Telegraph Contributor Says Coding Is For Exceptionally Dull Weirdos

mikejuk writes "The UK Government is trying to figure out how to teach children to code by changing what is taught in schools. The Telegraph, a leading UK newspaper, has put the other side of the case: Coding is for 'exceptionally dull weirdo(s).' The recent blog post by Willard Foxton is an amazing insight into the world of the non-programming mind. He goes on to say: 'Coding is a niche, mechanical skill, a bit like plumbing or car repair.' So coding is a mechanical skill — I guess he must be thinking of copy typing. 'As a subject, it only appeals to a limited set of people — the aforementioned dull weirdos. There's a reason most startup co-founders are "the charming ideas guy" paired with "the tech genius". It's because if you leave the tech genius on his own he'll start muttering to himself.' Why is it I feel a bout of muttering coming on? 'If a school subject is to be taught to everyone, it needs to have a vital application in everyday life — and that's just not true of coding.' Of course it all depends on what you mean by 'vital application.' The article is reactionary and designed to get people annoyed and posting comments — just over 600 at the moment — but what is worrying is that the viewpoint will ring true with anyone dumb enough not to be able to see the bigger picture. The same attitude extends to all STEM subjects. The next step in the argument is — why teach physics, chemistry, biology, and math (as distinct from arithmetic) to anyone but exceptionally dumb weirdos."

Comments

brace yourself

[Sigvatr]

brace yourself for 1000+ angry comments

Re:brace yourself

[gstoddart]

What you really want to say is "I had a crummy adolescence, but it's only because I was super-smart!" Which is ... very sad.

Stop spreading that ridiculous myth!

But ... but ... it's the only thing that soothes the crushing existential pain. ;-)

And, for the record, I think it could be a generational thing -- because up through high-school, interest in computers was a very rare thing for all but the highly nerdy, and in university my comp. sci classes to begin with were pretty much made up of the socially awkward introverted weirdos across the board, at least the ones who passed; the rest some how ended up not continuing on. But over the span of a few years I could see differences and see that the classes had a slightly different makeup of people.

But in the early 80s, the people who were geeks, pretty much were the stereotypical archetypes. They hadn't yet invented the jock-geek subspecies I saw come a long much later, and the rocker-geek subspecies was a cultural impossibility at the time.

Believe it or not, for some of us (to varying degrees), that myth wasn't as far from the truth as one might think. Of course, the nerd umbrella also included that one autistic kid in the school, the music geeks, and the fat guy with adenoids. Not all the nerds were into computers -- but the egregious social awkwardness was unmistakable from orbit. ;-)

So, show some care -- for some of us, Breakfast Club is a surprisingly accurate depiction of the social strata in schools in the 80s. Some of us related to that 'myth' more than anything else, even if it is a little cliche. :-P

Re:brace yourself

[kermidge]

Indeed. I saw the same thing at MSU in East Lansing during the mid to late '60s, then watched the shifts you mentioned over the next few decades.

At the time I attended, the geeks were lumped as "the math-dorm-ADS-crowd". ADS - Alumni Distinguished Scholar scholarship competition and award, dorms because in those years of _in loco parentis_ the first two years had to be lived on campus unless you were married - the geeks mostly didn't object much; math is obvious (no degree yet in computer science), and crowd used ironically. Outward signs include glasses, pocket protectors, and slide rules - oft-times hanging from a belt clip.

And your observation on 'the big lumping together' is spot on. There are some sub-species of geek these days but I expect overall there's still the big lumping to achieve efficiency of disdain.
----
Back then, the distinction we had in our own minds, when it needed to be used, was between computer scientists and data-processing professionals (it was all D.P. then), and maybe hacker - the guys and gals at three in the morning between floors pulling cable as readily as coding over a hiccup in the batch scheduler. Today, it's more by level of abstraction when you get to the programming portion. I think most use it in their own heads even if unawares. (many liberties taken, below...)

There's the program designer - the software architect, project lead, whathaveyou. Takes goal or task and limns it. The big picture part. Goals, tests, milestones, org chart, flow chart, etc. Interfaces management.

The programmer - breaks it on down to modules, subs, the 'what has to happen here' and 'how this fits into'. Points out gotchas.

The coder - yeah. Nuts and bolts. We'd like to presume he can test and validate input and double-check with programmer to avoid gaping barn doors of security problems. He's often the lucky fellow who gets to do the documentation because the programmer can't be bothered with things that are beneath him.

