

Why we should teach our kids to code - saurabh
http://pozorvlak.livejournal.com/169225.html

======
dragonsky
I think we have a long way to go, both in the creation of tools that are
usable by the average person with minimal training, and in the ability of
users to recognise opertunities to utilise the ability of computers to make
their lives easier.

I remember reading an article about ten years ago that described how computers
were making work places less efficient instead of more. I don't think things
have improved at all, in fact I believe in some areas things have actually got
worse. In my workplace we now have about 5 times as many desktop computers as
we did ten years ago, however we have actually reduced the amount of basic
computer instruction available. The thinking is that people are now more aware
of computers... This may be true, but ten years ago, the people using
computers were the ones who were interested in computers and they had some
idea how to effectively apply the machines power. Now days everybody is forced
to use computers for all tasks, and most of them have no idea what a computer
can do apart from send an email, browse the web and print out a pretty
document.

I cringe as I go around the office at how little people are applying the power
that is sitting on their desks. People use spreadsheets to manage budgets, but
most of those spreadsheets will only use the most fundimental of formulas, and
mentions of vlookup bring shaking heads and glazed eyes.

Staff listings are created in Visio org charts... only to be followed by much
gazing at the chart when the HR staff have to work out when contracts are due
to be renewed.

Those few staff who have some understanding of how to create macros in office
are seen as alien tech gods, but no attempt is maid by those not in the know
to emulate their knowledge... Maybe they fear that if they learn something
new, they will be expected to be more effecient.

It is all very well to say, teach kids programming, but untill we decide that
work done is measured by how much is produced, rather than how long you spend
in the office I don't think we are going to get people to apply that
knowledge.

So lets not call for everybody to learn to programme, lets encourage people to
find the most efficient way to do things by defining how much work has to be
done, and giving them encouragement to get out of the office when that work is
done.

~~~
edderly
> creation of tools that are usable by the average person with minimal
> training

Also consider how little the tools people are using have progressed in the
past twenty years too.

The fundamental issue might be that there is little incentive for the industry
to invest enormous effort to enable an average person to become more
productive.

Neither will lessons in a classroom likely narrow the gap to help the average
consumer understand the tools.

In the middle industry can sell people software (custom or not) to temporarily
solve their immediate issues.

------
agentultra
_Computers are not like cars. Cars have a well-defined purpose, for which they
have been ruthlessly optimised. Computers are more like writing. Writing is a
means for expressing and conveying ideas (and here's the key bit: any ideas);
computers are machines for executing instructions (and here's the key bit: any
instructions). Saying that only a few people need to code today is like saying
that only a few people needed to read and write in the 1500s._

A poor analogy and geeky wishful thinking, IMO.

Computer programming is not like writing in any way. Writing is a facility of
language and a way for us to leave behind our thoughts in the past and
disseminate them to others. A computer program on the other hand describes a
process on a machine. They are two completely different patterns of thought.
Language is literature, poetry, ideas, information, and a tool for
immortalizing ourselves. Programming has been around for a mere half-century
and already many of the programs that brought us here are forgotten and
interesting only to a select few. While I like to read programs myself, I
hardly find it an essential skill (and some days I'm afraid to admit, I wish I
didn't understand it at all).

I'm afraid a "mass-algorate," society would not be nearly as useful as a fully
literate society. It's a skill that is not as generally useful to the human
condition. Not yet anyway. We're still working on the numeracy part which has
been building for a much longer time (and yet I'm afraid we might have missed
the opportunity to reach mass-numeracy). Until such a time that a computer is
as ubiquitous as paper and pen or a stick and some sand -- I think algorithms
and programming will be skills relegated to a privileged, nerdy class of
people.

 _edit: spelling_

~~~
wazoox
> _Until such a time that a computer is as ubiquitous as paper and pen or a
> stick and some sand -- I think algorithms and programming will be skills
> relegated to a privileged, nerdy class of people._

But computers are about to become more ubiquitous than paper and pen; most
people do (or will soon) constantly carry a powerful computer in their pocket.

~~~
agentultra
And even if that does become true, should everyone know how to program them?
Or be able to express ideas about algorithms?

That's like saying everyone who has money should be an accountant.

~~~
ctdonath
Everyone who has money should be able to balance a checkbook and write a
simple budget.

~~~
jays
Oh how I wish this was the reality we lived in. Sadly, it's not..

------
Tichy
"I want to live in a mass-algorate society."

Seeing as most people are barely numerate (despite years of maths education
school), I don't have high hopes for this.

~~~
Klonoar
I'm sad you feel that way; in most cases, you can teach an algorithmic
approach without it necessarily appearing mathematical, and that could easily
in turn help solve the problem you point out with "most people".

At the end of the day it's not about the tech, it's about the world around us
- you can take an algorithmic approach to almost anything and end up with
increased chances of success. This just isn't a bad thing to teach.

------
edderly
I'd rather that companies who were creating cutting edge technology (software
or whatever), would visit schools more often in order to inspire at least one
more kid in the classroom to do something creative with their skills than
become another banker or lawyer.

When it comes to technical education I think most schools are dreadfully
inefficient at teaching children, I haven't met any one who felt particularly
inspired by their high school (or equivalent) computer studies course.

~~~
technoslut
I agree with you wholeheartedly. The problem is that K-12 teachers are paid
far lower salaries than they deserve and the talented people who can inspire
will take jobs at companies where they will be paid more.

The situation is far more dire and my concerns are that the majority of
students aren't as knowledgeable of general studies. I would love for them to
know how to program but many in the US have trouble even with the basics of US
history.

