New AP Course, "Computer Science Principles," Aims To Make CS More Accessible

theodp writes: "CS Principles," explains the intro to a Microsoft Research talk on a new Computer Science Toolkit and Gaming Course, "is a new AP course being piloted across the country and by making it more accessible to students we can help increase diversity in computing." Towards this end, Microsoft has developed "a middle school computing toolkit, and a high school CS Principles & Games course." These two projects were "developed specifically for girls," explains Microsoft, and are part of the corporation's Big Dream Movement for girls, which is partnering with the UN, White House, NSF, EU Commission, and others. One of Microsoft's particular goals is to "reach every individual girl in her house." According to a document on its website, Microsoft Research's other plans for Bridging the Gender Gap in computing include a partnership with the University of Wisconsin "to create a girls-only computer science Massive Open Online Course (MOOC)."

Comments

yeah

[Ryanrule]

LAWSUIT!

Confused.

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this the same crowd that says there ARE no differences between boys and girls and therefore girls should be in represented equally in STEM careers?

Yet the way they intended to remedy the imbalance is to create curriculum specifically for girls, who are no different than boys.

Re:Confused.

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this the same crowd that says there ARE no differences between boys and girls and therefore girls should be in represented equally in STEM careers?

Yet the way they intended to remedy the imbalance is to create curriculum specifically for girls, who are no different than boys.

No, that only applies to sports. See, girls are dumb when it comes to computers so they need to be nurtured, like a flower. Next companies will have to have girls only IT sections with pink keyboards and ponies, you know, to keep them interested because girls don't like IT or business.

I cannot believe this crap. Computer programming isn't so hard that you have to start learning in middle school. Just stop the social engineering and let kids be kids until they graduate high school. If it were up to me, kids wouldn't touch a computer until high school. What do you really need a computer for that wasn't achieved by teacher and books? Hell half of them don't know how to read. Let's concentrate on that.

Re:Confused.

[Austerity Empowers]

there ARE no differences between boys and girls

If anyone is saying that, they are clearly idiots. The internet has copious data regarding the differences between boys and girls. Even after eliminating the porn sites, you end up with various physiological and psychological differences. We're very different in general, the extent to which and whether it's nature or nurture will no doubt rage on for the rest of our lives. There is absolutely no reason to think men and women are the same...

The question of equality is where they are asserting men and women can perform the same. Until evidence exists to the contrary, we have to assume this is true. This is not to say that men and women will do the same things to establish this equality, or will acquire knowledge or even perform the function identically. Only that in the end they will produce the same results.

to create curriculum specifically for girls, who are no different than boys

Accepting the above, which I believe with conviction, this then falls apart. However, where I would direct my nerd rage is at the conclusion that lead to creating a gender specific curriculum as a solution. It must have been something like "CS education as it exists is incompatible with female psychology; a CS education program which can target both genders is impossible, ergo we need to fork a new curriculum". I can't imagine the kind of data that existed to justify this. If it did exist, it seems like a likely assumption than the genders will probably require dedicated education on other topics as well, and maybe we should go back to having boys and girls schools across the board.

Personally I think the problem is entirely social and cultural, and we're wasting our time with this stuff.

Re:Confused.

[Russ1642]

Book are for grownups. A slate and a piece of chalk is all you need before your 18th birthday.

Re:Confused.

[LordLimecat]

Why is the assumption made that it is a problem that women are underrepresented in CS? Are we specifically assuming that we are getting sub-standard cs majors because of that gap? Or are we making the fantastic leap of assuming that there are scores of women wanting to break into CS, but are held back by various factors?

Re:Confused.

[LordLimecat]

The question of equality is where they are asserting men and women can perform the same. Until evidence exists to the contrary, we have to assume this is true.

I would say the copious evidence that women seem to prefer some jobs, and not prefer others-- like comp sci and IT jobs-- and the general lack (so far as I am aware) of any particular barriers in those areas indicates that there are natural tendencies. Im really not convinced that such a natural tendency is a "problem" that needs to be fixed; if you can show instances of discrimination or barriers to women in the CS field, lets remove those-- but I dont see why we need to attempt to force the gender ratio to be 50:50 in CS because that is wholly unrealistic. Only someone living in an ivory tower could think that women are equally likely to enter computer fields to men, just like only someone living in an ivory tower could think that men and women have the exact same set of skills (statistically).

Re:Confused.

[jedidiah]

There are differnences in PEOPLE. Usually these differences cut across conventional "seggregation" lines. There may or may not be different distributions of characteristics in genders or races. A lot of this stuff is just nonsense cultural baggage.

It has to do more with indoctrination than actual characteristics and again the "geeks" are the tail end of the problem and the least relevant "perpetrators".

Re:Confused.

[AmiMoJo]

Why is the assumption made that it is a problem that women are underrepresented in CS?

Because there used to be a greater proportion of women in CS, and current students tell us that certain social issues put them off pursuing something they otherwise would like to.

Re:Confused.

[readin]

The question of equality is where they are asserting men and women can perform the same. Until evidence exists to the contrary, we have to assume this is true.

Why do we have to assume one way or the other? Why not just admit we don't know and let people do what they want instead of trying to push them to do what we think they should?

If men and women aren't that different but we assume they are, we'll start making rules about what fields women and men should enter.

If men and women are significantly different but we assume they're the same, we'll spend forever trying to correct a problem that doesn't exist and can't be 'corrected' without significant heartache. By assuming men and women are the same we may be taking on a task similar to correcting left-handness. Why not let people be and stop assuming you know what is best for them?

Re:Confused.

[readin]

Isn't this the same crowd that says there ARE no differences between boys and girls and therefore girls should be in represented equally in STEM careers?

Yet the way they intended to remedy the imbalance is to create curriculum specifically for girls, who are no different than boys.

The last fifty years or so of social history appears to have passed you by.

Yes, having failed to correct left-handness in many people but succeeding in correcting black women's hair so that it can be straight we decided about 50 years ago to take on the task of correcting women so that they have the same professional and sexual goals as men. We've made a lot of progress but we still have a long way to go. A lot of women may complain and object, but we know what's best for them so we'll make those decisions for them.

Re:Confused.

[ripvlan]

Generally I would agree with you. Forking the education system seem extreme. Hopefully it is just social/cultural problem.

In the meantime, until we know different, I believe these targeted efforts could help jump start and make repair for previous sins. Obviously whatever we've been doing has caused a large gap - so we can't keep doing the same old same old.

Is the cause of the gap between men/women the same we see between classes and races? We know (or believe) that everyone is capable of achieving their personal goals - however this isn't reflected in the statistics. And I don't believe that those successful minorities (general use) are somehow Exceptional for their gender/race/class. We like to believe in the USA that anyone with a plan can breakout beyond their environment and rise to any level of their choosing.

The Republicans would say you need motivation and Dems would say you need nurturing.

Re:Confused.

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

Why is the assumption made that it is a problem that women are underrepresented in CS?

Because there's money to be made and control to be gained by solving a made up problem?

Re:Confused.

[Austerity Empowers]

Why do we have to assume one way or the other? Why not just admit we don't know and let people do what they want instead of trying to push them to do what we think they should?

So I agree, no one should push you into a career you don't want to be in. The question is whether something is pushing them out of STEM, even if they do want to be in it. I don't think that's answered by the horseshit in TFA. The question is whether these people are lefties because that is their dominant hand, or because all they have is left-handed scissors.

I disagree that we should just accept the status quo without further investigation. The problem in a nutshell: the gender pay gap. If you are going to doom a demographic to lower wages, you should have good reasons for it. Is there a good reason for it? What is that reason? Is it solvable in a way we can tolerate?

Re:Confused.

[Anonymous Coward]

There used to be more women in CS. The reason Google (or any employer) cares is because competent software developers are too few and too expensive. So they hope to increase the labor supply, and they believe that pulling the women back into CS is one good way to do that.

Of course, this education curriculum still won't address the actual reasons why women don't want to work in the industry, but this kind of social engineering is still cheaper than just paying competent developers a salary that would naturally attract more people into the industry, so it is what they will do.

Re:Confused.

[Xel]

Do you need EVERY statement cited? This isn't Wikipedia. Google it. But here's a start:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding

Re:Confused.

[musterion]

Certainly not allow computers in Elementary school.

