Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CollegeBoard: Analyses of CS Study Benefits Shouldn't Be Interpreted As Causal

Posted by samzenpus on from the is-it-working? dept.

theodp writes: Code.org, backed by some of tech's wealthiest individuals and their companies, is this close to getting computer science declared a 'core subject' in K-12 public schools. So, when the non-profit recently asked CollegeBoard for more evidence that learning computer science is linked to improved learning in other subjects, it must have been disheartened by the study results. "The purpose of this brief note," wrote the CollegeBoard, "is to document some exploratory analyses linking participation in AP Computer Science to subsequent performance in SAT Mathematics and AP Calculus and Statistics. None of these analyses should be interpreted as causal. Although there appears to be a relationship between AP CS participation and subsequent outcomes, it is highly likely that this is the result of one or more omitted and confounding characteristics of students that are not able to be controlled for given this research design."

131 comments

  1. They should make them all core subjects by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Learning doesn't happen in a vacuum. Every subject, addressed properly, will have spillover - even if it's just as an expansion of the curriculum to create a feeling of value to a student concerning the learning environment.

    But, of course, when they're all considered "Core" subjects, none of them are core subjects - they're just curriculum. Pixar said it best - when everybody is special, nobody is special. And then we're back to where we started.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:They should make them all core subjects by rmdingler · · Score: 0
      On the back of this trend to widen the scope of seemingly everything,

      rides the ubiquitous human belief that more is better!

      More things are made offensive. More things become a human right. Hell, before you know it, exceptional will be normal and offensive, simultaneously.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:They should make them all core subjects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At space camp, we were placed in a vacuum with our space suits. I learned a lot that day.

    3. Re:They should make them all core subjects by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 0

      What's so important about being special?

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    4. Re:They should make them all core subjects by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Given how exceptional has been used lately, my first thought after reading that was, "too late", because the way some people use it they seem to mean by it that the United States is superior to all other countries in every way imaginable. Though I'm not sure that it's become normal for every country to claim exceptionalism.

    5. Re:They should make them all core subjects by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Wait, you don't get all the special stuff that comes along with being special?

    6. Re:They should make them all core subjects by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      After being misdiagnosed as mentally retarded, I was in Special Ed classes for eight years. I can reassure you that there's nothing special about being treated like an idiot.

    7. Re:They should make them all core subjects by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      After being misdiagnosed as mentally retarded, I was in Special Ed classes for eight years. I can reassure you that there's nothing special about being treated like an idiot.

      They put me in Special Ed because they thought I was slow, but I stayed in Special Ed for the ladies.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    8. Re:They should make them all core subjects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did you all fit inside a vacuum cleaner?

    9. Re:They should make them all core subjects by gweihir · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, while any learning is beneficial, some subjects are more so and some less. If you focus on those that are less useful, you are getting a negative effect as there is no time left for the more useful ones. It is difficult to decide what is most useful, admittedly.

      I do not think that CompSci is a core subject. It is really important for society, true, but so are EE, medicine, city-planning, etc. Core subjects should be those that a majority will need often in their personal and professional life.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    10. Re:They should make them all core subjects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's isn't limited to humans. All of my pets and other animals do the same thing. I read an experiment many years ago that showed babies will also go for the bigger bowl of cereal, so it is innate and not a learned behavior. I believe it is very fundamental behavior to many other higher order behaviors. Bigger sex organs, bigger bank account, more value for your money, more fame, more procreation.

    11. Re:They should make them all core subjects by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 2

      How many people use trig in their daily life? If we were to go by the standard that core subjects are those that are used by a majority of people, I think we will just have reading, and maybe typing.

    12. Re:They should make them all core subjects by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Why we are teaching trigonometry to everybody? I never understood that. Seems like a complete waste of time. Have aptitude tests and then do advanced math only for those that actually can understand it and benefit from it.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    13. Re:They should make them all core subjects by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Too much is always better than not enough.

      The only exceptions are where 'not enough' throws 'div by 0'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re:They should make them all core subjects by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Trig is pretty basic math. Intermediate math starts after calculus.

      There is a reason that Engineering school is different from law or medical. They have found testing predicts success. Engineering school has had much less luck with testing. Hence they let anybody interested in and flunk out 75% freshman year.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    15. Re:They should make them all core subjects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what is your actual diagnosis? just curious.

    16. Re:They should make them all core subjects by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I had high-frequency hearing loss in one ear, which meant that I couldn't distinguish similar sounding words — glass, grass and crass all sounded the same — without additional context. Being a late talker and overweight made me the poster child for mongolism. So obviously I must have been mentally retarded from birth. Every time I blew out the annual evaluation on the genius side, the teachers dismissed it as a statistical fluke. I graduated from the eighth grade with fifth grade math and writing skills, but a college-level reading comprehension. Skipped high school. I got an associate degree in general ed after four years of full-time community college.

    17. Re:They should make them all core subjects by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      The poste kwon do is strong with this one.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    18. Re:They should make them all core subjects by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Depends on who your target audience is. For students of mathematics, you are right. For average people, you are not. There, everything after basic algebra is "advanced".

      I was obviously not talking about engineering school either.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    19. Re:They should make them all core subjects by rioki · · Score: 1

      The problem with core subjects is that is is expected that everybody take them and must get a passing grade. English and math are core subjects because from that stems almost all general education. The problem with CS is, it requires a very specific skill set that not every body has, as a result you would cut out a large amount of people, just because some body deemed a "must have skill". Nobody would expect business administration to be core subject in school?

    20. Re:They should make them all core subjects by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      My point is that it is hard to test for 'math potential'. In no small part because high school teachers (and before) have so little of it.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  2. Really? by Anon-Admin · · Score: 1

    I would not expect computers and/or computer science to improve the performance of students in SAT Mathematics, AP Calculus, and AP Statistics.

    We use computers so we dont have to remember all that crap. The computer does the math.

    I would expect it to improve reading, reading comprehension, written language skills, and logical thinking. That is what the student is learning!

    1. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is CS supposed to improve written language skills or reading comprehension?

    2. Re:Really? by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I would expect it to improve reading, reading comprehension, written language skills, and logical thinking. That is what the student is learning!

      The problem is, and I think CollegeBoard is saying this, that anyone who has the ability to take AP CS and then take the test should already have significantly developed reading, comprehension, and logical thinking skills. From my experience (I did go to a school with a magnet program but AP classes were open to all students) most students who took an AP class took several; it was very rare to have someone take just one class. So it was a bad idea to have CollegeBoard do a study anyway because there is no way to isolate any potential benefit with AP CS from the student's general ability/interest. Unless Code.org was counting on this so that they could obfuscate the results to show whatever they wanted (a distinct possibility).