~~~
randomdata
Where I am, K-12 teachers with a few years experience under their belt are
making $80,000 per year and up. And yet, I am not sure we are any better off
for it. It seems to me the problem is much more fundamental.

In high school, I had two teachers who did not teach; at least not in the way
we believe teachers should. They provided problems to solve, but gave no
guidance on how to solve them. If you ask them any questions, they would point
you to the nearest computer with internet access or a stack of books. Despite
that, I feel I cam away learning far more from those teachers than I did all
of my other teachers combined.

One of those teachers was quite adamant that schools would be completely
unnecessary by now. I think in many ways he was right. What he failed to take
into account, perhaps because of the bias brought on by his teaching methods,
is that most people never learn how to learn. Without that equipment, our vast
educational resources are not useful.

~~~
technoslut
I don't know where you grew up but where I grew up it was different. I went to
Catholic school during K-12 while the rest of my friends went to public school
in Brooklyn and Queens, NY. The teacher to student ratio was far greater for
public school students and many did not have good parents or parents that
cared. Teachers that live in the cities with large populations get paid
nothing and they will not go out of their way for their students, which is
needed. I was in a similar situation as you. I had lousy teachers making a lot
of money and I came away learning particularly nothing from them. The school
itself had protected me from outside influence which allowed me to learn on my
own. Most of my friends, which came from the now defunct Jackson H.S. in
Queens, have become drug dealers, ended up in jail, died or never went to
college. These are people of white, black, Asian and Indian descent. The only
friend that made anything of himself went to Brooklyn Tech and is now a
medical teacher at Harvard. Even he went to Catholic school with me in K-8.

In the major cities, teachers are going to have to be pseudo-parents. This is
not worth the effort for a salary of $35,000-45,000/year.

~~~
randomdata
_many did not have good parents or parents that cared._

A great point and I imagine that plays a huge role on disabling people from
learning how to learn at a young age. I was very fortunate to have parents who
enabled me to explore and become passionate about learning, well before
Kindergarten age.

But does pushing those unfortunate kids through a system that only emphasizes
the regurgitation of information do them any good? When the teacher is gone,
they are on their own. Teach a man to fish and all that...

 _Most of my friends, which came from the now defunct Jackson H.S. in Queens,
have become drug dealers, ended up in jail, died or never went to college._

Quite literally almost everyone whom I still keep in touch with from high
school is now a teacher themselves. Being a teacher may be more respectable
then a drug dealer for sure, but I'm not sure it shows a success of the
system. What do we gain from producing a society of teachers? A strong economy
requires people creating products of value. Education itself has no intrinsic
value.

------
angelbob
I get _why_ we should teach our kids to code. I'm just hung up on _how_.

Existing games and non-boring instructional material is pretty thin on the
ground, and much of it is of low quality.

To be fair, most college instruction in programming is also not great, so I
don't think we're intentionally stiffing kids. But if learning to code is
usually painful, fewer children will want to do it.

------
huherto
From the jgc article... _It's obvious to most people that illiteracy and
innumeracy are problems to be tackled at school, but it's not obvious that we
are now living in a world where logical and algorithmic thinking are very,
very important._

I wish jcg had written more about why logical and algorithmic thinking is
important.

------
arctangent
I think a "mass-algorate" society is impossible because most people are not
intelligent enough to use modern tools (computers) effectively. I don't think
this will change unless we are able to invent ways to augment human
intelligence on a mass scale.

Technological progress has given smart people the tools to leverage their
intelligence to greater and greater extents. This has inevitably led to the
situation where a small number of programmers can replace large numbers of
average office workers for many common data processing tasks.

I do think that trying to teach children how to work well with computers is a
good thing, but we shouldn't expect miracles to happen.

~~~
adrianN
I believe that anybody who is able to understand highschool level math is also
able to implement simple algorithms and maybe write a small game. It's not
rocket surgery.

~~~
arctangent
Unfortunately the proportion of people with that level of math skill is
probably much lower than you think.

A study done in the UK a decade ago showed that "22 per cent of 16- to
19-year-olds are functionally innumerate" [1].

By "functionally innumerate" they probably mean "unable to manage daily living
and employment tasks that require math skills beyond a basic level". (I've
paraphrased the Wikipedia entry for "functionally illiterate" here.)

It's just a wild guess but this statistic probably means that only a small
percentage of people can do maths to a high school level. So what proportion
of people have the skills to write even the simplest useful computer programs?

[1] <http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6042996>

------
dfischer
<http://www.kidsruby.com>

------
mburney
Algorithmic thinking may be a useful skill but in my experience, there are
down sides. Many (not all) programmers are rigid in their thinking; yes they
can solve problems logically but sometimes this obstructs other ways of
thinking.

Ever since I learned programming, I've found that the more I write code, the
harder it is to get in the flow of other tasks that require a loose, less
rigid mind set (sports, dancing, writing, music, business). So now I
deliberately do things to balance these mind sets.

------
Jem
Interesting. I've signed the petition. I'll probably be teaching my daughter
about code long before she gets to school, mind you.

------
cema
I think the crucial idea here is that teaching computer programming is
important not just to future computer programmers but also computer users. Not
everyone will be a computer programmer, but almost everyone will be a computer
user. The relevant knowledge and skills are therefore universal, like reading,
writing, math, and other basics.