Re:Confused.

[gweihir]

Bah, Logic! That is a male mental defect! Of course what they do is fair, adequate and effective. After all, it is _them_ doing it and they can do no wrong.

Re:Confused.

[gweihir]

I disagree on the "hard" part. Actual reality is that most people cannot learn to do it well, as it requires a lot of talent. The myriad of people in software creation without that talent is the root-cause why so much software is so bad.

Those that have the talent do indeed not need to start that early. It is not a question of learning how to do it. It takes the right kind of mind.

Re:Confused.

[gweihir]

While I agree primarily that people are different and male and female people t the core of their being are not fundamentally different, the hardware you run on plays a major role in your interaction with the environment. Quite a few emotions (if not all) are body-things and do influence the overall hybrid being. The problem with some feminist fractions is that they think they can ignore what the body contributes to the being. That is just plain stupid. Eliminating the influence of the interface that _everything_ you experience of the world goes through is just not feasible and ignoring it has a massive negative impact.

Re:Confused.

[UnknownSoldier]

Same logic by all the men complaining that they can't carry a baby to full term ...

oh wait ...

*crickets*

Re:Confused.

[DarkOx]

Right,

I have said it before. I don't think this "girls only" stuff sends kids the right message at all. (young) Girls don't see this kind of thing as an opportunity (not my nices anyway). They see this oh computers must be really hard and it must be kinda "weird" for girls to do otherwise the adults would not be so bent on pushing it on us as a career. Its kinda like "eat your vegetables" kids know if the adults thought it was going to be a pleasant experience for them, they would let them discover it on their own and not be so insistent about it.

Honestly if we really want a post-gender/sex society where everyone is treated the same, I think we might start by trying to treat people the same. Stop emphasizing gender when we talk about people. We don't need to say "SHE is a success researcher/mathematician/computer engineer/software architect etc". We would use her name "Jane is..."

Rather than decide we are going to have a 40%+ female makeup of our middle school into to comp-sci class we would just let the kinds that want to take the elective enroll and do our best to help ALL of them succeed.

Re:Confused.

[umghhh]

I am sure it was pushed - maybe somebody rebased it out of existence tho....

Re:Confused.

[rtb61]

Cough, cough, so I gather you would ban all advertising targeted at children across the board. Children don't decide, psychopaths with doctorates in psychology and their equally psychopathic corporate executes decide for those children via the nastiest possible peer pressure campaigns to turn child against child when their parents can not buy what they have been told they need. So trying to figure out what boys and girls actually want, first, separate them from totally corrupt main stream media and do it throughout the years of the psychological development.

Re:Confused.

[Darinbob]

Look at it this way. Computer Science Principles is the tough class, much tougher than simplistic programming. Thus girls take the hard classes and boys take the easy ones.

Re:Confused.

[smithmc]

Computer programming isn't so hard that you have to start learning in middle school.

It is if you want to be really good at it, IMO.

Re:Confused.

[LordLimecat]

If we accept your premise that in other countries the situation is reversed-- that the computer fields have much higher ratios of women to men-- I would ask whether those countries view that as a "problem"; do we need to increase the number of men in computer fields in those countries?

Re:Confused.

[david_thornley]

There are differences between boys and girls. Some of these are inherent (I've never menstruated, for example), and some are cultural and social (I was initially dressed in blue). It's possible that some of the inherent differences push boys towards computers and girls away. It's pretty much certain that there are cultural and social factors, since the proportion of women in computer fields has dropped considerably relative to men in recent years, and people have identified cultural and social factors (inherent factors are a lot more difficult to identify, since human beings are really complicated).

Since there are cultural and social factors in play, they are likely pushing some people away from fields where they'd do their best and most productive work, and it would be interesting to know how much. The study is apparently aimed at counteracting some cultural and social factors, which is a fairly primitive experiment but might turn up interesting and useful things.

How

[Forgefather]

I can imagine the kinds of comments that are coming, but I have to say that I approve of these women targeted programs because I believe they do create an environment that encourages more participation. Most people feel comfortable around similar people especially at younger ages, and telling a girl that she will be in a class with other girls as apposed to a class filled with men could be the difference in her decision making.

Put another way, if a nerd was told they would be working with other nerds they would feel more comfortable trying to work in that environment because common background and common interests fuel conversation. Hopefully these women targeted programs will help some talented women on the fence to take the plunge.

Re:How

[gweihir]

I doubt it. I know quite a few women that are engineers or in IT, several with a PhD. Their explanation for the low numbers universally is that most women are too lazy to study a demanding subject and rather look for an easy way out. (This statement is usually delivered in scathing language.) The easy way out of course being to find a male that works for them.

Now, I am not saying this is a shortcoming of the female personality. In fact, I think that the same amount of males would like to do that. However, because female bodies have most of the reproduction functionality, females can sell that to get an easy life. Males need that functionality if they want to reproduce and hence they have to pay some female for access, usually under the thin veil of "marriage" or similar arrangements where the male typically provides much more and sometimes all of the economic basis. While arrangements where it is the other way round exist, and I know a few, they are a lot less frequent than that traditional case. At least these days most women in the west are not stupid enough to make themselves dependent on a provider, which probably does more for equality than anything else.

One thing that would be interesting to see is whether women that know at a young age that they are sterile chose to go into STEM fields more often than others.

Re:How

[Slashdot Parent]

This is silly. Girls already do way better in school than boys, on average, and US colleges are majority-female. If girls are so uncomfortable with boys in their class, how come they are kicking our asses in school?

Re:How

[Forgefather]

An apples to oranges comparison. Girls, like all children are forced to go to class, thus they naturally adapt (in this case they do so better than males), but choosing to join a club is an entirely different matter and takes into consideration far more than just the subject matter, namely personal enjoyment.

When you decide to engage in extra curricular activities ( what my original statement was referring to not the AP course ) you take into account all factors that affect your enjoyment including the prospect of being awkwardly hit on for being one of the only girls in the group. There is quite a bit of psychology around group dynamics involving a gender imbalance, and it rarely turns out well. Such pressures can be the tipping point that forces anyone out of an extracurricular program, not just women.

Imagine if you will, a scenario where you are given an opportunity to learn about a subject you truly love from one of the best experts in the field, but you would have to take the class with 10 of the most far right nut wingers imaginable. A classroom filled with Rush Limbaughs. Some would have the mental will power to ignore it and get some good out of the class and others will say hell no.

Granted that is an extreme example, but for a middle school or high school child who are not the most stable people to begin with they may choose to join their friend's clubs regardless of what they may truly enjoy and in the process find something different from STEM.

Re:How

[Slashdot Parent]

Imagine if you will, a scenario where you are given an opportunity to learn about a subject you truly love from one of the best experts in the field, but you would have to take the class with 10 of the most far right nut wingers imaginable.

Or even better, imagine going through college as a conservative. As you no doubt remember, only expressions of Leftist doctrine are permitted in the "marketplace of ideas" that we call college. Never mind examining the merits of all ideas; college is a place where everyone from the students through the professors consider it to be their moral duty to ignore what you say and then insult you personally while explaining how sensitive and inclusive and open-minded they are.

At the end of the day, the path to your dreams need not run through any club nor class nor approval of the tactless. It's consistent, persistent action that advances you toward your goals and dreams, and that is the lesson that I hammer into my children's heads. I have very little patience for "oh, but she might get awkwardly hit on!" Apparently that happens 742 times per hour just walking down the street, anyway.

Reaching every girl

[sartin]

They want to "reach every individual girl in her house." I foresee ten million restraining orders being issued soon.

Re:Reaching every girl

[neo-mkrey]

They said "reach" and not "touch".

bummer

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish my sons had access to such things. They have the interest but these classes tend to be awfully expensive, plus I no longer have "open" computers they can play with (tablets are great at what most people spend time with, but they are also limiting).

Re:bummer

[AmiMoJo]

It sucks that your sons don't have access to these educational resources (although if they are interested a Raspberry Pi is really cheap and well supported), but never the less it sucks more for girls. This sort of thing is trying to address a specific problem, which doesn't lessen yours but doesn't increase it either.

Re:bummer

[tepples]

I no longer have "open" computers they can play with

For one thing, why have you allowed this to become the case? For another, AIDE runs on reasonably modern Android tablets.