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:Really? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      I would not expect computers and/or computer science to improve the performance of students in SAT Mathematics, AP Calculus, and AP Statistics.

      We use computers so we dont have to remember all that crap. The computer does the math.

      I would expect it to improve reading, reading comprehension, written language skills, and logical thinking. That is what the student is learning!

      Computing teaches any problem domain that you are asked to code solutions for.

      The problem with initiatives like code.org is that they generally try to engage kids by making things move on the screen. Most of that means doing very basic arithmetic in an esoteric firmat surrounded by Byzantine library calls.

      If you want kids to do better in statistics, you shouldn't start with the paradigm of interactive entertainment, but with the far less abstract view of a computer as something that computes stuff. Kids might not like their schoolwork, but it's certainly relevant to them. Part of the problem teaching complex maths is that the mechanics of carrying out the underlying computations diverts attention from the "big picture" view. Procedural computing was designed specifically to address the problem of "can't see the wood for the trees" by separating the general algorithm from the specifics of implementation.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    4. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically, they should have compared test performance with family income, which would have shown the real causal relationship.

    5. Re:Really? by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      Past performance on other college board tests was one of the variables they considered in their model. If family income juices standardized test scores then using past test scores means income was implicitly part of their model.

    6. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to read Danny Dunn and the Homework Machine.

    7. Re:Really? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      When I was looking at college catalogs in the early 1990's, I was somewhat amused to see that some colleges would allowed the substitution of the foreign language requirement with a computer programming language. Needless to say, my eight years of Commodore 64 BASIC didn't qualify.

    8. Re:Really? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      In middle school (in the 70s) I told my teachers that I didn't need to learn to spell because computers would check my spelling for me.

      They said I was full of shit, they were wrong.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:Really? by myowntrueself · · Score: 2

      I would not expect computers and/or computer science to improve the performance of students in SAT Mathematics, AP Calculus, and AP Statistics.

      We use computers so we dont have to remember all that crap. The computer does the math.

      I would expect it to improve reading, reading comprehension, written language skills, and logical thinking. That is what the student is learning!

      Computing teaches any problem domain that you are asked to code solutions for.

      The problem with initiatives like code.org is that they generally try to engage kids by making things move on the screen. Most of that means doing very basic arithmetic in an esoteric firmat surrounded by Byzantine library calls.

      If you want kids to do better in statistics, you shouldn't start with the paradigm of interactive entertainment, but with the far less abstract view of a computer as something that computes stuff. Kids might not like their schoolwork, but it's certainly relevant to them. Part of the problem teaching complex maths is that the mechanics of carrying out the underlying computations diverts attention from the "big picture" view. Procedural computing was designed specifically to address the problem of "can't see the wood for the trees" by separating the general algorithm from the specifics of implementation.

      I think they are conflating programming and computer science. I think theres a lot of this confusion surrounding the discussion of this article, and indeed in teaching computer science at this level.

      Computer science is only tangentially related to programming.

      Most of computer science involves things like logic and discrete maths; state machines, turing machines, computation theory, set theory, algebra of functions, big-O notation and efficiency of algorithms. I majored in computer science and did very little actual programming. In fact I hated programming, still do. I can't comprehend people who program 'for fun'. But I did enjoy delving into the math that lurks beneath computing, discovering the limitations of algorithms (and hence of any methodical approach to a problem ie there are some problems that no computational process can solve, not because they are NP hard, its worse than that). Computer science introduced me to things like Chaitins algorithmic information theory and the first known uncomputable number (the halting probability), Goedels incompleteness theorem etc.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    10. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you've never been a victim of autocorrect, nor typing in the wrong word yet correctly spelled.

    11. Re:Really? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      The field of computer science is about *making* the software that does all the math (which involves knowing how math works), not simply *using* the software (which involves a computer doing all the math for you).

    12. Re:Really? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      It improves written language and reading comprehension skills, those languages just aren't any of the same ones spoken by the rest of humanity.

    13. Re: Really? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      You don;t need to have *never* been a "victim" of autocorrect. You only need to be good enough. When autonomous cars take over, they *will* get in accidents that kill people. The question is whether they get in more or less accidents than people. Autonomous cars can simultaneously kill thousands of people and be saving thousands of people, but not killing as many people as people do.

    14. Re:Really? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      I was CS too, and I completely get what you're saying, but I think a certain amount of programming really helps you understand the whys of CS. But that point is tyat you need to be addressing programming problems, rather than simply going through the motions of implementing a standard "catch the falling object" game. Addressing a curriculum-related problem not only teaches programming, but also brings up motivation for optimisation, hence a jumping-off point for teaching CS concepts. Combinations and permutations are a good start, because you end up with a factorial on the numerator and denominator, so you can optimise the formula by removing redundancy in the factorial calculation, as well as the standard CS stuff about the factorials itself. You then get to compare the two approaches and demonstrate how what is optimal in one situation isn't optimal in another.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    15. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You and your nuanced answers... you wouldn't last one second in front of a Congressional Subcommittee hearing! :p

    16. Re:Really? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Wee disgust spell-chequers inn our last meting.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  3. Human by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1, Interesting

    CS is more of an art than a science . Because most of it is "human facing " Not just the GUI but the way it solves problems for humans. Encouraging students to think of innovative "solutions" to human problems will be more fruitful than churning out an army java programmers

    1. Re:Human by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      This is the most vacuous thing I have read today.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    2. Re:Human by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Have you read your own sig?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Human by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I not only read it, I wrote it, along with new economic theory and large amounts of planning, market analysis, and risk considerations and management strategies.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    4. Re:Human by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I've read your rants. They are the most vacuous thing I've read in a long time. Shows a complete lack of understanding of economics and history.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:Human by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I only get that line from people who hold up the Holy Writ of Smith, Ricardo, and Marx. Too bad all modern economics is based on an equivocation fallacy in which the term "value" means several different things, yet is interchanged to justify things even when the definition of value is unfixed between two suggestions.

      Real economics--economics that surpasses all currently published treatises--dispenses with the term "value", applying only "valuation" in market economics to indicate what the market or a particular transaction sees as the acceptable price of a good. In macroeconomics--in discussing the wealth of nations--the term "value" is inapplicable; the correct terms are cost, price, and wealth. All discussions on economic principles to date have come disturbingly close to correct, yet have always been a hair's breadth away, with enormous implications, due to the mistaken ideal of value.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    6. Re:Human by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

      This is the most vacuous thing I have read today.

      Nice word man .. you know, there is a simpler way of saying that .

    7. Re:Human by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I knew Ricky was a pretty good conga player, but I always thought Lucy was better at economics...

