
Treehouse gets $7M to bring learn-to-code programs to high schools - Pasanpr
http://venturebeat.com/2013/04/09/treehouse-high-school-series-b/
======
padolsey
This is good news for an ambitious startup, but I have to say: this whole
thing seems like a bit of a shame.

If Carson truly is motivated by by the proliferation of knowledge to the
underprivileged, then more power to him. But I still think there are better
ways of contributing to such a global effort. I mean, there are better ways
than attempting to monetize atop crumbling home lives and shameful education
voids. For example: <http://www.codeclub.org.uk/> (what a cool initiative!)

In an industry so blessed with the huge amount of free knowledge available
online, open to both public scrutiny and moderation, like Coursera & Khan
Academy, you'd think that there'd be no possible niche for Treehouse to serve.
But there is. There is a niche of people who simply don't know better. They
don't know of the freely available content nor the millions of hours freely
spent by programmers worldwide contributing constantly.

Instead of creating a private monetizable bubble of ignorance around the
underprivileged, how about letting them learn through the already existing
freely available content?

So congrats and all, but I just, on a personal level, want more for the future
of education.

------
lquist
I've looked at a lot of the "learn-to-code" introductory material that's out
there these days, and the Treehouse content is some of the worst there is. I
could run down a list of issues, but maybe it suffices to say that I've met
many people who've completed the courses and still do not have any
understanding of the basics of programming. And this is the material that is
going to get high schoolers jobs? I don't think so.

~~~
jmuguy
I've been working through stuff on Treehouse trying to learn Ruby/Rails and
thought the content was ok if not a little shallow. Are there better
programs/methods that stand out?

------
ipince
I’m all in favor of teaching kids how to program, but please be careful about
setting expectations. To me, it sounds as if you’re telling people “hey, learn
to program in 6 months and get a six figure salary at Facebook!”. While that
may be a good way to sell the program, it’s unrealistic and deceitful.

Can you replace a 4-year CS program with a 6 month course? No offense, but I
doubt so. I figure the best you can do is have students to know their way
around Ruby, know how to build simple apps relying on Rails, some basics about
algorithms, familiarity with git, etc. That might be enough for some jobs, but
I doubt that’s the kind of engineer companies like Facebook are looking to
hire.

Again, I’m not saying that teaching these kids how to program is bad. It’s
great. But please think about the expectations that you’re setting.

(I would’ve written more to express myself better, but I don’t have time!)

------
davidroberts
_“So when we tell them, ‘You could get a job at a company like Facebook, you
could be earning $100,000 plus, they pay for your insurance, they feed you,
and you can work from home and wear casual clothes.’ They’re like, ‘What are
you talking about?"_

Indeed. What _is_ he talking about?

Teaching coding to high school kids in under-performing schools is great, and
may help some of them find an excellent career path they might never have
thought about. But I think Carson is raising false hopes in many of the kids
by exaggerating the potential impact of the program in their lives.

He seems to have totally forgotten the reality of supply and demand. It may be
true that _right now_ entry-level developers can command $40,000 a year.
However, whenever it becomes well known that workers in a certain field can
command high salaries, it motivates many more people to enter that field in
anticipation of earning those salaries themselves. This tends to cause a glut
in workers, and salaries fall as the competition for jobs increases.

One sign that this is already happening is the rapid increase in enrollments
to computer science undergraduate programs over the last several years.[1]
Adding thousands more to the pool of available workers will only bring
salaries down farther.

The more high schools this program is successful in, the more this effect will
come into play, especially if the program gets "rolled out to every high
school in America" as mentioned in the article.

Also, companies naturally seek to minimize costs by looking for cheaper
sources of labor through outsourcing to other countries or by bringing workers
from other countries here on H-1B visas. This is already happening.[2] As time
goes on, these efforts will likely be increasingly successful, and will impact
entry level jobs the most.

I think it would be much fairer to the students to tell them this is one skill
they might be able to base a successful career on, if they have an aptitude
for it and are willing to put in the effort to get really good at it.
Otherwise, he's placing unrealistic expectations that might eventually hurt
the students if they don't become reality.

[1] [http://cra.org/govaffairs/blog/2012/04/undergrad-computer-
sc...](http://cra.org/govaffairs/blog/2012/04/undergrad-computer-science-
enrollments-rise-for-fourth-straight-year-cra-taulbee-report/)

[2] [http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/03/30/visa-
program-h...](http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/03/30/visa-program-has-
been-hijacked-outsourcers/VAg6o9KgS2tuoZ3WbmaqeK/story.html)

