more students. This is obviously not an incentive for equality (as, at the minimum number of total students and girls for the incentive, its not equal, and, there's no ratio-based requirement -- if you get 30 students through and only 7 are girls, you get the same additional $250 on top of the base $750 as if you get 15 students through and 7 were girls.)
In addition to not being "incentivizing equality", I don't see how rewarding what works in acheiving goals is bribery.
> The rest of my claims still stand.
The rest of your claims are unsupported fuzzy generalities. In the one case you discussed an easily verifiable fact claim, it was completely wrong. I don't see any reason to assume that your generalities are based on any clearer of a picture of reality than your simple fact claim.
> First of all, "learning to code" is as ambiguous as "learning a [natural] language".
True, so what?
> Second, I am highly skeptical as to the intentions of this movement.
Okay, you are skeptical about intentions. Where's evidence of nefarious intent that would lead a person not relying purely on irrational bias to give your skepticism any particular weight?
> Not when you realize that the big moguls standing behind this are probably more concerned about having typists who can write instructions, rather than skilled programmers and computer scientists.
Granting for the moment that you claim of what they would be "probably more concerned about" is correct -- though I'll note you provide neither evidence nor argument to support this imputed motivation -- so what? Having more people with only basic competence might be a desire, but doing that would also seem likely to open the door for more people to move beyond basic competence, as well.
> The sugar coating, the testimonials from everybody besides actual computer scientists
To the extent these are real things (certainly, its pitched to have mass appeal rather than appeal to people who are already into computing and equally certainly many of the testimonials are from people who are influential with the general public rather than specifically computer scientists) it is understandable given that much of the goal is to draw interest from outside the community of people already deeply interested in computing.
OTOH, its a distortion to claim that their testimonials are "from everybody besides actual computer scientists". While their testimonials are from a broad range of backgrounds, some of them are "actual computer scientists" (for example, Maria Klawe [1] and Peter Denning [2].)
> As the proprietary software giants are standing by this, they are very likely to focus on proprietary platforms
There's a lot of companies "standing by this", some of which are "proprietary software giants" -- and plenty of which aren't. Plenty of open source educational projects are "standing by this", plenty of companies whose business isn't selling proprietary software, too.
> The issue of software freedom, I believe, is more important than bashing instructions
Software freedom is meaningless without the skill to "bash instructions", since its only the freedom to choose who to be dependent on. More people with "instruction bashing" skills means more people for whom software freedom means something more than gratis software.
> How many of these kids will be taught about GNU?
I suspect lots of them will learn about GNU whether or not they are taught about it. I wasn't taught about it -- but, being interested in programming -- largely as a result of being taught in school at a young age, often on proprietary platforms -- I learned about it simply in the course of seeking out more resources and tools for programming.
> Ultimately, this will either drive away children from programming [...] or it will reduce the general quality of labor.
Wow. That's an interesting -- and completely unsupported -- dichotomy.
> I really want to support this. I do.
Sure you do.
> But it really keeps looking like learning to code is just a facade.
You have provided nothing other than statements of your own biases to support the idea that its a "facade".
> Of course, the children will learn something, but the ulterior agenda and how their perception will be skewed is something distressing.
You have provided nothing substantial to support the idea that an "ulterior agenda" exists, or that "perception will be skewed".
But to be less pedantic, let's actually focus on what this will entail.
First of all, "learning to code" is as ambiguous as "learning a [natural] language". Not all natural languages are Latin, and not all programming languages are ALGOL.
Second, I am highly skeptical as to the intentions of this movement. Yet criticizing it is bound to get you labeled a cynic, a Luddite, an obscurantist or a combination of those. After all, teaching kids to code? How benevolent of them!
Not when you realize that the big moguls standing behind this are probably more concerned about having typists who can write instructions, rather than skilled programmers and computer scientists. I'm not saying this out of spite, but because of how they've presented their agenda (I'm referring to Code.org, primarily). The sugar coating, the testimonials from everybody besides actual computer scientists and their setting of sex quotas and affirmative action to create the illusion of desiring equality.
Notice how they all focus on the code. They rarely even use the word "programming". This should already set off an alarm.
As the proprietary software giants are standing by this, they are very likely to focus on proprietary platforms. They don't talk about this, of course. It's all about the code. About imagination, creativity and dreams. Have fun fulfilling your dreams on a locked down tablet with a TPM chip. The issue of software freedom, I believe, is more important than bashing instructions, which is a skill anyone can pick up, if they so desire. But there will be none of that. How many of these kids will be taught about GNU? I'm assuming none. But I'm sure there's going to be lots of Visual Studio and C#, plus iOS and Objective-C.
Ultimately, this will either drive away children from programming (depending on how it's taught, but let's face it: compulsory schooling is notorious for just how apt it is at sucking the life and fun out of learning... even more when Code.org is pushing for pay deductions on teachers whose CS classrooms consist of <40% females), or it will reduce the general quality of labor. Many will be uninterested, many will refine their skills, but many will become 9-to-5 enterprise monkeys as a direct result of this.
I really want to support this. I do. But it really keeps looking like learning to code is just a facade. Of course, the children will learn something, but the ulterior agenda and how their perception will be skewed is something distressing.