    8. Re:Human by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I do not know what you do in CS, but I do pretty demanding engineering and some actual applied science. Your comment illustrates what is wrong with most "coders" though.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    9. Re:Human by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I meant it as a complete thought, not as an overly terse and flippant reply.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    10. Re:Human by nomadic · · Score: 1

      "Real economics--economics that surpasses all currently published treatises--" In other words, professional economists don't understand real economics?

    11. Re:Human by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      professional economists don't understand real economics?

      Somebody just published (in 2010) a dissertation explaining capitalism, how markets work, and how this affects economic policy creation. Dissertations add new knowledge to the field.

      I encourage you to reflect on why economists frequently publish dissertations citing all of their peers's contributions as things they've identified as wrong.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    12. Re:Human by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are so vacuously pathetic
      that's a philosophy in a sentence for you. cheers

    13. Re:Human by cornicefire · · Score: 1

      Sorry. I thought it was genius.

    14. Re:Human by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CS is better when it's a science. The science gave us UI standards and consistency across an OS for over a decade. "Innovative solutions" crapped all over that to the point where if I run a new program or app I don't know if it'll scroll up when I scroll down or the reverse. Science gave us experiments which told us which computer concepts worked better and why. Innovation gave us "I think this is cooler lets do it for this release". Programs that are engineered turn out a lot better than ones that are innovated. Programmers don't want artistic APIs, they want ones that follow a logical layout and pattern.

      I really hate the "CS is art" movement.

    15. Re:Human by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The argument is that software is largely making things unique, and that functionality is not important.

      Information systems are a hard science of process improvement. You are either solving off-the-shelf technical problems (this is why we have libraries), combining off-the-shelf technical solutions into business processes which meet requirements, or developing new solutions to technical problems (like process scheduling or video compression). The vast majority of computer programming, network engineering, and data center management are the second form: implementation of processes to produce a particular result.

      The design and improvement of processes was described over a century ago as a scientific endeavor. In manufacture, scientific development of the workforce involves first identifying the best skilled laborer tasked with the process you intend to improve. From there, you, as an outsider with only general understanding (avoiding the taint of professional specialization), observe and eliminate all unnecessary motions from the worker's process. You then have that professional worker train other workers to perform his job in the way he does, and they in turn train other workers.

      In Information Technology as the application of Computer Science, each task is carried out in the most efficient manner available. Availability hinges on understanding: nuclear quantum technology is all well and good, unless you have the box full of quantum components and don't have the know-how to assemble and put to effective use that which you possess. As such, your job is not to be an artist embellishing your programs and network topologies with creative, expressive forms; your job is to identify the needs of your process, to implement it, and then to examine it and identify where your process most suffers and how to make those particular parts more efficient. This is evidence-based scientific development.

      This is no more of an art form than air plane design. Oh, you may be able to embellish an airplane with aesthetically pleasing shapes and curves; and you'll have to account for the impact on its drag, its stability, its fuel efficiency, its manufacturing complexity, and so forth in every modification, chiefly constraining yourself to those specific designs which maximize first the engineering considerations, and then selecting from variations thereof which sacrifice nothing in favor of better aesthetics--frequently, this means choosing the color. To do any less is to fail to understand your job as an engineer.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
  4. Core subjetc my a$$.... by dablow · · Score: 2

    In this day and age, everybody should have a basic understand of how computers work and how to use them. Know what a file is, network etc. Same with social media.

    But I get the feeling what theses clowns are aiming to do is get people to learn basic coding in order to flood the market with code monkeys that know how to write an if-then-else statement in order to deflate CS salaries......Make it so that anybody with a high school diploma can apply for entry-level coding jobs.

    1. Re:Core subjetc my a$$.... by LaurenCates · · Score: 2

      That's one theory (and the more realistic one).

      Another is that coding won't be the primary job of most of the college graduates in the future, but that it will be a necessary subset of skills required to do a job (not realistic until it's sold that way).

      We're probably already at the place where anyone with an Sparkfun account feels like they're an expert, and coding is something anyone can and should pick up.

      Anecdote incoming, which I fully acknowledge is not the singular of "data": I was having an eye-roll moment recently when a young woman I follow on Facebook (who isn't in tech for a living) espoused using Arduino to learn about computer security as a way to tell people to "educate yourselves" (as if, somehow, YouTube isn't an acceptable tool for learning things, and far more versatile...it was far more a play to say "hey, I know Arduino, pat me on the back for being so smart, would ya?").

      I imagine, though, she didn't pick up that attitude in a vacuum.

      I acknowledge that Arduino is quite a powerful tool for a lot of things, but fiddling with one makes you about as much an expert as picking up a baseball bat makes you a professional ballplayer.

      Point being that the idea of "coding" and "putting your hands on the metal" is so much more accessible to the normal person nowadays that anyone who has access to something that looks a little more technical than a toaster is within reach of a job as a coding ninja.

      --
      Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
    2. Re:Core subjetc my a$$.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That better be their plan, if they also plan to get rid of all jobs that don't involve coding.

    3. Re:Core subjetc my a$$.... by LaurenCates · · Score: 1

      Sorry, what I meant was:

      Point being that the idea of "coding" and "putting your hands on the metal" is so much more accessible to the normal person nowadays that anyone who has access to something that looks a little more technical than a toaster gets the idea that they are within reach of a job as a coding ninja.

      --
      Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
    4. Re:Core subjetc my a$$.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I acknowledge that Arduino is quite a powerful tool for a lot of things, but fiddling with one makes you about as much an expert as picking up a baseball bat makes you a professional ballplayer.

      Fucking dead on.. and would somebody please tell all of the Javascript 'experts' of that train of thought that they're not software engineers?

      Captcha: Atheists .. that's creepy when the captcha 'just knows'.. ;)

    5. Re:Core subjetc my a$$.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody is forbidding them to do so.

      However, you will find that CS subjects in university, specially the practical parts of it are way ancient comparing with the skill-sets that the companies want.

      This is no fault of the universities, it is just the reality of IT and CS. It advances too fast.

      CS degrees gives a good base of knowledge, but if you don't apply yourself, you will find that the only jobs you are able to get are for other things, and not exactly coding.

    6. Re:Core subjetc my a$$.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're going to teach them how to set up and administer a PC using systemd.

      That's what this is about, don't you see it? Mark Zuckerburg and Bill Gates teaching immigrant girls how to use systemd so they'll have cheap labor for their respective companies.

    7. Re:Core subjetc my a$$.... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      in order to flood the market with code monkeys that know how to write an if-then-else statement in order to deflate CS salaries

      Why is it people can understand this effect, but can't understand government-funded or government-backed (loans) college initiatives do this on a grand scale, deflating the value, power, and, ultimately, salaries of the individual? Even when I explain the whole of the mechanism fully in ways people can understand, they eventually go, "Well, yeah, that makes sense; but it's still empowering to be able to get an education!" when they just agreed it's the best and most effective way to strip employee power and make them tradable, low-cost commodities.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    8. Re:Core subjetc my a$$.... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Just because someone attends 4 years of college, doesn't mean they learn anything.