Re:bummer

[LordLimecat]

Can you clarify what the specific problem is? Im not aware of mobs of girls clamoring to enter CS who are being prevented. What im seeing is an addiction to political correctness and an outrage that in reality women tend not to enter computer fields as much.

Re:bummer

[tepples]

Exactly, start building computers again instead of buying tablets.

Have you built a laptop recently?

Re:bummer

[TechyImmigrant]

> (although if they are interested a Raspberry Pi is really cheap and well supported), but never the less it sucks more for girls.

How is it harder to girls to get a Raspberry Pi?

Re:bummer

[AmiMoJo]

There is evidence that girls do want to enter CS but are being prevented. For example, the higher proportion of women in CS 20 years ago. When asked why they dropped out of CS courses they give us very specific reasons other than lack of interest.

This has all been covered before in great detail, just google it.

Yes, because that's the way to prove equality

[Anonymous Coward]

Make them separate, but equal...Seriously how about you just make the regular classes more inclusive to women instead of making the silly "Girls only" club that reeks of adolescent idiocy. Where are all the we need male nurses outcries? I actually support encouraging more women to come into the field, but it's going to be a slow process. There are many awesome young female innovators out there, but you've got to let their work stand for itself, amongst their peers. If you can't compete young, you sure as heck aren't going to compete when you're older, stop crippling these girls into thinking they can't do it on their own.

When I was in high school

[Anonymous Coward]

We has a BASIC programming class. The class was taught by a woman, and the class was about 65-70% female (this is back when computers were still for nerds, and boys are incredibly superficial). The teacher knew I already knew BASIC, so she handed me a Pascal textbook and told me to do my own thing during class. If there was a benefit to having a "girls-only" high-school curriculum, and don't what it was. Some of the girls would ask for my help ("hey, smart boy" was my name in that class), and it was pretty clear that there was an intense lack of interest on their part in computing. The reason for this has nothing to do with class make-up or accessibility; this class had those in spades. We're dealing with inculcated social gender differences that start in the cradle, not the university.

Re:When I was in high school

[LordLimecat]

We're dealing with inculcated social gender differences

Are you speculating, or do you have an actual basis for this?

Re:When I was in high school

[halivar]

In every nature vs. nurture argument I've seen, no one has ever taken the position of 100% nature. People are, at least in part, defined by their experience.

Re:When I was in high school

[LordLimecat]

The AC's assertion is that the differences being discussed (preference for engineering vs other pursuits) are inculcated, not natural. That is different from what you're saying.

Sorry, poor Appalachian white boys

[NotDrWho]

GIRLS AND MINORITIES ONLY! Back to your trailer, white trash!

Re:Sorry, poor Appalachian white boys

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if it's excluding a particular group (while males) then it is bad. Just because white males are over represented in executive positions doesn't mean every white male is on easy street. Guess what? White males also make the vast majority of people on welfare.

Just be inclusive of everyone. Put, in big letters, "women welcome!"

Re:Sorry, poor Appalachian white boys

[itsenrique]

The hilarious part is the double standard of a lot of these people. "There is no racism, there is no sexism. More post-racial, post-feminism blah blah blah", but then if they hear mention of a program like this that caters to any group they are not in: it's racism or sexism and so unfair. They literally whine like they were the dis-empowered ones.

Re:Sorry, poor Appalachian white boys

[jedidiah]

Most racism is less blatant any more. There are no "whites only" signs and blatant discrimination can get you sued. A lot of the problems of the "oppressed" are self inflicted and are the lingering effects of institutional discrimination that for the most part is now banned.

Of course any true egalitarian should object when blatant discrimination is practiced. It doesn't matter what the lame excuse is.

You either believe in equality or you don't.

Computer careers and gender

[TWX]

A lot of the boys that become interested in computers also have problems relating to other people, epecially to girls their own ages. Given that they probably also don't have 'the right stuff' from the perspectives of a lot of the girls around them, they might become slightly embittered towards girls due to a lack of relationship success with them, and when these boys are grouped together, as it is cheaper to educate several students at once, the environment is generally hostile towards girls, so those girls that are actually intersted in computers are driven away both by their notions of the boys and by the boys own actions.

Unless you can find a way to break this cycle, I don't see anything else working as much more than a band-aid to the problem.

I'm actually in favor of gender-segregated junior high. Give the kids a chance to learn how to deal with their new hormones when there's not really much option to showboat for the other gender.

Re:Computer careers and gender

[TWX]

Uh, you know that students are together for perhaps six hours a day, and that differing class schedules means that the students don't remain as a cohesive group for more than an hour at a time, right?

It isn't like we're putting them in barracks together.

Re:Computer careers and gender

[jellomizer]

A lot of boys who have became interested in many other topics also have problems relating to girls.
I went to Grad school part time after about 10 years of professional experience. I was taking some classes in the Business wing of the college. And I see all the undergrads who are in their late teens and early 20's trying to talk to the opposite sex. I was just waiting for the classroom to empty and I just feel awkward just watching them trying to impress the opposite sex.

 

Re:Computer careers and gender

[TWX]

Experience has taught me that capability and knowledge takes a back-seat to being liked by the people making the personnel decisions. Drinking buddies, flirts, camping cliques, fellow sports fans, all move up faster than those that have the best technical knowledge.

Re:Computer careers and gender

[MyNicknameSucks]

Experience has taught me that capability and knowledge takes a back-seat to being liked by the people making the personnel decisions. Drinking buddies, flirts, camping cliques, fellow sports fans, all move up faster than those that have the best technical knowledge.

At the risk of being labelled "Troll", maybe that's not so bad. The folks with social skills move on to positions that require unscripted social interactions, the folks who are really good at the technical aspects of the job keep on doing their own thing.

Re:Computer careers and gender

[sls1j]

A lot of boys interested in football have problems relating to other people too.

Re:Computer careers and gender

[TWX]

At the risk of being labelled "Troll", maybe that's not so bad. The folks with social skills move on to positions that require unscripted social interactions, the folks who are really good at the technical aspects of the job keep on doing their own thing.

If those positions really did include social aspects to them then maybe you'd have a case, but more often than not the differences are between entry-level, mid-level, and senior-level technical positions where the job doesn't supervise and doesn't report to people significantly higher up the org-chart.

I've also seen people put into supervisory roles that had no technical ability whatsoever, and had to consult their staff on every single decision that had to be made, to the point that it became buck-passing rather than a leader consulting the staff.

Re:Computer careers and gender

[TWX]

Sure they do. And because they demonstrate some physical prowess they're usually better able to attract the attention of girls, even if they don't really have anything else to offer at all. Think, "Glory Days," by Bruce Springsteen.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I found dating as an adult to be a hell of a lot easier than as a minor, as post-high-school one isn't in this weird microcosm where all types of individuals are represented in small numbers with cliques avoiding each other, instead in the real world one is able to self-sort into whatever subculture one wants and will generally find more numbers there. I guess I was lucky, I wasn't allowed to be excessively chauvinistic or otherwise pig-headed as I grew up, so I didn't have trouble behaving correctly around women once I found my own niche where I could meet them on more even terms.

By letting the pathetic behavior so common in boys playing with tech perpetuate, we foster a system that causes women to avoid tech even when they could be just as capable as the men are.

Re:Computer careers and gender

[AmiMoJo]

It actually works against women much of the time. They tend to be less interesting in the things the male majority are, so that pretty much leaves flirting...

Re:Computer careers and gender

[MyNicknameSucks]

I've also seen alpha-nerds placed into management positions where half the underlings either quit or transferred out of the department within six months.

This isn't some alpha-nerd v. social butterfly thing; it's all about fitting the right person to the right job.

FWIW, it's pretty easy to find posts from tech people around here who, on the topic of a nerd-centric work environment, say, "Suck it up, that's how we roll." The counterpoint, of course, is that if you want management to notice you and think you're worthy of promotion, you ... make chit-chat. Go out for coffee. Talk about current events. That's how management rolls.

Re:Computer careers and gender

[Slashdot Parent]

And then there are those brilliant guys I've worked with which I still can't figure out their code

I would argue that those guys are not brilliant at all.

Any programmer can solve a complex problem with a complex solution. The brilliant programmers are the ones who can take a complex problem, distill it down to well-organized chunks, making the solution appear straightforward and obvious (even when the solution was anything but obvious).