~~~
7Figures2Commas
I don't think Ryan has forgotten the reality of supply and demand. I think
it's more basic than that: he is totally overestimating the demand.

Yes, there are entry-level developer positions that pay $40,000, and more.
However I think you'll find it difficult to locate many that require just six
months of participation in a high school vocational training program. And
you'll find even fewer in the economically depressed regions where this
program may be most appealing.

Thanks to the current tech boom there _is_ higher demand for more senior
development positions, but those positions require a lot more experience and
skill. Hard-to-find intangibles, not programming ability, often make these
harder to fill.

It's funny that Ryan mentioned Facebook. As big a name as it is, the company
only employs a few thousand people and from what I have seen, most of the
developers there, even in the entry-level positions, have college degrees. At
many of the big tech companies where you will be most likely to find six-
figure salaries post-boom, college degrees, including those from particular
institutions, are favored if not required.

~~~
ryancarson
We've spoken personally to Facebook's hiring team and they've confirmed they
no longer require degrees for their developers. The reason is because there
isn't enough computer science grads.

~~~
7Figures2Commas
If you look at the job descriptions on facebook.com/careers for technical
positions, all of the development roles I see listed require a) a college
degree, b) a specialized skill set no entry-level candidate would bring to the
table and/or c) a certain number of _years_ of job experience.

So the question remains: just what evidence backs up your assumption that
there are significant numbers of entry-level technology jobs paying above
national averages for high school graduates with less than a year of
vocational training? That seems to be a big part of your pitch, both to
schools and to students.

------
johnrob
If this can really put high school students on track for 6 figure salaries,
then we're going to see a lot less college students in the future. This could
truly be a game changer.

~~~
ryancarson
That's the plan. I think High School grads could realistically get $40,000
starting as Entry-Level Web Designers or Developers, then work up to $100,000+

