Slashdot Mirror
OLPC Announces Buy-2-Get-1 XO Laptop Sale
theodp writes "Starting November 12, The One Laptop Per Child Project will sell its affordable XO laptop to Americans for a brief period of time, but there's a slight catch: U.S. buyers must purchase two computers — one for their own child and one for a child in the developing world — for a total cost of $399. 'Staff members of the laptop project were concerned that American children might try the pared-down machines and find them lacking compared to their Apple, Hewlett-Packard or Dell laptops. Then, in this era of immediate global communications, they might post their criticisms on Web sites and blogs read around the world, damaging the reputation of the XO Laptop, the project staff worried. So the laptop project sponsored focus-group research with American children, ages 7 to 11, at the end of August. The results were reassuringly positive.'"
Yes. Specifically, they need to know how to use computers. Most of the teachers don't really know how, and worse, most of them are certain that they do. The best way to teach them is to give them a simple one that isn't (readily) capable of playing flashy video games, music, and movies, but can be programmed.
This has to be done before they're thrown the high school "Computer 101" class where they're put through every circle of MS Office Hell. With very few exceptions, you can't start teaching someone to code in college; either they've already been doing it, or they'll never know how. The kids who took the Office classes in high school and think it made them computer savvy don't normally last past the first year in CS.
I am not kidding. Look, I happen to know that learning calculus as a ninth grader is no big deal. I taught myself Calculus, because it wasn't even offered by my school. It was not typical then for kids in the ninth grade to be ready for Calculus then, any more it is now. More importantly, it is not a particularly impressive or important accomplishment to learn calculus in the ninth grade. Any sufficiently motivated parent can transform a moderately talented child into a "prodigy" capable of doing all kinds of mathematical parlor tricks above his age level. I've seen it happen, and by in large these "prodigies" don't grow into a population of adults that contribute more to society than others of their general talent level.
It is not so important that kids learn things early so much as they learn them well.
The Achilles' heel of ed reform in math is that it often addresses the wrong question. The most important question is not how much math kids can do, so much as the amount of math they understand. It's one thing to be able to perform in an integration bee, it's another thing to be able to think in terms of applied math. In my state, kids in middle school are way ahead of where most high schoolers were in my day in being able to translate everyday problems into mathematical terms. Of course, your state may be different than mine. Remember: ed reform is state based. The Republican educational reform model is broken: it demands "tough standards" but it's quasi "states rights" ideology means those standards cannot have any Federally mandated (or apparently even recommended) content. Thus "education reform" might mean teaching creationism in Kansas or keeping maps of the Soviet Union in place in Colorado (so far as I know).
With respect to 486s -- I'd rather have kids with 486s, the Logo language, and a good teacher than the latest quad core processor, electronic flash cards and an apathetic teacher. Of course this is a false dichotomy, but the point I'm making is that of all the factors involved, the quality of the curriculum and its implementation far outweigh the level of tech.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Why should you consider an OLPC over an Eee PC? Because the OLPC program is about giving kids an education and technology that will enable them to build a 1st world future for their 3rd world country. The machine itself has a very accessible user interface: it is highly simplified, and not does not expect the newcomer to be literate in any particular language. (The latter is important because there are many dialects out there, and because children may not be literate when they are initially given these machines.) It also makes learning IT accessible, since it involves two excellent programming tools for the learner: Squeak (via eToys, a.k.a. Squeak), and Python. In many ways, it is about teaching them "how to fish" rather than giving them the fish. If you think about this in dollars and cents, you are missing out on something great. If you think that they should be given food or the ability to grow it, you're missing out on something too. Not everyone is able to contribute to the welfare of others in the same way. Negroponte and his band of loyal academics, geeks, and so forth decided that their ability to contribute is through IT. After all, that's where their skills and aspirations lay. The food first angle also misses the point that the peoples of many nations don't want to be stuck in a subsistence or donor recipient situation. The want an education so that they can grow beyond the handouts of the 1st world. (Of course other peoples and other nations have other aspirations.) To some, the OLPC may step beyond the bounds. The OLPC is not perfect, and it isn't only about price. It's initial introductory mantra of the "$100 laptop" was mostly about making it accessible by making it inexpensive. And even though it is $400, I hope to snag one through this deal. I have seen the computer, and it is rugged and useful. As an educator, I also see that it may have more utility than the standard "made for the office" desktop/laptop PC. Perhaps I would also use it to contribute back to the project if I did get one.
If the "third world kid getting a laptop" thing isn't an "advantage" in your mind, then you either have low hopes for the educational value of these laptops, or you're the love child of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
This differs from the greenback how? Cash isn't money, it has no intrinsic value - confidence in the cash is the money. All paper currency is "money stamps".
> she really did think altruism was evil
That would be my read as well, but after declaring it evil I doubt she would do anything to prevent you from doing something she though wrongheaded, stupid or even evil so long as you weren't using force (taxes) to do it.
And that is really Freedom Zero. The Right to be Wrong. Person A must be free to think/argue that person B is 'Wrong' but the second they try to enforce that choice on person B they become more wrong. Even though it doesn't fit perfectly I'll use this topic for an example.
If you believe OLPC is 'altrustic' (and believe that to be a bad thing) it is perfecly acceptable to argue the project should not be supported on those grounds in the public arena. Convince enough current supporters to abandon it and it dies, again that is perfectly ok. To even attempt to convince Congress to stomp on it crosses the line to wicked. Of course it is equally wicked to solicit Congress for any assistance on such a project, too bad THAT part is ignored every day Congress is in session.
Democrat delenda est