When you get a dev on your staff who writes clear, straightforward code, you keep that dev in high morale and you don't let him or her go.

Water it down

[Anonymous Coward]

Making CS more accessible doesn't give us great CS graduates. it gives us watered down, useless graduates.

Also, unlike most career paths, CS involves critical thinking, which is difficult to teach. By college you either have it or you don't.

Re:Water it down

[jedidiah]

It could also improve the general state of CS knowledge. If people are less ignorant or frightened of technology then that is not a bad thing. Not all CS education has to be directed at code monkeys.

Re:Water it down

[gweihir]

Very much this. We have far too many bad CS graduates, and they are destroying the work that the few good ones are doing. We also have far too many bad programmers. We need less and better people in these fields, not more.

I also think you cannot even teach critical thinking, you can just encourage those that have the talent to use it.

Re:Water it down

[gweihir]

I don't think so. Look at the general state of knowledge in Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics, etc. Most people cannot reach or do not want to reach a state where they actually start to understand complicated (yet critical) things. They want the easy solutions, the simple viewpoints and the warm, fuzzy feelings that come with them. Just look at the drivel politics is selling. Most of that is so obviously nonsense that any smart and educated person can immediately see it. Yet most people eat it up.

Plessy

[Himmy32]

I am all for making any form of education more accessible to any group. But Separate but Equal seems short sighted. What's old is now new....

AP and accessible

[techdolphin]

My experience with my children is that AP and accessible do not go together.

Re:AP and accessible

[digsbo]

Can you explain in more detail? Are AP courses not offered at your school, or are your kids not permitted to enroll?

Re:AP and accessible

[Slashdot Parent]

I'm not GP, but many schools restrict who can enroll in AP courses. Personally, I think that this is stupid. Even the lower-class-rank students should be able to take an AP class if they think that they can handle it. They may not be taking a full course load of AP, but why not let them try some college level work in a subject that they like?

Re:AP and accessible

[digsbo]

I can answer that, as my wife worked as a professional school psychologist for some time. What it comes down to is that the educators will look at a number of predefined criteria that reasonably predict a child's aptitude. It's not just IQ, though that's a part of it. Even with a set of objective criteria, parents of kids whose children perform poorly generally and do not show academic aptitude will attempt to lobby for their kids to be in top classes.

Naturally, the schools can't let all these kids in. The system isn't set up to support that. The school system is not designed to be fully customizable for a student who's weak in academics to have access to AP courses. That would be very, very expensive. If you think your kids would benefit from a more customized education, your best choice is probably home schooling. Many students with involved parents can excel with that decision.

Re:AP and accessible

[Slashdot Parent]

What it comes down to is that the educators will look at a number of predefined criteria that reasonably predict a child's aptitude.

I understand what they do. My point is that they should not do that. They should give motivated kids a chance to be challenged. And let's be honest, do AP classes represent an actual challenge? I took a metric assload of them, and I did not find them to be challenging at all. The reason for this should be obvious: they take a semester-long college course and consume a full academic year teaching it. Of course they're dead easy.

Naturally, the schools can't let all these kids in. The system isn't set up to support that.

Well, maybe they should change that.

Re:AP and accessible

[digsbo]

What it comes down to is that the educators will look at a number of predefined criteria that reasonably predict a child's aptitude.

I understand what they do. My point is that they should not do that. They should give motivated kids a chance to be challenged. And let's be honest, do AP classes represent an actual challenge? I took a metric assload of them, and I did not find them to be challenging at all. The reason for this should be obvious: they take a semester-long college course and consume a full academic year teaching it. Of course they're dead easy.

That means you're using your anecdotal evidence and generalizing from it. School psychologists use widely gathered and normed statistical data to make their decisions. Most students cannot handle AP coursework. If you think it was easy, you probably had some combination of factors (significantly above average intelligence, outstanding teachers, shit luck) most kids don't have. I can tell you my high school AP Calc class went at the same rate as a typical college Calc class. Maybe a little faster. So right there, my anecdotal evidence in juxtaposition with yours shows you can't generalize from your knowledge. FYI, my locality has some really excellent ratings in terms of academic achievement for most of the suburban districts, so I can definitely say I would NOT expect that all other AP programs would be like the ones I've seen.

Naturally, the schools can't let all these kids in. The system isn't set up to support that.

Well, maybe they should change that.

The school system is a factory system. Factory systems that are tuned to the mean, roughly. Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) set up after NCLB are esentially a selection of 7 or 8 learning supports or enrichments that are minor modifications of the base system. If you want something radically different from that (and if it were my kids, I certainly WOULD), then you can't realistically expect to be able to "tune" that factory to your kids' needs. You'd need a pretty radically different system.

Re:AP and accessible

[Slashdot Parent]

I can tell you my high school AP Calc class went at the same rate as a typical college Calc class. Maybe a little faster. So right there, my anecdotal evidence in juxtaposition with yours shows you can't generalize from your knowledge.

Was that BC Calc? Because if it was, then that's not really a fair comparison because BC Calc is supposed to cover 2 semesters. That being said, you're not seriously arguing that AP Calc is harder than taking the course in college, are you? Any day of the week, I'd rather learn calculus from an experienced, English-speaking teacher in a 20 person classroom whose career goal is to teach students mathematics than from a math prof who only teaches because he has to in a 300 person lecture hall and a TA from Elbonia. A few decades later, I remember a lot of calc from my AP calc class, but I don't remember a damn thing from calc 3 which I had to take in college.

Anyway, the AP classes that I was talking about were things like AP U.S. History, AP U.S. Lit, AP Chemistry, Physics, etc. These were all semester-long courses in university, but took a full year to teach in high school. Learning the same material in twice the time is not impressive to me.

The school system is a factory system. Factory systems that are tuned to the mean, roughly. Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) set up after NCLB are esentially a selection of 7 or 8 learning supports or enrichments that are minor modifications of the base system.

Aren't we talking about a minor change, here? All I'm saying is that a motivated student ought to be able to take a bloody AP class if he or she wants to, even in the absence of a stellar transcript. I mean, really. If a kid is fascinated with history, why shouldn't that kid be allowed to take AP U.S. History instead of standard U.S. History? The kid'll get some exposure to college level work in a class that piques his or her interest instead of being told, "Hey, sorry kid. You're too dumb to handle college work."

Back when I was in school, there was this chick who really wanted to take AP Econ, but she didn't have good grades, and the teacher gave her the boot (it was in front of the whole class, too. Ouch!). All I'm saying is that there were plenty of supposedly qualified kids in that class who never even came close to grasping the material, but I bet this chick would have gotten it because she cared more than they did.

I know it's just an anecdote and I know it's just my opinion not a scientific study, but anyway, that's what I think. Because frankly, who cares if they fail? I'd rather see a motivated kid challenge him or herself and come up short than not to take the challenge at all.

Re:AP and accessible

[digsbo]

Was that BC Calc? Because if it was, then that's not really a fair comparison because BC Calc is supposed to cover 2 semesters.

Yes, though my high school covered both ab and bc. Nonetheless, not all college courses are alike, either. Do you think MIT physics is covering the same depth and breadth as Lincoln College?

Aren't we talking about a minor change, here? All I'm saying is that a motivated student ought to be able to take a bloody AP class if he or she wants to, even in the absence of a stellar transcript. I mean, really. If a kid is fascinated with history, why shouldn't that kid be allowed to take AP U.S. History instead of standard U.S. History? The kid'll get some exposure to college level work in a class that piques his or her interest instead of being told, "Hey, sorry kid. You're too dumb to handle college work."

Back when I was in school, there was this chick who really wanted to take AP Econ, but she didn't have good grades, and the teacher gave her the boot (it was in front of the whole class, too. Ouch!). All I'm saying is that there were plenty of supposedly qualified kids in that class who never even came close to grasping the material, but I bet this chick would have gotten it because she cared more than they did.

I know it's just an anecdote and I know it's just my opinion not a scientific study, but anyway, that's what I think. Because frankly, who cares if they fail? I'd rather see a motivated kid challenge him or herself and come up short than not to take the challenge at all.

