Who Will Teach U.S. Kids To Code? Rupert Murdoch

theodp writes "For all of their handwaving at Code.org about U.S. kids not being taught Computer Science, tech execs from Microsoft, Google, and Facebook seem more focused lately on Plan B of their 'two-pronged' National Talent Strategy. So, who's going to teach your children CompSci? Enter friend-of-the-Gates-Foundation Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch's Amplify Education is launching an AP Computer Science MOOC this fall (Java will be covered), taught by an experienced AP CS high school teacher (video). An added option, called MOOC Local, will provide additional resources to schools with students in the CS MOOC. MOOC Local will eventually cost $200 per student, but is free for the first year."

Comments

This slowly drives me nuts

[codeButcher]

When are people going to realize "coding" != "computer science"? (or <>, or ! .equals(), or ne, etc. depending on your flavor). Nothing against Java devs, but IT needs a little more than programmers in language X. There are millions speaking English, Spanish, etc., but not that many of them churn out bestsellers, or even mundane but usable prose. You're certainly not going to make good or even adequate writers by (only) teaching a language. You're not going to improve the IT industry by training a million more monkeys to (only) tap away at a million more keyboards.

But perhaps Oracle does like to see an increase in their user base.

[OK, rant over]

Re:This slowly drives me nuts

[Skiron]

Also, what I have found, is that only certain people have the inbuilt 'logic' to code. Sure, you can teach them the language syntax etc., but the logic part needs to come from the head. A lot of people, no matter how hard they try, just cannot do it!

Re:This slowly drives me nuts

[TheGratefulNet]

very few 'comp sci' jobs require science. they are 95% pedestrian level coding (for-loops, conditionals, etc).

I get a kick out of the interview process, these days, when its all about 'how much of an algorithms blackbelt are you?' when jobs simply don't -require- that level.

coding is perfectly fine and is what is mostly used in computer programming; you rarely need to get all that advanced in day to day software engineering.

(I take issue with teaching kids in the west about programming, though: it sets up a false hope that they'll someday get jobs in that field. and they won't. it will mostly go to india and china. teaching kids that they can earn a living in the thinking arts is false hope.)

Re:This slowly drives me nuts

[korbulon]

I see what you're saying, and you're *mostly* right. It's just that every now and then you do need to get your hands into the nuts and bolts of an algorithm (in my own case, about twice a year I need to look at something related to graphs or optimization).

It is rare in practice that the compsci knowledge is needed, but knowing such stuff ahead of time is the difference between knowing how to just get on with the things and struggling for weeks on end, or just staring blankly at the screen, or just writing some kludge code that "kinda works".

Re:This slowly drives me nuts

[mmcxii]

Perhaps but the sooner you give a young mind a chance to work with these concepts the earlier you'll find people with "natural" talent and the sooner it will be cultivated.

BTW, as I'm sure you can tell I'm not 100% convinced that this is "inbuilt." I really think it is a matter of upbringing. Whatever kids are introduced to at an early age and whatever they find positive reinforcement in (and negative reinforcement for that matter) will create the kinds of adults that they grow into. They'll simply grow to be dependent if you just fix every problem a child has instead of giving them the tools and knowledge to fix it themselves.

Let them teach themselves.

[CastrTroy]

Let them teach themselves. That's how many of the current generation of programmers got started. And it's even easier now than it was before. There are so many free resources on the internet to get you started. If there is any direct teaching, it should be in programs outside the regular school curriculum. More free day-camps and stuff where teachers can teach without having to worry about state imposed curricula. Students are free to be there or not to attend so you have kids who (mostly) want to be there, which creates a better learning environment for all. Most people I know who are good at anything aren't good because of what they learned about it in school, but rather what they did outside school to further their own learning.

Re:Included subjects:

[Anonymous Coward]

You are very cynical. I predict that this course will be educational, entertaining and useful - but it will be discontinued after only a few weeks.