      The practical effect is making liberal arts degrees even more worthless. It won't change a thing for programs with rigor. It isn't money that keeps 95% of students out of hard science/engineering, it is lack of intelligence and self discipline.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:Core subjetc my a$$.... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's not that. The standard argument is SELF-ACCESSIBLE college gives people the ability to get jobs by allowing them to, on their own, by their own assessment, using their own resources (time at least; money, if doing student loans instead of government-paid college), obtain a marketable job skill.

      In a market where students can reasonably self-propel (that is, where anyone not sufficiently rich can send themselves to college), the absolute best course of action for the individual is to go to college and get a degree. Further, the best course of action is to get the degree in whatever field appears to provide the best immediate employment opportunity. These are both direct manifestations of the Prisonner's Dilemma; the latter involves a massive amount of market analysis, much of which is blind and long, meaning a lot of uncontrollable risk.

      In such a market, students primarily face the risk of other students trying to enter the same market. Students cannot readily project how many jobs will be available in a field, how the field will grow, or how many other students will gain credentials for that field. Because *not* studying in that field provides even *worse* results, students must simply accept these risks. This creates floods of labor in the market, dynamically, driving down labor costs by creating high unemployment and a reduction of labor power, all through the simple mechanism of making skilled workers an over-supplied and readily-interchangeable commodity.

      Besides the bargaining power problem, I believe this is plainly inefficient as an overall market strategy. It's an expensive way to produce an effective workforce.

      In a non-intervention college market (where the government focuses on K-12, but not career education), the great majority of individuals cannot send themselves to college. Businesses, thus, suffer from a lack of required skilled labor. This sharply impacts each employer's ability to execute business strategies, placing them at sharp disadvantage to any other business which can effectively execute their own strategies. It's incredibly painful and destructive to business.

      In such a market, the best action for any business is to hire entry-level employees and train them. Entrants can, almost immediately, take over low-skill, time-intensive work. Even shit programmers can hunt down and identify bugs, clean up code, and so forth; these things take the most skilled programmers some time, sometimes even hours or days, and so letting your $40k worker grind it for a week or so instead of having your $100k senior software engineer spend five days trying to track it down is at least breaking even. Carpenters who can't make intricate carvings can at least build rough furniture; those who can't can plane floors; those whose skills are so poor can at least lay joists; and those who are too inexperienced and terrible to lay joists can, at least, spend the hours of the day cutting wedges and shims, tasks which are too time-consuming for an expensive artisan to waste his day on.

      Businesses in this context have stronger (still imperfect) insight into their individual needs, their market growth, their departmental expansion, and so forth. Often during times of expansion we approve budget 2-3 years in advance of hiring new accountants, programmers, sales people, digital artists, and master control engineers; during normal times, we approve budget 6-12 months in advance, when the need is recognized on the horizon. No student can so accurately and consistently project that there is a job somewhere out there waiting for him after college.

      This arrangement is undesirable to businesses, as it makes workers valuable (this is a lay-term, not an economics one; the term "value" must be ejected from economic theory, while the term "valuation" must remain for market economics). Valuable workers are problematic: you can't just fire them and hire another interchangeable part. Workers, in an economic sense, have an up-front cost and a continuous cost, which beco

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    10. Re:Core subjetc my a$$.... by ErichTheRed · · Score: 1

      Just because someone attends 4 years of college, doesn't mean they learn anything.
      I somewhat agree, and I agree with you that scholarships and loans can help someone who has talent but no money. The problem is early access to resources that would develop talented individuals. In other words, if you're smart but stuck in a crappy school, live in a bad neighborhood and have a bad home life, it's going to be significantly harder to get yourself to the point where you would even think about pushing yourself in the sciences.

      One thing that I don't agree with is completely dismissing the worth of a well rounded degree and the college experience. Some of the best system admins I've known aren't CS students who went to MIT -- they're linguistics majors, economics majors, etc. I studied chemistry in school for the simple reason that I wasn't as good at math as my engineering peers and didn't want to risk flunking out of an engineering or CS curriculum. It's extremely possible for people to waste 4+ years of their parents' money attending frat parties and come out with a generic business degree to show for it. But in my case and a lot of other peoples' cases, that time between school and the real world makes people more mature, teaches them to deal with others, deal with aspects of a messed up system, and other life skills. I went to a large state university and this goes double in that case -- there, you're a number and you have to work to keep up and seek out help/opportunities. I would think this would be even more applicable in the age of helicopter parenting -- taking someone who has had everything fixed for them and suddenly dumping them into an apprenticeship or OJT wouldn't be the right thing to do. Plus, even if you learn very little in your general education courses, you're -slightly- more rounded than someone who did an electrician apprenticeship, or an ITT Tech style degree. This makes you, IMO, a better conversation partner, student of the world, etc. Yes, some people get nothing out of it, but that doesn't mean no one does. The thing that sucks is the massive debt it puts some people in. If you make it into the Ivy League universities, you're set for life and even if you do run up a big bill, that alumni network just doesn't let people fail. But running up $150K+ for a small private college degree with no name recognition is not as sustainable as it once was.

    11. Re:Core subjetc my a$$.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IT changes rapidly because most of IT is centered around what tools you use. The tools change and the best tool for the job changes. CS has not changed since the 1960s. Almost all problems can be classified and solved using the same general theory that has been around for decades. People who don't see this don't understand CS, they regurgitate knowledge.

      That is not to say that some bottlenecks in processing haven't change. The best algorithm is constantly in flux to accommodate the state of technology, but the algorithms themselves are mostly untouched.

    12. Re:Core subjetc my a$$.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      these things take the most skilled programmers some time, sometimes even hours or days, and so letting your $40k worker grind it for a week or so instead of having your $100k senior software engineer spend five days trying to track it down is at least breaking even

      Except that's not how things tend to go in my experience. The lesser skilled takes several times longer and the resulting code is brittle, resulting in almost complete re-writes of code when a change is required, and once you have dependencies on such code, constantly accumulation of technical debt that snowballs. If I learned anything, it's that technical debt accumulates an exponential rates. You need to keep it in check at ALL times.

      Even worse is not only do "lesser" programmers not handle the working cases well, they handle failure cases much worse. It's the difference between "can't be fixed and give me a minute".

      Don't get me wrong, they're great for repetitive programming tasks where there are things that can't quite be automated, but not the best for new projects or any code that others will depend on. Some programmers sit in the middle between the two extremes, but not many. They're intelligent, but not creative. They can't preemptively think of the corner cases, but if you can easily discus the issues and they pretty much understand.