It's a problem because once you start treating students like individuals, you will end up with a line of parents a mile long who want their precious little snowflake in AP everything and then have "extra help" on top of it. I get what you're saying, and in theory if only the legitimately well intended and likely to succeed kids were the ones exceptions were made for asked for exceptions, it could work.

But, that would never happen. Making an exception invites a whole shit ton of people who have no realistic chance of success asking for the same thing and crushing the system by costs and bureaucratic gate keeping. I stand by my assertion that if you want a system that treats you child like an individual, you can't do that via a factory system.

Again with the girls?

[fey000]

Can someone please explain to me what this whole "Let's convince/force/cajole/firehose women into CS" thing is all about?
*Why* is it so frikkin important all of a sudden? Why is there no similar push in any other field (think firefighter/truckdriver/constrution)?

Have I missed something important? Are women no longer considered smart enough to make their own choices regarding careers? Must we big smart men carefully explain to them why they *want* to go into CS?

What happens when this magical girls-only experience ends and suddenly the real world rears its ugly head with (God help us) *men* in the actual workplace? Perhaps we need to have some girls-only workplaces as well? But wait, what about when the workday ends? There might still be some *men* out and about. We need a girls-only city to make sure no disgusting boys hang around with their home-grown CS interests...

And now I'm all out of sarcasm. Thanks internet.

I guess my question boils down to: "Why force this interest? Why force this new brand of 'make-no-sense equality quotas' to *everyone's* detriment?"

Re:Again with the girls?

[itsenrique]

The cynic in me says they just want to flood the market with cheap labor. The bottom on many other skilled trades has fallen out. They want a piece of the profit action. Why? Because they have to remain ever more profitable every Q.

Re:Again with the girls?

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe plumbing has been looking more attractive than programming
My uncle did exactly that. He was working a grind at Apple in the 90s. Walked into a plumbing shop for a part. Saw a help wanted sign and applied. He said he now makes more than he ever did before and no more of this 'your salary' crap. He gets paid for his time. He also says he is the most happy he has been in years. He just now is sometimes dealing with real shit instead of petty ass shit.

Re:Again with the girls?

[misexistentialist]

Why is there no similar push in any other field (think firefighter/truckdriver/constrution)

I think it is across the board (of course only when male numbers are "too high"). Female-owned construction companies are preferred for government contracts, and the NYC fire department just eliminated physical performance tests since not enough women could pass. It's probably happening now because the tipping point of unmarried female voters has been reached, from now on they are simply going to vote themselves entitlements. The writers of the Constitution weren't just being jerks when they didn't give women suffrage

Re:Again with the girls?

[__aaclcg7560]

San Jose State University used to have a policy to automatically kick out students who fell below a certain grade point average in a semester (~5% of the student population). The university changed the policy when ~10% or more were at risk of being kicked out in the mid-1990's. That's a lot money that the university couldn't afford to kick out the door.

Re:Again with the girls?

[gweihir]

I agree on that. And currently what they can get in supply from the male half of the population is not driving labor costs low enough, so they are trying to get women as even cheaper labor, and all that under the guise of "equality". Fact is that likely most women with an interest in IT are already there. There are no magical barriers preventing them from going there, or at least not really more as the men are facing.

In the side of technology, the problem we have is that there are too many people with low talent and hence low skills in the IT field. That is what makes IT so expensive, namely the sheer number of people required to get something done. Quite a few projects with 30-100 "cheap" programmers, designers, architects could be done by teams of 1...5 highly competent individuals and both faster and better. _That_ would lower cost for IT. Instead they are trying to flood the market with even more low-skill people, like IT was manual labor. That is only going to make things worse. And the utterly pathetic thing is that this has been known for half a century. Just look at "The Mythical Man-Month" by Brooks.

*facepalm*

[Gestahl]

So... when you *specifically* want to create a class *for girls*, your though is "Hey, let's take out the hard parts, and make it more of a course about all the stuff *around* the actual hard part". You just basically told girls "don't worry yourself about the really hard parts. This is what *you* need to know." Are you sure you don't just want to make it a typing class instead?

Fuck that noise.

Re:*facepalm*

[nikhilhs]

Simpsons did it! Simpsons did it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

Re:*facepalm*

[AmiMoJo]

That's standard practice for introductory/taster courses. Give the students something they can achieve fairly quickly and easily to show that they can get interesting results and pique their interest in the subject. It doesn't have anything to do with gender.

Re:*facepalm*

[Gestahl]

The course was specifically designed to "increase diversity". MS developed the course material to go along with it specifically for girls. Read for detail and comprehension next time.

The goal of this course is not to attract males with varied interests,and you know it.

Re:*facepalm*

[gweihir]

Indeed. This is a terrible regression. Equality is about equal opportunity, not about giving the same certificate for different skill-levels. And if most (but not all) women do not want to study a demanding subject like CS, that is their prerogative. Gender equality demands that we do keep the opportunity open for women that want to take that challenge, not that we make it so easy for them that there is in fact no equality, just statistical numbers that look good. Gender equality also demands that we expect the same of a female CS graduate as of a male one, namely that they are competent engineers. I know a few women that are competent engineers in the CS and EE field, and the only thing I see is that making is easy for them would have actually made it much harder for them to become competent at the subjects and given them a CS/EE degree of lower value. Instead, they faced the same challenges and hence are competent engineers first and gender becomes irrelevant.

There is also another thing that conveniently gets overlooked in this debate: A woman that fought her way through a demanding STEM program is not going to stop working for a longer time when she has children. She has far too much effort invested in her education. Hence the problem that employers of lower-skill women face, namely that they sometimes can become unavailable for year or two due to motherhood, is significantly diminished (and it is a valid concern). I still remember when the in-progress Java documentation was not updated for more than a year, because both technical writers had gone on maternity-leave. Things like that are not professional and hugely expensive. (Become unavailable for 2-3 months, work reduced for a year or two: no problem. But this? No.)

Re:*facepalm*

[AmiMoJo]

I wasn't arguing that it was. I was making the point that developing introductory material is standard practice, not just for girls. I'm not sure how you managed to not comprehend that.

Re:*facepalm*

[Gestahl]

Forget reading other's text for comprehension, you can't even read what you wrote.

>> That's standard practice for introductory/taster courses. Give the students something they can achieve fairly quickly and easily to show that they can get interesting results and pique their interest in the subject. ***It doesn't have anything to do with gender.***

Right there, starred so you can't miss it. They straight up admit it has everything to do with gender, right in the headline. Twice.

Re:*facepalm*

[AmiMoJo]

The fact that it is an introductory course rather than a more advanced one has nothing to do with gender, it's the normal way these things are done. If it were a course to encourage boys to take up CS it wouldn't be at a higher level.

I'm not sure I can make it any clearer.

Re:*facepalm*

[david_thornley]

When you want to create a class for girls, you look at what they are likely interested in for the examples. Boys and girls are sometimes interested in different things, and it is likely that girls feel unwelcome in the field, so changing things a bit might help with that. As an introductory class, it's going to set the students up for success, which means sliding over the hard stuff and presenting stuff that people new to the field can actually accomplish. It's possible for a beginner to do a small non-graphic game with BASIC or Python or something; asking the beginner to code up a first-person shooter in C++ using OpenGL and expecting them to do their own template library is a touch ambitious.

why is it AP?

[Anonymous Coward]

Basic computer education needs to be mandatory - early, like 1st grade, alongside math and reading/writing. Our style of educating hasn't changed much since the early 1900s. Schools need to get with the times.

Re:why is it AP?

[russotto]

You don't need basic computer education early. You need basic math education early. You need people to learn the basics of arithmetic early enough that you can move on to other things later, but still before high school -- other things including Boolean logic and alternate number bases as well as algebra, geometry, trignometry, and the usual.

what is this crap

[nimbius]

society 40 years ago: learn a trade. computers are for nerds and bean counters.
society today: jesus christ everyone, from day laborers to housepets, must learn to write code.
The problem isnt that CS isnt accessible, its that its fucking hard. its why everyone isnt a mechanical engineer, or a physicist. and the demands arent exactly clear. Do you want C coders who churn out low level device drivers? or do you want devops hackers that write auto-reply python scripts for email farms and stand up python salt pillars? its two rather different skillsets. Or shall we get right to the point: profiteers are sick to death of paying a disproportionately living wage to a set of highly skilled workers.

and it wouldnt be slashdot without an obligatory rant from my front lawn as a greybeard. have you seen kids today? i mean actually seen how they use technology? they want E and I devices, cookie clicker and kesha. Kids today dont want to learn how or why their cloud storage works, but they want to maintain the illusion that they are somehow profoundly skilled users of their technology for getting garageband to install and upvoting the latest dreck to come out of their favourite pop star. Theyre divorced from everything but the most fervent memes, so unless you can propose a way to make object oriented reusable code as popular as kony 2012 or the latest malala freedom fighter, this wont work. Things like Pi, adafruit, and any other flavour of linux except ubuntu will forever be the love affair of the neckbeard. You cannot turn a herd of children beaten into blind tech consumerism into an organized group of kids that want to learn transcoding and class instantiation.