~~~
pekk
If tons of high school grads are taking already-scarce entry level developer
jobs, it is unlikely that many people will be making $100,000 for it

~~~
jyu
Think you're reading it wrong. The $100,000 jobs are very different from the
$40,000 (or whatever) entry level jobs. Entry level could mean something
entirely different with high school vs college graduate developer jobs. In NYC
the $100,000 jobs don't seem to be entry level, and there seem to be more
mid/senior developer job openings than mid/senior developers looking for new
jobs. It's been this way here for at least one year.

------
PixelPusher
Super sweet, good luck. I personally got started in High School and would have
loved more advanced classes.

The issue was that they bundled people together into the same computer class.
We used to have people who didn't even know how to turn on a computer, much
less make a Pascal game.

Good luck!

------
just2n
Please allow me to play devil's advocate to this story. Full disclosure: I
very much dislike Jolie O'Dell (epitomized by this:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ek4xXPOtlY>), as well as the CEO of
Treehouse, Carson (instigated by this:
<http://ryancarson.com/post/35939367603/you-can-do-it-alone>).

I am in no way saying that what Treehouse is trying to do is a bad thing, nor
that we shouldn't be providing much better resources for learners, though I
don't think such education should be paywalled for monetization. I'm very much
pro-Khan Academy, Coursera, StackOverflow, etc. I've spent SO much of my free
time in IRC channels teaching people and helping people with their problems
and I've never asked for a penny in return, so I have a lot of resentment
towards any company that wants to charge for access to basic education
(<https://teamtreehouse.com/subscribe/plans>). I'm very much for proliferation
of high quality teaching materials for learners of all ages and all levels,
and so I am conflicted somewhat by this story, and I fully expect to get
downvoted to hell for this, but I think it's worth considering motives here.
Even the best of actions that are used to veil inconsistent or conflicting
motives are questionable, and this seems like wolf in sheep's clothing.

>The school I’m most excited about is in San Jose. All the kids are from at-
risk homes — they have single parents who are working full time; they’re from
minority groups. … Out of 12 [students], we think four or five are going to be
job-ready right away. These kids have never coded before, and I’ve talked to
them in person, and I’m 99 percent confident we will be able to place them in
jobs.

<snip>

>That pilot program, Carson said, went well, and he’s looking forward to the
next phase: rolling out Treehouse to many other schools around the country.
The program takes six months, and the total cost is just $9 per month, per
student.

We jumped straight into a pivot or business expansion into virtual instruction
(much the realm of things like KA/Coursera) announcement and talking about how
this will help certain kids find jobs. That's great, and I hope it works out,
but I'm confused. Are we trying to sell the goal instead of figuring out the
logistics? I got the headline, and the summary, so why was discussion about
logistics so far separated from the initial announcement of the program? How
is this going to be structured? Who pays for this? We're talking about low-
income families and at-risk children, so are we expecting them to opt-in to a
$54 course? Is it the schools, so it's tax funded? Will it include every
student at the school, or just some? If the latter, how is that selection
made? If the former, what about people who don't want to pay for it?

Further: as a professional in this space I'd love to review the content and
provide feedback, too. Why can't we involve the community at large and reduce
the costs? But the biggest question, for me, is if Coursera is doing this with
the college space where education is significantly more costly, and for free,
what does Treehouse offer that Coursera can't?

>“This isn’t something we’re doing to get money,” Carson said as we concluded
our talk. “This will change the world. And yeah, the company will make a lot
of money in the process, but that’s a trailing fact.”

But is it, really? Given the target audience, I don't know if this can be
considered a "trailing fact." It seems to be so insistent and damaging that
it's worth putting in the spotlight. You're going to take money from an
audience that is primarily under-privileged in hopes of pulling them up to
some glorious $100k/yr salary point in 6 months, or more realistically just
set them on that path? How are they going to get the further education
necessary to make that transition from High School? The article includes a few
anecdotes, which is great, but it's not statistical modeling. What kind of %
of these students will be interested and capable of continuing education in
this space to reach that goal? Is the idea to pitch the chance at high-salary
jobs at under-privileged kids saying "learn this and have your life made?"
That feels like a really crappy motivation, to be honest. Making $100k at a
big company is definitely achievable for anyone with an aptitude, but there's
a lot of work from having never heard about programming to being there.

I'm far from sold on this. I hope this is still very early in the planning
stages so it can be evolved into something more workable.

~~~
jcampbell1
Why bother writing such a wall of text, when the whole thing can be summarized
as "I believe non-free educational materials are bad".

Selling educational materials to schools in the form of textbooks has been
going on for a long time. If you replace "Treehouse" with "textbook", your
rant reads like it was written by a crazy person.

~~~
just2n
I didn't really say that, nor did I imply it. I said I'm for high quality,
free educational materials at all levels.

There's an entirely different rant about textbook sales in schools, more to do
with corruption, greed, and sweetheart deals than trying to provide quality
materials for learning. I definitely believe those materials (the ones
marketed at the expense of students) are entirely bad, no doubt.

~~~
avenger123
I don't believe that "high quality, free educational materials" is something
that is easily attainable. I will say that the "free" part will exist but
"high quality" may not be there. I don't think we can equate educational
materials as the same level and quality of open-source software.

If you look at Khan Academy, really the forefront in this area, you quickly
realize that someone is absorbing the cost. In this case, Bill Gate's
foundation and others. As a result, you have someone with the calibre of John
Resig working for the organization and they are putting out job postings.

I really like Coursera. I like the open-course offerings from MIT, Harvard,
etc. Someone is definitely paying for these as it is not cheap. In this case,
the universities are paying (and implicitly the students).