    13. Re:Core subjetc my a$$.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      everybody should have a basic understand of how computers work and how to use them. Know what a file is...

      Speaking as an EE who has been building computers since the 7th grade (out of discrete logic and registers), computers don't work that way.

    14. Re:Core subjetc my a$$.... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I bet p-chem was joy for your non-math self.

      Anyhow, linguistics majors are already ahead of 80% of the student population. Sure they were studying a useless subject, but they were studying.

      Compare to the Business/Psych/Sociology/Communications/* studies majors, who are there to party. They would have been much better served to party while working until they had grown up enough to get something out of college. By my estimation they make up 80% of graduating college students. More of incoming freshman. For them I disagree about 'well rounded'. School is just delaying the day they have to grow the fuck up. The first step to them being 'well rounded' is learning that money doesn't come from mom/dad/government.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    15. Re:Core subjetc my a$$.... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      There is no best course of action for everybody. Some people aren't cut out for school and should get on with getting a skill.

      Have you ever worked with a net negative worker? Someone who goes around creating 1.5 hours of cleanup for every hour they actually work?

      Hiring the 'Chinese army' is a terrible way to run a project.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    16. Re:Core subjetc my a$$.... by swillden · · Score: 1

      But I get the feeling what theses clowns are aiming to do is get people to learn basic coding in order to flood the market with code monkeys that know how to write an if-then-else statement in order to deflate CS salaries......Make it so that anybody with a high school diploma can apply for entry-level coding jobs.

      Right, because what Microsoft and Facebook are looking for is entry-level coders for jobs that don't require much more than an if-then-else statement. I suppose it's remotely possible that flooding the entry-level market could reduce pressure on the higher end, but I highly doubt that the effect would be noticeable. The skills gap is just too large and the productivity difference between the top and bottom ends too large.

      What's more likely is that they realize that good programmers are as much born as made, and that there is a percentage of the population who could be good but currently are never even exposed to it enough to find out how much they would like it. In other words, they aren't looking to pull in lots of little fish, they're looking to trawl a bigger part of the ocean for the big fish that they're trying to find.

      I suspect there's also an element of "mainstreaming" involved. The programming culture can be offputting to many people, so by making it more normal they hope to interest more of the potentially-great software engineers who currently look at the culture and stay far away. Like women.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    17. Re:Core subjetc my a$$.... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      There is no best course of action for everybody. Some people aren't cut out for school and should get on with getting a skill.

      You're assessing this in the wrong way.

      Every single potential student is better off WITH A DEGREE than WITHOUT A DEGREE. Creating a market where EVERYONE CAN AND IS EXPECTED TO GET A DEGREE means should 10x as many people be in a position to get a degree as available jobs will support, the best decision for every single one of them is to get a degree.

      If only as many students went for degrees as available jobs, you'd get the same amount of employment, but higher salaries, more worker power, and, of course, more time spent finding other jobs and employing your time (and money) in something profitable instead of wasteful college degrees in oversupplied labor markets; however, with everyone else going to get a degree independent of your better grasp of the situation as a student, your best option is to make the situation as a whole worse for you and all of your peers by getting a degree anyway.

      Have you ever worked with a net negative worker? Someone who goes around creating 1.5 hours of cleanup for every hour they actually work?

      You assume an entrant worker must be useless or outright toxic. The type of worker you describe is the type of worker whose work ethic is bad, not the type of worker whose experience and training is low. Good work-ethic employees consistently provide value, even when they're heavily engaged in on-the-job training; bad work-ethic employees constantly create costs, even when they're top-tier technical resources. This whole ideal of churning out endless cheap labor from college has produced a situation where hard work and dedication get you nowhere, and where such things are ignored in their value under the assumption that the well-trained "Chinese Army", as you put it, will automatically perform better--except the Chinese Army is better trained than your shitty American workers who, miraculously, do a better job anyway.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
  5. Why children should NOT be taught to code by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I had submitted this post about two weeks back, but it never made it to the front page. FTA:

    I've written about this at some length in my book Beyond Technology. The argument depends upon assumptions about learning transfer -- the idea that learning in one context will automatically transfer across to others. This is to conceive of the brain as a kind of muscle: a good workout in the coding gym will have payoffs when we need our logical thinking skills to solve problems elsewhere. Similar claims are often made for learning the game of chess, or Latin. Yet there is no convincing evidence that learning computer programming enables children to develop more general problem-solving skills, let alone that it will 'teach you how to think', as its advocates claim.

    While it seems intuitive that programming develops logical thinking, it may be the case that people who program already possessed that skill and programming merely reinforces it.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    1. Re:Why children should NOT be taught to code by sinij · · Score: 1

      ^^^ Mod this up please.

    2. Re:Why children should NOT be taught to code by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      While it seems intuitive that programming develops logical thinking, it may be the case that people who program already possessed that skill and programming merely reinforces it.

      Indeed. Additionally, we need to consider that the performance of a self-selecting group of students taking a course voluntarily may NOT necessarily reflect a general trend that would be applicable to ALL students when a course is required.

      In other words, even IF programming does help develop logical thinking in students who are interested in it, it does not necessarily follow that these performance gains would happen with all students.

      We need only look at the history of geometric proofs in high-school curricula to see the large-scale failure of another attempt to teach logical thinking indirectly in a high-school course. From the mid-1800s until the late 1900s, a full-year course in Euclidean geometry with emphasis on proofs was a standard part of most high-school curricula in the U.S. Yet a number of studies done in the past few decades have concluded that the logical skills actually developed in such courses were nearly non-existent outside a small group of students, most of whom probably already possessed significant logic and abstract thinking skills before taking the course. (Many studies concluded that the majority of students left such courses with little to no abilities to actually do mathematical proofs, and -- more disturbingly -- they also left the courses with profound misunderstandings about the nature of logic.)

      I'm NOT saying that teaching logical thinking is hopeless, but it requires a combination of a good teacher and good student engagement, as well as a curriculum that is not "dumbed down" to accommodate "the lowest common denominator" of student. (This was a problem that many critics raised about geometrical proofs -- that they were taught in a way to make them "accessible" to everyone, but in the process they were dumbed down to a point that they no longer taught critical thinking very well. And the exercises were boring to those students who actually had an aptitude for such things.)

      In sum, even if the measured skills show real improvements (not just selecting students already good at these things), it may be quite difficult to extend such improvements to uninterested students required to take a course, or to all students of all ability levels. We have loads of data on such attempts to teach abstract thought from math curricula reform over the past century or so... it rarely works as intended.

    3. Re:Why children should NOT be taught to code by jader3rd · · Score: 1

      I wasn't taught programming in school, and really wish that I had been. I want to my children to learn programming. Hopefully the policies of not teaching students can be a policy of the past and we can make the policy of the future to be to teach kids new and interesting subjects.