Re:what is this crap

[BVis]

Or shall we get right to the point: profiteers are sick to death of paying a disproportionately living wage to a set of highly skilled workers.

Ding ding ding. What I say to that is "Tough shit, do without your third summer home and pay people what they're worth."

Re:what is this crap

[quietwalker]

I don't believe that lowering average programmer salary is either the sole or primary motivator for this trend, even for businesses alone, much less other groups.

Businesses need more developers, and they haven't got them. It's as simple as that. The focus on women is simply the most efficient way to do it since they're vastly underrepresented in the field - every dollar spent on encouraging women nets more potentials than on men. It's just good ROI. The fact that it's a social currency is just icing on the cake.

Educators can see that it requires about half as much effort to achieve the skills that will provide an entry level job at about twice the pay of similar white collar jobs; again, good ROI. Not only that, there's a wealth of freely available training material, literally thousands of hours of tutorials from simplistic to horrifically complex. Free online courses, making this available across cultural and social lines. There are people living in war zones that are learning to program!

Programming education is good political currency for politicians too. Businesses and constituents appreciate more jobs and skilled workers. Minority groups appreciate the inclusive nature and extra focus. The boost to the economy & the lowering of unemployment together make for a better tax base, and so on.

Last, the worker themselves get great benefits. A low-stress white collar job with good security, reasonable hours, decent benefits, high pay, and preferential treatment to minorities, all for very little actual training.

Really, there's almost no downside in the current social, political, or economic climate. Rather, what has confused me is why everyone isn't already learning to program. I don't know anyone who wants to make a career in any consistently low paying job, much less a blue collar one involving physical labor, yet so few appear to take advantage of the opportunities presented in the field of software development.

Re:what is this crap

[AmiMoJo]

There are lots of jobs in CS that don't involve writing low level code. Pretty much anyone of average intelligence can be taught to write useful apps in modern languages, just like they can be taught school level maths or language skills.

Complaining that they may not use those skills in real life is ridiculous. How much of the stuff people learnt at school do they use in their every day life? My knowledge of how sea shores erode isn't of much use to me any more. It certainly broadened my horizons though.

Re:what is this crap

[gweihir]

Right on the mark. We do not have to few people in CS. We have far too many, and hence too many mediocre ones and they create most of the problems.

Re:what is this crap

[gweihir]

No. Most people cannot be taught that skill. Not at all. Just as most people cannot be taught to use Math beyond very simple things. And yes, I have experience in that area. These "useful" apps create far more problems than they solve. In fact, your attitude is the root cause for the ongoing software crisis: Too many wannabes doing things that critically require competent engineers. It is really no surprise that most software is f*cked up these days.

Hmmm ...

[gstoddart]

So, why all of a sudden are we taking input from Microsoft and Google on the education system?

These are companies, with their own agendas, and who only see the world through their own myopic view of making money with technology.

In what way do we consider either Google or Microsoft to be qualified to be involved in education?

The same clowns who are driving usage of foreign workers are suddenly going to cure the world by making sure more girls know how to code? Why, so they can not get hired because they expect a higher wage than someone in Mumbai?

Sorry, but taken as a whole, Microsoft is doing as much to undermine the point of getting an education in CS .. because they're actively part of the bits of using H1Bs, colluding to keep wages down, and making it more difficult for workers to be mobile.

So you'll excuse me if I see this as little more than some self serving PR.

Re:Hmmm ...

[quietwalker]

Education policy is not the domain of those who understand education - it's decided by politicians at nearly every level. Everything from what will be taught, to the books we use, to the structure of classes and rating systems meant to produce specific results without any real understanding of how those results are achieved or the real impact of them. They also can't make radical leaps - anything that might fail would result in losing their position, so they stick to minor modifications to existing systems - so there's no disruptive changes possible, as per Ken Robinson[1].

All that while fighting through often biased or partisan processes that result in, for example, including religion and denouncing evolution in Texas schoolbooks. In fact, you can say that government run institutions are process-driven more than anything else.

On the other hand, businesses are results driven. A business that does not produce product will shortly cease to be a business. That mechanism lends itself well to tackling any problem, even if it often discards moral or ethical considerations as not being part of the problem scope. So while their primary focus is of course, profits rather than education, when education is a requirement for profits, they're both well situated and motivated to provide that.

They can even take risks, with the knowledge that success will reward them many times over. So new styles of education are realistically evaluated and considered.

That's the nice part about capitalism. We can rely on human greed and ingenuity to produce almost any result, so long as we're able to figure out how to make it a requirement for fiscal success, whereas the political systems are motivated to not take chances and not to rock the boat, while at the same time claiming to be a boat-rocker.

So yeah, there's some PR gain in there for those companies, but that's just icing on the cake compared to their main benefit from supporting or redefining education.

[1] - See http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_r... ,
                          http://www.ted.com/talks/sir_k... ,
                          http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_r... ,
                          http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_r...
              for some interesting thoughts on disrupting the existing educational systems.

Re:Hmmm ...

[AmiMoJo]

Large corporations often do contradictory things because they are made up of many departments and individuals. When their goals align with the social good we might as well take their money, while still fighting their abuses.

Re:Hmmm ...

[Gestahl]

>> In what way do we consider either Google or Microsoft to be qualified to be involved in education?

Seeing as the primary goal of education for most people is "find a good career" and the primary goal of education for most businesses is "teach the skills I need for a productive workforce"... whose *external* input would you rather have?

Look, academia, education for education's sake, and deep research will be pursued by those who desire it whether it's encouraged or not. It's the people getting degrees for bigger paychecks (and donations for bigger linemen on the football team) that allows the academia to continue existing as widespread as it is. Seems to me, if you want a thriving school, you'd better listen to what Google and Microsoft want.

Equality = girls-only?

[geekmux]

"to create a girls-only computer science Massive Open Online Course (MOOC)."

Oh yeah, brilliant answer to equality in IT.

Don't suppose we could find enough common sense to short-circuit this process before the lawsuits start flying...

Re:Equality = girls-only?

[Pauldow]

I'm still waiting for the elementary education and nursing gender equality programs.

I think even the crickets are quiet on that topic.

You could start...

[wonkey_monkey]

...by telling us what "AP" and "CS" mean.

Nah, just kidding this time. About CS, at least. AP I don't know.

One of Microsoft's particular goals is to "reach every individual girl in her house."

Oh, I see, it's okay when Microsoft says it, but I get a lecture from the cops. Typical!

Re:You could start...

[Ken_g6]

AP == Advanced Placement.

Well that's inconvenient for the dominant theory

[0xdeadbeef]

Feminists are always saying there are no mental differences in men in women. And because of that, the gender disparity in CS must be due to sexism.

Now they're altering the content of CS curriculum to appeal to women, and it is apparently working.

So if women do actually need to be taught CS differently, why is all that dark matter sexism still necessary to explain it?

Computer careers and gender

[ivano]

The interesting thing is when you do see a "normal" girl doing software development you can instantly see how much more "aware" they are with interacting with other people. Not a lot of people will like to hear this - but because they have the technology skills AND the social skills they get picked up pretty quickly for jobs requiring more responsibility and eventually higher ranking jobs.

In fact I'm pretty tired of going over to talk to a (male) colleague and they either can't or won't answer the question but instead will ramble on about something slightly related but nothing to with my question; or they'll be so passive-aggressive about any question that you have to know the answer beforehand to be able to ask the question in the precisely right way that they are willing to answer (think about talking to Dick Cheney about torture).