So, I definitely agree with your sentiments but I do believe we will get high-
quality when there is a profit motive. I am not saying free and high-quality
cannot co-exist with educational materials but I don't believe its very
common.

In addition, my hope is that there is enough traction that the subscription
plans stay low for these learning companies. One of the benefits in this area
is that it has become very competitive and hence costs are coming down. Just
take a look at what Pluralsight was charging five years versus now (or even
Tekpub). There is a definate downwards pressure on how much these companies
can charge.

~~~
adregan
I agree. Anyone can make educational materials. Making a relevant curriculum
is hard. Making a relevant curriculum for teenagers is very hard. The amount
of preparation that goes into just 1 hour of class time is often overlooked by
those who haven't spent any time teaching.

------
mikelewis256
It's really tough to beat the attitude that most kids have towards school in
general. It's true that bringing these explicit programs will help the very
few that would naturally be interested in the subject but for some reason
don't know anything about it.

However, the problem is that the vast majority of these kids are turned off by
anything related to school. The answer lies in consumer hardware. Computers
are interesting because they're either horribly closed-off, but attractive
(Macbooks) or very open but with such a steep learning curve that they would
have a hard time knowing where to start (Raspberry Pi).

Something new needs to come out that is immediately accessible and attractive,
but with layers of depth that can be readily exposed as the user wants to know
more. Oh, and this new thing cannot be a consumption device - games and media
will always win in the battle for a child's attention these days.

------
dlf
Awesome. Maybe now high school computer courses will consist of more than how
to make PPT presentations.

------
mikecuesta
Congrats Ryan - this tech has huge potential and is targeting such an
important problem to solve.

------
ryancarson
Yay yay yay! :)

~~~
BrainScraps
I hope that at least 1/2 of this money goes to making videos that feature
Jason's signature end-of-video "Creeper Smile"

I've never met him, but I love that guy!

~~~
jseifer
I love you, too, BrainScraps! I made this for you:
<http://i.imgur.com/xNOzWJz.jpg>

~~~
BrainScraps
Auuugh! Jason is creepin' on me! Best Day Evarrrr!

------
anthonycerra
Bring a class to impoverished neighborhoods of Chicago where they just closed
50 public schools and the media will have a field day with your story.

So many wins here: 1\. Win for the community 2\. Win for the kids who
participate 3\. Win for Treehouse in the marketing department. 4\. Win for
society as a whole to have more critical thinkers in the world

But if you sell this company to DeVry or similar (because that's who's in
trouble here, not 4 year universities), I'm going to be sorely disappointed.

------
podperson
The key to teaching students to program is probably teachers who know how to
program and how to teach programming. Given how poorly teaching pays,
especially compared to -- say -- programming, and how it requires getting
special qualifications you don't need to earn more money from programming, I
won't hold my breath.

High school is also probably a bit late.

------
_cbdev
I'm a bit amused that this is on the front page at the same time as Peter
Norvigs "Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years"
[<http://norvig.com/21-days.html>], with which I agree a whole lot more than
the whole "Learn to code" movement.

------
SurfScore
I wonder if people would be so opposed to the monetization strategy if he
wasn't targeting low-income families? If he was targeting programmer parents
to teach their kids, and charging them, would it be bad? I think it's safe to
say most gainfully employed programmers could afford this.

~~~
ryancarson
We are not "targeting low-income families"! We have 25,000+ paying Treehouse
Students and almost zero are from that group. This is a simple pilot program
in one high school with kids that are at-risk.

If the pilot is successful, then the school districts will decide if they want
to pay for Treehouse at around $9/mo per Student.

~~~
SurfScore
Well the pilot program is what seems to be drawing the most ire, and that's
the one I was referring to. I'm not debating either side of the argument and I
believe in charging for a good product. I was just asking a question because I
was curious about the thought process of some of the comments.

------
SparksZilla
I love this for so many reasons.

------
wesray
This is awesome, kids need an easy way to get their feet wet in programming.