And all three layers of abstraction and in-group societal roles are often right between our own ears. Can be distracting but makes it easy to say, "hey, we could move this over here and save a bunch on inter-process comms" or "y'know, if we took this other approach, we could eliminate this whole section and also streamline the alternative."

Of course, that only works in the old days or for small projects. Anything else can be a right charley-foxtrot no matter what.

Now, for the guy who regards the whole thing the same as plumbing or carpentry... point to the weather app on his phone.

"See this? Tap, and you get a weather report and forecast?"
Yeah.
"Wanna know how they do that?", glance at watch, "In three and a half minutes; impress your friends?"
Yeah, ok.
Then show him - languages, stuff that can be grabbed from sources and tables, what has to be written from scratch, how it all fits in a program on phone, on a server somewhere, a bit on how it's displayed, call up a page of code from anything so he can see how weird and arcane it is... and you're done. [Warning: it really should all be done in the three and a half minutes. Because you said so, and it's also impressive as all get out.]
"Hey, I'm dry, ready for a brew?" get him one, maybe he gets you one, talk about other stuff or move on. Either way, you've done your part to pass on some stuff, get some cred, make _him_ feel in the know and that's huge - and he's a bit more aware and maybe not so ready to be so easily dismissive in future.

Congrats - you've made cross-species contact. And a friendly-wave-in-passing acquaintance down at the local. Networking, man, and good human fun also.

You need to consider the author.

[Dzimas]

Listen, the guy who wrote this blog piece for the Telegraph didn't grow up to become a doctor,engineer, astronaut, scientist or programmer. He writes op-ed pieces for a newspaper. According to LinkedIn, he holds an LLB in law, then pursued an MSc in Business Entrepreneurship and followed up with a brief tenure as a music festival coordinator, PR agency account exec and finally became a freelance TV presenter and magazine editor. It might just be that he considers technically gifted individuals to be "exceptionally dull weirdos" simply because he doesn't understand what they're saying.

This, ladies and gentlemen

[Swampash]

Is the state of Slashdot in 2013. Posting troll articles for ad impressions and clickbait.

Re:Understanding

[EmperorOfCanada]

You are correct. I am referring to the perception of many artistic types, especially literary types; so I agree and would state that good programmers are technicians whereas great programmers are artists. If anything it is the patterns within this art that allow us to fluently use a device that we have never seen before that was handed to us by someone who was unable to even turn it on. We all know that rebooting solves so many problems and can even hazard guesses as to what is happening but still proceed with the incantation of reboot everything.

But where non-technical people start to get suspicious is when we start to combine different knowledge areas. I was at a person's house when they spilled pop into their keyboard which stopped working. So I immediately unplugged it and ran it under a tap, then swung it around my head, then poured rubbing alcohol into it, then swung it around my head a bit more, then put it into a garbage bag with a half box of cheap rice, and then told them to leave it there overnight. They thought that I had gone quite mad.

I explained that even getting the pop out would not be enough because the sugar would concentrate and gum up the keys plus the phosphoric acid would probably do a number on the circuits over the next few days, plus the solution would conduct electricity, while the water would wash away the pop, and the alcohol would displace the water, not rust the circuits, and evaporate more quickly, the rice would then speed up the evaporation of any water that was left behind.

They were incredulous that a programmer could know so much electronics, physics and chemistry.

The next day it was with smug satisfaction that when they plugged the keyboard back in that it didn't work. I came by knowing that it should and found that they had plugged it into the network port. It worked plus it was cleaner than ever.

The saying that any technology sufficiently advanced will appear to be magic seems to apply now to a fair chunk of the population. We technical types are working with magic; dark and powerful magic; hence the dark arts.

He got one thing right

[Krishnoid]

Trying to pretend that coding is the right skill for everyone is utter nonsense – for most people, it’s exponentially less useful than the basic level of IT literacy most people still lack. As far as I’m concerned, this is the real IT crisis that needs addressing.

I expected this year's school leavers, born in 1995, and having never lived without the internet, to be brilliant with computers. Now I know better. Working with them, I've found that the opposite is often true. Many lack basic computer literacy – the “have you tried turning it off and on again?” stuff – because the education system has let them down so badly.

Considering how many programmers fail FizzBuzz, his point about the education system failing people on basic IT literacy is relevant.

Re:Can't do without excellent coders

[u38cg]

Woz wasn't fired. He left of his own volition, and is still an Apple employee and still draws a salary.