Of course, I'm ignoring that Russian girl who didn't know how to formulate an if-statement. And then there are those brilliant guys I've worked with which I still can't figure out their code - but it works just fine.

Large data sets

[tepples]

What do you really need a computer for that wasn't achieved by teacher and books?

The ability to apply an algorithm to larger sets of data than can be done in reasonable time through pencil-and-paper calculation. Of course, you can teach computer science without the aid of a computer, as the late Dr. Dijkstra pointed out, but that happens not to be in fashion.

What a waste

[korbulon]

Some fundamental questions need to be asked in earnest - and obviously haven't - foremost among them:

Why do you give a shit that there aren't many girl or minority programmers? I mean, it's not as though they lack the opportunity. Christ, the entry barriers don't get much lower than programming.

Will throwing money from the top-down really fundamentally change anything?

Why are you conflating programming with Big Dreams? Or even little dreams? This is an error.

The main thing that's needed is patience. This is a DNA-of-Society issue, not an attitude or education issue. I mean really: if you like messing with computers, you're going to figure this shit out on your own. Whatsmore, because programming is really a craft and not a checklist, you really only learn on your own.

There isn't a quick fix for this, no matter how many resources are thrown at it.And again, I ask: why should we care?

So what's it good for

[russotto]

The point of an AP course, in particular, is to get college credit for work done earlier. What college is going to give credit for a course like this? Maybe towards some sort of "Sociology of Computing" degree?

There are gender differences

[MyNicknameSucks]

There are gender differences; you don't see it so much in ability scores, but you do tend to see it in how boys and girls learn. There are, I believe, some advantages for separating boys and girls for some classes, but certainly not all. The tricky bit, however, is that, on an individual basis, some kids simply don't fit the gender stereotypes. Some girls like being hands-on and active; some boys prefer to get their answers from reading and watching.

In a perfect world, you'd pair the right kid with the right teaching method, but that's not always possible, so you make compromises ... like gender-specific classes -- which can also help boys in some cases. FWIW, a couple years ago, news and infotainment stories based on all-boys programs were all the rage in Canada (specifically that elementary school education had become too feminized with too many female educators), so, while the current media frenzy is focusing on girls' achievements, there is a degree of parity in the overall arc of the coverage.

As for the current controversy, Google and MS aren't in the business of being SJWs; they're in the business of making money. And the research strongly suggests that:

The financial benefits of greater gender equity are undeniable. Extensive global research conducted by Credit Suisse, Catalyst and McKinsey & Co. examining the link between women on boards and stronger financial performance of Fortune 500 companies has been cited in numerous publications. Examining the return on sales, return on invested capital, and return on equity, their research confirmed that companies with women on their boards of directors outperform those with the least number of women by significant margins in each category.

Source (with cursory review of the literature): http://www.theglobeandmail.com... Note: Credit Suisse is not some backwater, liberal college spouting pseudo-scientific gibberish; they're a well-run capitalist organization that makes no bones about being in it for the money.

You want people with a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences working together. It might take longer to reach a decision (or finish a project), but it's likely that the decision will be better for it. Monocultures are suboptimal for decision making (the research from WWII on is quite solid on this). Google and Microsoft are not pushing forward with trying to get more girl coders from some sense of goodness and charity; they're doing it because they see a business case for it. The gender equity aspect is veneer slapped over a business decision to make it 1.) seem like a good thing for society and 2.) make it easier to shake money loose governments to improve their own workforces.

Re:There are gender differences

[LessThanObvious]

I would agree with the business case for female coders. Females represent a large portion of the purchasing decisions for goods and also a large percentage of the user base for applications from business tools to iPhone apps. As time goes on we need women who know how to think like women so that applications and electronics are designed in ways that appeal to women. Technology products should be strait forward and gender agnostic whenever possible, but there will also be many applications and technology products where females are the primary target market. That said I'm really not sure that "for girls only" classes are the way to get results. I'd rather see everyone have access to quality training equally and focus on creating accessible entry level education that logically builds to serious college level coursework. There are also places in technology for people that aren't math geniuses. Many functional roles require advanced math, but it isn't true for every technology job. I have to wonder how many people of either gender get written of from technology fields because they are told advanced math skills are a must have for any technology education path.

Data flow in Cookie Clicker

[tepples]

they want E and I devices, cookie clicker and kesha.

Tell me with a straight face that doing well at Orteil's Cookie Clicker doesn't need a knowledge of data flow.

Re:Data flow in Cookie Clicker

[LordLimecat]

Cookie clicker just needs Firefox or Chrome and some debugging knowledge.

Re:Data flow in Cookie Clicker

[tepples]

In order to use an in-browser debugger, you still need to understand data flow.

Is the course cross-platform?

[Anonymous Coward]

When my 9 and 11 year old daughters (both are in the top 1% for their age on standard tests) are done with their mod design course (Minecraft) at http://www.youthdigital.com/mod-design-1.html then I'll determine if this course is of good quality.
 
Currently, the kids play games in Windows and learn/develop on Linux.
 
If you're wondering, my children are home schooled. I plan to teach them Python after their mod design course is done.

Seriously!?

[Mathematician puppy]

You know, us boys would still love to have some interesting courses in high school. I really don't see the point in making the course specific for girls. They learn just the same way as we do.

Re:Seriously!?

[digsbo]

They won't be happy until 100% of college and advanced degree students are girls. I did my part by dropping out and getting a high-paying job; higher than many women I know with Master's degrees.

How is this an AP?

[nikhilhs]

I've skimmed through the Curriculum Framework, and it looks like a survey course on computers, technology, and society. I don't see anything about actually building software. It has a lot of ideas, and theories, but when does the rubber hit the road? There may be a match of this course in some schools, but most won't give any Computer Science credit. No one in the major would receive credit for this course.

As I look into my cloudy, crystal ball, I see anyone deciding to go into computer science based on this course to be shocked when they have to write actual code in Intro to Computer Science.

The real tragedy is that AP Computer Science AB hasn't been brought back. Schools need to stop catering to the lowest common denominator and should be providing opportunities to those who will take them.

Re:How is this an AP?

[ErichTheRed]

One of the state universities by me is offering a "pre-intro" CS course that focuses more on the absolute basics before stuffing them in a programming course: CSE 110 It seems to me that this is a good way to scare away people who don't actually want to do CS, and to fill in gaps in knowledge that today's students would have. It's interesting that this is different from the high level survey course for non majors, and it's only a "suggested prerequisite" for the more programming and logic-heavy traditional Computer Science I, II and III.

To me, that seems like a good idea. Typical students who think CS is a good fit because they've messed around with computers are different from those of previous times. Most will not have the low-level programming, algorithms and other experience that people had to have at least a familiarity with back before the app revolution. See my other post in this article -- writing a Minecraft mod or cooking up a web application in ReallyCoolFrameworkOnRails doesn't give you the same low level understanding of how a computer actually does all the magic it does.

It's not really a gender thing, it's perception

[ErichTheRed]

Everyone seems to be pointing to this as a gender issue, but the way I see it, it's a way to get more students interested in the stuff that _most_ of them will be doing with a computer science education.

The world has changed significantly since I graduated college almost 20 years ago (with a STEM degree that wasn't CS.) In 1997, the year I got out, the dotcom bubble was just inflating and all the protocols and "glue" that make Web applications work were just starting to be enhanced and built out. Fast forward to now, and there's so much abstraction in typical computer systems that many "coders" writing web applications don't even deal with system-level code. There are a billion web frameworks that keep getting cycled through every 6 months as the new hotness, and tons of new languages to run on them. This group of people will be better suited to learning enough logic to keep them from doing stupid stuff in their framework of choice, and this seems to be what the course focuses on. It acknowledges the reality that many CS grads aren't going to be sitting down in front of the terminal and writing hardware drivers, or doing embedded systems work.

Think about it -- to build a web application in the 1990s, you had to first design the entire database schema and set that up on a system somewhere. Then, you had to write code to have your web application talk to the database to get information in and out. Then you had the whole presentation layer with a combination of static and dynamic HTML plus all sorts of crazy CGI, Flash, ColdFusion or whatever glue code to get everything working. To build an iPhone app now, download XCode, pick a sample project and just glue together all the huge chunks of pre-built functionality. The focus on the app becomes the presentation layer because everything below that is solved for you. This is how a bunch of ex-fraternity "brogrammers" can build Tinder or Uber and make $40 billion in Monopoly money...there is obviously some technical talent behind it, but the app itself is relying on huge amounts of pre-integrated, well-documented libraries.

