Slashdot Mirror
The US Economy Needs More "Cool" Nerds
Hugh Pickens writes "Steve Lohr writes in the NY Times that the country needs more 'cool' nerds — professionals with hybrid careers that combine computing with other fields like medicine, art, or journalism. Not enough young people are embracing computing, often because they are leery of being branded nerds. Educators and technologists say that two things need to change: the image of computing work, and computer science education in high schools. Today, introductory courses in computer science are too often focused merely on teaching students to use software like word processing and spreadsheet programs, says Janice C. Cuny, a program director at the National Science Foundation adding that the Advanced Placement curriculum concentrates too narrowly on programming. 'We're not showing and teaching kids the magic of computing,' Cuny says. The NSF is working to change this by developing a new introductory high school course in computer science and seeking to overhaul Advanced Placement courses as well. The NSF hopes to train 10,000 high school teachers in the modernized courses by 2015. Knowledge of computer science and computer programming is becoming a necessary skill for many professions, not only science and technology but also increasingly for marketing, advertising, journalism and the creative arts. 'We need to gain an understanding in the population that education in computer science is both extraordinarily important and extraordinarily interesting,' says Alfred Spector, vice president for research and special initiatives at Google. 'The fear is that if you pursue computer science, you will be stuck in a basement, writing code. That is absolutely not the reality.'"
they'll be sitting in mom's basement e-mailing resumes, employers don't want fresh-out-of-school grads. maybe we need a national apprenticeship program to give young people experience in the tech fields.
No, they don't, because you're skewing your data. You're looking at the entire comp sci profession and comparing it to those who play football in the NFL--in other words, the general field of one against those who made it to the very top in the other. You need to compare the average per capita income from IT jobs of those who took a computer-related degree against the average per capita income from football of everybody who played varsity football in college. Who wins that contest? Or reverse it--compare NFL players to the likes of Bill Gates, who are the IT field's equivalent of NFL players. Again, who wins that contest?
We could stop using the word 'nerd', but I prefer to do what I can to make the word a badge of honor. That, to me, is a much easier fight.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Yeah. The reality is that you will be stuck in a small cube writing code instead.
This story speaks to me in a lot of ways.
My only exposure to anything related to programming before college was HTML. I had no idea of the 'magic' of programming until I was in a college level programming course. Which I was only in because it was a requirement for electrical engineering classes I was interested in because I wanted to understand synthesizers and analog circuits better.
I grew up under a lot more pressure to be an 'artist' or creative-type than engineer. Most of my friends are from this world as well. From the outside, computer science looks pretty bleak. My idea of it was as follows. You sit at a computer terminal for your entire life, typing. And no one even reads what you write. If I was going to sit at a computer, why wouldn't I at least write for an audience? Why would I choose a job that seems solitary and unexciting? It seems like what you'd think being an accountant would be like.
Having just graduated and spent the last few years doing programming internships, it amazes me how wrong I was about the rewards of programming. No one told me the 'power' I would wield, the infinities of computing, the vastness of what you can express with programming language. That I'd confront hundreds of problems with thousands of solutions, and use my creativity and cunning to apply the most elegant and effective one. That the 'barrier to entry' of creating your own startup that could influence millions of users is little more than some education and a laptop and a server in your closet.
I feel like I found a goldmine that no one was hinting at. It is a primary goal of my professional career to expose more kids like myself to programming. The sentiment of the article is right on. Computers are not leveraged nearly enough in the fields I'm interested in. And it's due primarily I think to a misunderstanding about what programming is, and how it feels to do it. I encounter this firsthand often in Linguistics (also something I focused on in college) where many problems of data collection and analysis are considered impossible by my peers but understood as a solvable engineering problem to me.
I hope that this continues to be in focus. Too often it is a dichotomy between being a 'computer-person' or not, and I think many of us who were into other things got sucked into computers when we discovered them. It's a deep field and difficult to get a handle on, I think, coming from another area. But the benefits are too great to ignore.
Long live the BSD license
Steve Lohr writes in the NY Times that the country needs more 'cool' nerds — professionals with hybrid careers that combine computing with other fields like medicine, art, or journalism.
Bad idea (not unless we are talking about people who have a BS/BA degree in a technical field pursuing another BS/BA degree - or even a MS - in another technical field. Now, THAT'S A HYBRID CAREER. We already have a problem with watered down CompSci and MIS programs churning chumps who can't code for shit themselves out of a wet paper bag. CompSci, MIS, Software Development and IT, these are fields that call for people that are domain experts and specialist, not watered down hobbyists with superficial and inadequate training.
It is quite telling of our society that when facing with a shortage of scientific/engineering talent, the solution is to make it more "cool" as opposed to raising the scholastic expectations of kids. As if "cool" makes up for the grey matter required to be a (good) software developer. Either the author thinks software disciplines are shallow enough that they can be weaved in with a medicine, journalist or even an arts curriculum (an art curriculum takes quite a lot of work to get through.) Either that, or he thinks these other disciplines can be watered down so as to allow someone to be graduate in both (notice that I say "graduate", not "be sufficiently competent.")
How come you don't see that type of mentality in India, China or, say Eastern Europe? You want kids to be interested in hard sciences (not just software disciplines)? Then raise the bar and academic rigor starting from 2nd grade all the way to 12th, where the objective is to learn and not simply to pass. You don't solve an educational deficiency by painting "cool" all over it.
On another note, I stopped reading the article when I hit this:
Today, introductory courses in computer science are too often focused merely on teaching students to use software like word processing and spreadsheet programs, said Janice C. Cuny, a program director at the National Science Foundation.
Say fucking what? I know that Computer Science curriculum in most universities have been watered down into Java/C# schools, but give me a fucking break. Either the journalist is misquoting Cuny, or she actually said - and I quote - that introductory courses in computer science are too focused on software like word processing and spreadsheet programs. If it's the later, someone kicks her out of the NSF. There is no "science" in that kind of stupid remark.