    4. Re:Why children should NOT be taught to code by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I am with you here: You can improve logical thinking with coding (and with many other activities), but you need to have significant ability in the first place for that to work. Most programmers do not use logic to create their code, they use imitation. Consequentially, they do not have much of a clue what their code actually does besides the one main obvious function. That is why so much code is so unreliable and so insecure. That is also why most people will not benefit from learning basic coding skills and will never advance beyond those basic skills. Coding is hardcore engineering and doing it well requires significant talent in addition to training and experience. Without that talent, your chances of ever becoming good at it are non-existent.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:Why children should NOT be taught to code by gweihir · · Score: 1

      While I have to say I really loved the geometric proofs (we had them here when I went to school), I am not sure there was a single other pupil that did more than learning them by heart or ignoring them. They are excellent for the few that understand the ideas behind them, but a complete waste and an unnecessary burden for the others.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re:Why children should NOT be taught to code by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      That is also why most people will not benefit from learning basic coding skills and will never advance beyond those basic skills. Coding is hardcore engineering and doing it well requires significant talent in addition to training and experience. Without that talent, your chances of ever becoming good at it are non-existent.

      As an adjunct at a couple of colleges, in my mind the true value in having courses like this being taught in grades 9-12 would be to steer some students away from taking programming courses in college when they're not sure what they want to study. I'm not trying to be elitist either. I have taught many students who really weren't very interested in learning how to program, but were wedged into comp-sci because "that's where all the jobs are". I'd rather have them avoid this pitfall rather than when they're taking their 3rd or 4th programming course and deciding "I don't get this, it isn't for me."

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    7. Re:Why children should NOT be taught to code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never took a programming class in my life, yet have (successfully) held about a half dozen senior software jobs. Two of the top three engineers I've worked with had degrees in language instead of anything STEM related.

      It all comes down to what motivates a person. No amount of money will motivate someone to work as hard on a problem as someone genuinely interested in it and who works on it with no external motivation.

    8. Re:Why children should NOT be taught to code by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Now _that_ is the first sensible argument for trying to teach coding to everybody that I have heard. I am all for that. But, of course, it should not be a full-blown core subject for this, just a sort-of mandatory side-course.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    9. Re:Why children should NOT be taught to code by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      That's the argument for teaching the first course in COBOL. Strictly as a weed out.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    10. Re:Why children should NOT be taught to code by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      While it seems intuitive that programming develops logical thinking, it may be the case that people who program already possessed that skill and programming merely reinforces it.

      If it seems intuitive that programming develops logical thinking, you're holding it wrong.

      The imperative-procedural paradigm that virtually all mainstream programming is based on hides logic behind a slavish step-by-step drudge. You can't see the program (woods) for the code (trees). This is why you have to have a particularly strong grasp of logical thought before you go into computing -- it's a huge strain keeping the bigger picture in mind while fighting over the minutiae.

      Last year I switched a project I was working on from Python to Prolog. People still think I'm mad because it's so much slower in operation, but coding up a component takes hours instead of days because I only have to think about the logic. This is the prototype, and I'm perfectly happy to optimise late, because that way I don't paint myself into a corner.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    11. Re:Why children should NOT be taught to code by gweihir · · Score: 1

      What, you want to discourage anybody with real talent to go into coding or CompSci? While I admire your ingenuity, I do not quite understand what your end-game here is. Accelerated collapse of industrial society?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    12. Re:Why children should NOT be taught to code by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      If you don't love programming COBOL will drive you out. But it's no worse than the project planning of the average PHB or the average codebase in service.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    13. Re:Why children should NOT be taught to code by gweihir · · Score: 1

      And what about those that do not love coding yet, because they do not know it yet? Which these days will be the majority of the talented?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    14. Re:Why children should NOT be taught to code by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      These days people have far less excuse for not learning a couple of programming languages in middle school then going from there. I had to wash dishes for a summer to pay for my first 'microcomputer'. These days you get better ones in cereal boxes.

      I've never met a 'talented programmer' born after 1960 who learned to code in school. Not one.

      They did pay attention in school and learn to code to standards, but already knew how to code. Coding just comes natural to some of us.

      'What programming languages did you know when you started your professional education?' is one of my goto interview questions for the degreed. For the no-degree type I just find out if they can code worth shit.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    15. Re:Why children should NOT be taught to code by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Hmm. Difficult question. I learned PASCAL in school (and knew BASIC and some assembler before), but it was taught by an enthusiast teacher and we were all there in our spare time, no grades or anything. And I self-learned C from a book not long after, because PASCAL back then was limited to 64k data and I needed more.

      Still, I do not think COBOL is a good idea. A combination of PYTHON and C may serve the same goal (just require real understanding for most of what is taught), without putting off the ones with the talent to learn.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    16. Re:Why children should NOT be taught to code by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      People that already know how to code test out of COBOL. The syntax is butt simple and being an introductory course the coding is also simple.

      It's directed at the students that use salary surveys to pick majors. We are doing them a favor by showing them the worst CS environment early.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    17. Re:Why children should NOT be taught to code by gweihir · · Score: 1

      With that student group as target, I agree to your reasoning.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  6. the DRESS may be casual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..... but the work is serious!

  7. For those that have not noticed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks to the government and the corporations they consistently blow, there is not a single trade under goods green earth that they don't try and drive down the wages of. There is nothing you can do en mass that won't raise the eyebrow of the beancounters that seem to float in an out of industry and government that won't exploit immigration, education, or lowering the bar for entrance so as to drive down wages.

    I am all for education to elevate the individual not flood industry with more trained monkeys.

  8. Teaching logic seems more useful. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see the value in specializing every student across the country to be a coder. It makes much more sense to train logic and problem solving as part of primary curriculum. I would offer some kind of intro to programming/C/Python/Pearl as an elective and maybe only in a magnet school.

    1. Re:Teaching logic seems more useful. by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I would offer some kind of intro to programming/C/Python/Pearl as an elective and maybe only in a magnet school.

      All students need exposure to a good introduction to computer course, as computers are everywhere these days. Why should only the so called gifted have access to computers and not everyone else?

    2. Re:Teaching logic seems more useful. by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Using computers and building and programming computers are two very different beasts.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:Teaching logic seems more useful. by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I worked the help desk at Google in 2008. A newly hired software engineer from Stanford called to complain that his computer had no power. I asked if he pressed the power button. He was shocked — SHOCKED! — that he had to turn on his own computer. And, surprisingly enough, his computer came to life after he pressed the power button.

    4. Re:Teaching logic seems more useful. by gweihir · · Score: 1

      And how is that relevant?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:Teaching logic seems more useful. by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I'm always surprised by how many software engineers know how a computer operates in theory but are clueless when operating a computer outside of the classroom. As you pointed out earlier, operating and programming a computer are different beasts.