A student coming into CS now sees apps, social media and mobile devices. How do you keep them down on the C++ and data processing farm when this is the current face of computing? The reality of it is that some parts of software development are no longer only for the nerdy crowd. Apple put computers into hundreds of millions of ordinary peoples' pockets. They are now a consumer electronics company more than a computer company (and their current crop of Macs seems to reflect this.)

Why...

[matbury]

...are we letting Microsoft dictate our schools' syllabi and curricula?

By the same reasoning, a comparable number of people drive cars and other vehicles. "Vehicular science" is a central aspect, not only of American infrastructure, but also of the American way of life and vital to the US economy. Knowing about vehicles, how they work, how to maintain and service them, etc.should be a priority to ensure that the American economy remains competitive. Shouldn't we be teaching "vehicular science" in schools too?

Microsoft et al. really have no idea of what education is or what it's for. They're confusing it with training. If they're serious about attracting more women to come and work for them, they could start by addressing the overt, ferocious sexism and culture of impunity for sexist acts in their own company, and making it a more attractive environment for women to work in. The thing is, I can just see their senior management coming out with statements like, "I'm not sexist but... "

It's about self-confidence in bench skills

[dbc]

Girls drop off the tech track (CS, engineering, etc) because they are intimidated (wrongly) by the boys who come in with "bench skills" already formed -- the boys have been tinkering and taking things apart and building and coding and have their own toolbox (literal and figurative) already. The girls see that, and don't think they will be able to compete -- an inaccurate conclusion, because success in engineering school does *not* depend on having the resistor color code already memorized, nor on having memorized the API's to three dozen Python libraries already. Success comes from the deeper analytical skills.

Girls need tinkering opportunities that will build their bench skills. When they have their own toolkits (literal and figurative) then the boys will no longer intimidate them.

Math is a different issue. The critical years for developing the self-perception that you belong with the math crowd is the same years that girls are trying hard to fit in. The population density of girls in the USA (and it seems to be a problem for us, not for other parts of the world) who enjoy math is low enough that it is hard to fit in socially and be "mathy". For my daughter, we found a math camp (Mathpath.org) where the population of girls was high enough that she found a peer group of girls where it was *cool* to like and be good at math. That made a huge difference.

Re:It's about self-confidence in bench skills

[dbc]

You are quite right. It's because most parents don't involve their daughters in workshop and construction projects, but they do involve their sons.

Not every girl is going to groove on helping assemble a new set of bookshelves form Ikea. Neither is every boy. But both can benefit from being taught about fasteners and tools.

More to the point, we are talking about why girls fall off the tech track, not what gets them on the tech track in the first place. Girls simply don't get appropriate mentoring at a young enough age, and my contention is that appropriate mentoring is training in hands-on bench skills (defined loosely to include code monkey skills) that will reduce self-doubt when they end up getting surrounded by people who do have the bench skills.

Stop the special exclusion, kill H1B

[Eravnrekaree]

There is no systematic barrier to women becoming programmers. They are free to do it and have equal opportunity to do so by law. In fact, I know some, and am glad that they did it. If there are not as many women programmers as men programmers, its due to the fact that no as many women want to do it. If more woman would rather do something else than program than men, why force them to, let them do what they are most predisposed to. We should have the same standards and educational program for men and women, that way everyone has equal opportunity and is free to choose their field without some sort of barrier being set up. If you make things EASIER for one group what you do is you disadvantage another group by creating all sorts of benefits they cannot access. This is wrong. It is a sick, disturbed mentality that we should discourage people who WANT to program from doing so, to try to shoehorn people who are not inclined to program into doing that.

Part of what is going on is mentally ill liberals who are unwilling to let go of victimization and guilt complexes that seems to be such a part of the Liberal mental complex that they cannot live without it, even though for the most part their original grievances have long been properly addressed. This is why well after we have created extensive legal gaurantees for equal opportunity, it is never enough for these people, which is why their agenda becomes ever more insane and shrill, they ran out of legitimate causes long ago. The mentality is that they are addicted to conflict just for the sake of it, that they have to pick new fights, since the legitimate issues are gone, they have gone beserk now demanding retribution and discrimination of their own against men, white people, American citizens, etc. They are unwilling to let go of the victimization complex even though for the most part in reality it is long past, with decades of equal opportunity legislation. In the process they have become what they claim to be against, they have become monsters who are out for blood and who have a hatred of and a malicious intent against men, and in some cases what approaches genocidal ambitions, for demonized majority groups. You can see this behaviour everywhere, by creating controversies and crisis where there is none, such as in Ferguson, just to keep the conflict alive when its legitimate beef has long been addressed and laid to rest.

Another fact which relates to this and to H1B Visas, is that numerous studies have shown that there is NO IT labor shortage in the US and that in fact we have large numbers of American college graduates who cannot find jobs becuase these jobs are being stolen by the H1B Visas. The H1B program is about suppressing wages and trying to replace american computer programmers with foreigners, this will actually discourage ALL americans, Men and Women, from going through the trouble of the CS degree when they are constantly being undermined by the corporate cronies. Microsoft would love to pay CS people minimum wage if they could, all they are concerned about is profits and are willing to ruin the lives of American CS degree holders by pulling the rug out from under them. Its not only CS but its also the Medical field as well.

You have American doctors who did the right thing by taking on the debt to spend $100,000 on a medical degree only to have their wages suppressed to where they are pushed into poverty, making far too little after they pay their loans to make it all worth the trouble, by third world educated labor who spent 1/9th of what an American has to on a medical degree. I know doctors who have watched the profession and the reward for the effort for american graduates destroyed by the third world H1B visa labor, it is killing them, the third world labor is poorly educated and did not have to obtain the same level of training as an American medical student and yet they are given medical licenses and allowed to basically steal jobs right out from under better educated American doctors. Add to this the Obamacare nightmare

"increasing diversity" increasing "randomness"

[spads]

What kind of a stupid objective is that? Couldn't try for something like "encourage excellence" or "increase quality" to help us become globally competitive? But, noooooooo......!!!!!! :)

Gender specific courses are wrong...

[Karmashock]

... unless we segrigate the genders again which I think might be reasonable from grade school to highschool.

The hormones and learning patterns are different enough that it is problematic to have a one size fits all education program for both.

The boys operate under different rules especially at that age. Separate them out and it could improve all sorts of things. I think most of the experiments with sexually segregated education have shown dramatically improved educational performance. So... no reason not to do it really.

Re:Well that's inconvenient for the dominant theor

[gweihir]

These feminists are stupid. There are physical differences in men and women and they are quite enough to explain the gender disparity. While CS, on the surface, seems to be a purely mental activity, the larger situation matters. One thing is that CS is _hard_. Quite a few women these days still sell their reproductive capabilities in exchange for a meal-ticket or at least go for a less demanding education because they know that have this fall-back option. Yes, it is not politically correct to say so, but it _is_ happening. That is a pure physical (not mental) factor right there that reduces the number of women in any thing that is hard to learn. Sure, men and women are on average probably equally lazy, but men do not have this convenient and traditional way out of that quandary and hence need to try harder and know that.

As I said, these feminists are stupid. Ignoring relevant facts leads to faulty conclusions.

As to "women need to be taught CS differently", just no. That is patently false. I know quite a few women in CS and none of them found that they were somehow taught "wrong". Sure if was hard work for all of them to learn, but that is just as true for the men. Sure, getting women _interested_ in CS may have to be done different in order to overcome cultural factors, but once they are, there is no need for a different style.

Re:Well that's inconvenient for the dominant theor

[gweihir]

Indeed. Being a victim is _convenient_. You do not have to change anything on your side. (Well, you should if you want to get your agency back, but that is not the public perception...) It however has extreme drawbacks, such as far less control over your life. No smart person goes that way.

Re: CS Principles dumbed down = diversity

[gweihir]

Indeed. Being female is not a valid excuse for laziness.

But that would take logic.

[DrPeper]

Programming takes logical thought processes, something women have consciously decided to eschew. So until you change the thinking of EVERY woman on the face of the planet, you are kind of spinning your wheels on this issue.