  9. Disappointing by Sumus+Semper+Una · · Score: 1

    Anyone else read this and feel slightly disappointed that someone saying "hey, wait, don't take that study we did out of context and start implying causalities" is considered news instead of the norm?

  10. Not so really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is, and I think CollegeBoard is saying this, that anyone who has the ability to take AP CS and then take the test should already have significantly developed reading, comprehension, and logical thinking skills

    As someone who returned to a community college in 2009, I was surrounded by kids who had the whole litany of AP classes. Many of them were bragging about their 5.0 GPA in HS. However, a LOT of them had very poor spelling, reading and grammar skills. AP classes are good in theory but I think the implementation is key, and they're not automatically the golden ticket.

    1. Re:Not so really by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      However, a LOT of them had very poor spelling, reading and grammar skills.

      This is why they're going to a community college and not a university. Community colleges do a better job at remedial education for both high school graduates and dropouts. Most universities avoid remedial education like the plague.

    2. Re:Not so really by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      As someone who returned to a community college in 2009, I was surrounded by kids who had the whole litany of AP classes. Many of them were bragging about their 5.0 GPA in HS. However, a LOT of them had very poor spelling, reading and grammar skills.

      These things do not add up. First of all, considering only AP classes get the added 1 weight it is impossible for anyone to get a 5.0. I went to school with several people who aced the math portion of the SAT, one person who taught himself Chinese, and many other very smart individuals: none of them ever got a perfect score in every AP class nor did any of them go to community college-but plenty went to Ivy League schools, top research/engineering schools, we even had one guy go to Juilliard for violin (and who is also now a cop out in Aspen, CO, which shows the prospects for classically trained musicians in the US). And given the amount of writing necessary in many AP courses (especially History and Language/Literature) it is highly doubtful that someone could get a 5.0 in any of those classes with deficiencies in spelling, reading, or grammar. Either you or your classmates are lying their asses off.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:Not so really by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Most universities have more than 50% of their freshman taking some sort of remedial coursework.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:Not so really by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      +1 for honors, +2 for AP is common.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:Not so really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And for good reason. Take remedial algebra for instance. In high school, you have Algebra I, II, and for the college bound, hopefully III that meet either 90 days for 90 minutes/day or 180 days for 45-50 minutes/day for a total of 135-150 hours. For college remedial classes, that same material is presented in a 3 credit hour class for 14 weeks giving a grand total of 35 hours of contact time. How successful will this be? Well at my last school, we had something like an 8% success rate at getting someone who started in any of the remedial algebra classes to make it to and through calculus (math had been identified as the barrier to those wanting to become engineering majors). The pacing just doesn't work for students who struggled with the high school pacing. Now for those who could have succeeded, but were unmotivated, it is possible, but not for those who tried and failed the first time around.

    6. Re:Not so really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This, and in the GPA rat race, I've known several who opted to take required non-Honors/AP courses during summer school where courses don't count toward GPA.

  11. Mathematics before computer programming... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Although I cut my teeth on Commodore 64 BASIC and 6502 assembly language for eight years as a kid, I wasn't a good programmer and took only the required Introduction to Computers course in college. Surprisingly, I got an A in that class and every guidance counselor since that class insisted that I study computers. I took a lot of English lit and mathematics instead.

    Through a twist of fate, I got a six-month internship in black box software testing and enjoyed the work. Became a video game tester and lead tester for six years after that. I went back to school to learn computer programming after the dot com bust. I made the president's list for maintaining a 4.0 GPA in my major upon graduation.

    Although learning computers is important, the literature and mathematics courses provided a solid foundation for learning multiple computer languages and solving problems. Going back to school as an adult also made a huge difference.

  12. AP CS students already have advantages by ErichTheRed · · Score: 2

    I'm glad the College Board is showing a little academic objectivity here, considering the fact that they have the potential to make lots of money off AP exams, increased SAT usage if more students are herded into college, etc. There are several things that AP CS students most likely have going for them that explain any causation:
    - They're probably at least halfway decent at math and science courses already, or they wouldn't be on the AP track.
    - They go to a good high school, as lousy high schools have lower AP course attendance / exam administration levels.
    - They probably have semi-involved parents, or at the very least aren't having insurmountable home front problems preventing them from benefiting fully from school.

    On top of that, I'm not sure it's a good idea to force every reasonably logic-minded student to be a "coder." I'm not a coder, I work in IT and use my problem solving/troubleshooting skills to fix things. Yes, I write scripts and automation tools, but it's certainly not Internet-facing stuff. Other people with the gift for logic would make good doctors, traditional engineers (civil, chemical, etc.) or dare I say it, lawyers. Even in a severely changed employment world, I don't see millions of people clustered around cafeteria tables in hipster San Francisco office lofts coding up the next Tinder or Uber. In fact, I'm amazed about how much this latest tech boom is like the dotcom boom...people are running around saying "this time it's different," companies are IPOing with valuations based on the modern equivalent of eyeballs, and no one apparently learned anything from the last boom. There was an article on here last week about how CS enrollment has hit its pre-dotcom crash peak again...hang on tight folks!

    I think that if we turn out a whole generation of Java coders who know little about actual computer science, which seems to be the majority now, it'll be the equivalent of the Soviet Union or China trying to rapidly industrialize without having the necessary skills in place. In those cases, it worked but there was a significant skill mismatch, famines, etc. The only reason it worked was because it was forced. I doubt every single smart, talented person in the US is going to want to sit cranking out JavaScript, Ruby or PHP code all day for some phone app...it's just not a sustainable market, especially when wages are headed down and offshoring is constantly being used.

    1. Re:AP CS students already have advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I took AP CS in 1991-2. We did Turbo Pascal back then. I didn't take the AP exam, though I did take 6 others.
      It was a small class, maybe a dozen students. There was only one girl. She and I were the only ones who were taking any other AP classes.
      And I knew that some of those guys had zero parental support.
      I only know one of them who works in programming. He taught himself BASIC on his Atari 800XL in the 1980s. He used to be with Amazon, and now he's at Netflix. One guy works on an assembly line.
      I bet the guy who liked WA-TOR simulations is still in computers, but we aren't in touch.
      Me, I'm a government bureaucrat. Obviously none of these anecdata are statistically valid, but I didn't make them up.

  13. Not even the correct question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given today's educational environment in the U.S., Code.org should have been asking about the effect of substituting AP computer science for another course. Instead they seem to think that the curriculum fairies wave their magic wands and more time appears in the school day.

  14. More theodp diatribe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know theodp hates Code.org and thinks that highschool kids and H1B's are going to take his jerb, but this one takes the cake. Code.org asked the College Board to do a study and they returned the results of the study. If Code.org was so evil, they wouldn't have commissioned the study in the first place.

    #keepkidsignorant

  15. Define "CS" by bradgoodman · · Score: 1

    This irks me in general - but there is a difference between having a "Computer Class" in kindergarten and studying "Computer Science". The analogy is that when we sew, we use fabric, but there is a difference between a sewing class and a the study of "Material Science". Learning how to do math on a spreadsheet or report on a word processor is learning how to use and work with computers, but is different than teaching or learning "computer science" - just as learning how to drive is not learning "automotive engineering".

  16. Not Tested by SAT by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

    I would not expect computers and/or computer science to improve the performance of students in SAT Mathematics, AP Calculus, and AP Statistics.

    We use computers so we dont have to remember all that crap. The computer does the math.

    I would expect it to improve reading, reading comprehension, written language skills, and logical thinking. That is what the student is learning!

    Logical thinking in particular is the most likely area for improvement. It would also give good foundation skills for editing, but not good enough on their own.

    You might see an improvement on LSAT scores. The SAT just doesn't test that stuff well.

    Also, keep in mind that intro Comp Sci on its own is very hit-and-miss in college, and there's no reason it wouldn't be in high school.

  17. Basic stats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no story here, this is simply the media embracing correct wording from the statistician who performed this analysis and implying additional, unwarranted interpretation.

    This is purely an observational study, not an experimental one. Students weren't placed is AP CS courses randomly to see if it would benefit their performance. If so, that would have been an experimental study and causality could be inferred.

    Instead, they could only analyze the results from student who had somehow already made their way into an AP CS course. Nomatter how you slice the data, no one could draw statistical causality from that data.

  18. CS should not be a core subject by prgrmr · · Score: 2

    CS, much like blacksmithing, is a combination of art and science; as such, while anyone can learn the basics, only a minority of people are ever going to be good at it--let alone understand it enough to be good at it from the start. To put it another way, anyone can learn to play a musical instrument, but only a minority of people can be described as being musicians. There are many CS jobs that work this way, programming, database admin, and system and network administration being the obvious examples.

    CS courses in elementary and even in middle school are generally a waste of time. The amount of accretive knowledge to be gained at that early an age isn't going to put any student so far along the learning curve that doing it all again in high school would be so repetitive as to be a waste of time. So just do it at the high school level, when kids are actually at the point of making career choices and the corresponding college selections to follow those choices. And don't make every kid take the CS course, when it's obvious far from every kids will be pursuing a CS-type career.

  19. thinking CS classes will create smarter people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is like thinking that watching Baywatch grows bigger boobs.

  20. gwiehir's all talk & a trolling little punk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    APK

    P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk

  21. gweihir, you're a big talking bullshitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    "I learned PASCAL in school (and knew BASIC and some assembler before), but it was taught by an enthusiast teacher and we were all there in our spare time, no grades or anything. And I self-learned C from a book not long after, because PASCAL back then was limited to 64k data and I needed more. Still, I do not think COBOL is a good idea. A combination of PYTHON and C may serve the same goal (just require real understanding for most of what is taught), without putting off the ones with the talent to learn." - by gweihir (88907) on Tuesday August 04, 2015 @02:07PM (#50250329)

    Bwaaaahahaha - You're FULL of it!

    After ALL that bullshit, you're trying to tell us "what you know", when you've proved you're ALL TALK & NO ACTION or accomplishments (or programs you can show you've done), you stupid little bullshit artist TROLL scumbag weasel?

    (You've shown myself, & anyone else reading here, YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT...)

    APK

    P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk

  22. gweihir obviously doesn't know coding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    * See subject & gweihir the blowhard's post - he SURE "talks a game" of it though - especially since he had to "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. the above COMPLETELY fair challenge I put to him in that link above... lol!

    APK

    P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk

  23. This is VERY relevant gweihir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    * See my subject above? This all PROVES you're an all talk bullshit artist... fact!

    APK

    P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk

  24. gweihir you PROVED you can't code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    * You're all talk, mere bullshit - no REAL results we can see & use, asshole...

    APK

    P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk

  25. gweihir, don't talk about coding (you don't) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    * You are one of the BIGGEST BLOWHARD BULLSHITTERS I've ever seen - lots of talk, no action!

    APK

    P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk

  26. gweihir, don't ever talk coding either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    * See subject - YOU are NOT capable of it - period, & you PROVE it you trolling weasel bigmouth blowhard.

    APK

    P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk

  27. gweihir, why're you talking about coding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    * YOU are the BIGGEST FUCKING BLOWHARD TROLLING WEASER it's been my displeasure to utterly SPANK & EXPOSE as the no-mind do nothing ZERO you are, right in that link above, scumbag.

    YOU CLEARLY EVIDENCE YOU'RE INCAPABLE OF PRODUCING A PROGRAM, let alone one better than mine for the same purpose...

    APK

    P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk

  28. gweihir, teach yourself to code 1st, ok? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    * See subject above: You talk a lot but have ZERO to show for it in coding, stupid... that makes YOU a mere blowhard bullshitter.

    APK

    P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk

  29. gweihir, I doubt you do any of them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    * I find it UTTERLY HILARIOUS seeing a bullshit artist mere talk TROLLING done zero loser like you has the NERVE to state what you did - especially after you RAN in that link above, gweihir... lol!

    APK

    P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk

  30. gweihir certainly talks a lot & can't code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    * I find it UTTERLY HILARIOUS seeing a bullshit artist mere talk TROLLING done zero loser like you has the NERVE to state what you did - especially after you RAN in that link above, gweihir... lol!

    APK

    P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk

  31. Gweihir on coding? LMAO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    * I find it UTTERLY HILARIOUS seeing a bullshit artist mere talk TROLLING done zero loser like you has the NERVE to state what you did - especially after you RAN in that link above, gweihir... lol!

    (You don't HAVE the ability to code & the link above evidences it - you're a bullshit blowhard, nothing more...)

    APK

    P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk

  32. gweihir you bs'er, you CAN'T CODE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    * I find it UTTERLY HILARIOUS seeing a bullshit artist mere talk TROLLING done zero loser like you has the NERVE to state what you did - especially after you RAN in that link above, gweihir... lol!

    (You don't HAVE the ability to code & the link above evidences it - you're a bullshit blowhard, nothing more...)

    APK

    P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk

  33. LMAO: gweihir, you're ALL talk, no action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    * I find it UTTERLY HILARIOUS seeing a bullshit artist mere talk TROLLING done zero loser like you has the NERVE to state what you did - especially after you RAN in that link above, gweihir... lol!

    (You don't HAVE the ability to code & the link above evidences it - you're a bullshit blowhard, nothing more...)

    APK

    P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk