Google: Poor Kids Might Grasp Macbeth If They Code Like Kids At $43K/Yr School

theodp writes: While the CollegeBoard warned against drawing a causal link between learning computer science and improved learning in other subjects, Google has no such qualms. "CS is much more than computer programming and coding," writes the Google for Education blog in a post announcing a new gateway for Google's CS education opportunities. "It's a gateway to creativity and innovation not just in technology but in fields as diverse as music, sports, the arts, and health." Among the technology showcased at the gateway is Pencil Code, a programming tool for beginning coders that Google boasts is already helping kids attending the $43K-a-year Beaver Country Day School to brush up their Shakespeare by having students create interactive chatbots that play the part of characters like Lady Macbeth. "After completing this code I knew more and understood more of the play," begins one student's featured testimonial. "It allowed me to interpret Macbeth in a new way that I had never thought of before. I really enjoyed using Pencil Code because it made coding simpler for me and helped me try something new." Elsewhere on its CS gateway, Google laments that a new Google-Gallup Research Study shows that 'Blacks and low-income are less likely to have access' to such computer science opportunities.

Comments

Re:WRONG!

[Crashmarik]

I'd put any form of sociology or psychology down as being considerably less scientific. To be completely fair software engineering is undoubtedly the least scientific of the engineering disciplines but seems to generate the greatest amount of dunning kreuger with regard to perceived competence in the sciences.

Underestimating

[jblues]

I often find myself under-estimating children's abilities. In this case TFA child's programming, empathy and literature skills are impressive, but their ability to speak such fluent 'customer testimonial' at a young age is simply astounding.

Re:Underestimating

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, learning such a testimonial by heart is certainly less work than learning the part of Lady MacBeth for a class play, and the language is more akin to the sentence fragments school kids communicate with these days than Early Modern English, too.

At any rate: stereotypical behavior patterns/roles are only remotely connected to stereotypical speech patterns, so I don't really see how chat bots play into understanding MacBeth.

To me that seems like a lot of hogwash intended to impress computer illiterate people in order to make them less adverse to computer fadism in education.

Re:Underestimating

[jblues]

Er, exactly. I was making a joke (maybe not actually funny) about how the testimonial sounded a lot like recited performance and not an improvisation.

Re:Underestimating

[oh_my_080980980]

LMOL priceless....

If I spent 43k/year on a kids education

[Crashmarik]

I'd expect a simply better educational experience all around code or no code.

Coding or merely time with Macbeth?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't doubt that learning to code can train a child to think logically and be creative, but I would put the increase of knowledge of the play down to merely spending more time with the play, rather than coding itself. The conclusion of the study seems to be very self-serving.

Re:Coding or merely time with Macbeth?

[thinkwaitfast]

This was my thought as well. I remember hating Heart of Darkness freshman year of high school. It was the most difficult and boring book I'd ever read (mostly things like LotR or Gödel, Escher, Bach up until this point) and made no sense. I had to write a five page paper on it, so went to the library and read some books about it. Anyway, after studying the book as opposed to reading it for entertainment value, the re-reading the book and watching Apocalypse Now, it became one of my favorites.

Re: Coding or merely time with Macbeth?

[GrantRobertson]

Agreed. The fact that they had to cite such an obviously flawed anecdotal example indicates to me that they have no real evidence to offer. It also gives me reason to doubt their motives. Learning to code does have obvious advantages in logical thinking, which people today could definitely stand more of. But the coding skills don't, in and of themselves, increase ability to learn or understand the humanities any more than writing skills do. It is only the fact that most writing assignments require students to write ABOUT the humanities that learning writing increases "ability to learn" about the humanities. If all writing assignments were about computer games, then the students would learn about computer games instead of the humanities. (Disregarding the fact that computer games will one day be considered a form of literature and the study of their literary and sociological impact will fall under the humanities.)

So I, too, believe there are profit motives in all of this push for more CS in the classroom. The corporations pushing this agenda may think it will create an army of cheap programmers. But did shop class (which we also need more of) create an army of cheap plummers? Instead, as another /.er has mentioned, it will only show that, even with training, there are only a certain proportion of people who will have the innate abilities and deep interest to become truly good (not even necessarily great) programmers. So let Google, et al create their education programs. It can only have the positive effect of exposing more girls and minorities to programming, thus bringing diversity to an industry that desperately needs it.

However, it is the second profit motive that has me concerned. Creating educational material and selling it to the states is a total cash cow for the educational content industry. The amount of money school districts funnel to these corporations for mediocre and unnecessary materials (in addition to textbooks) is staggering (sorry, I have no citations). If Google, et al, are trying to siphon even more of that money away from teacher's salaries and into their corporate pockets, then we have to fight against that. It is entirely possible to croudsource good educational content and provide it for free to everyone.

Free content and more money to pay teacher's qualified to teach CS, will get us all the good things Google, et al, claim we can get from teaching more CS in schools while eliminating or naturally avoiding all the bad things many /.ers are wailing about.

Re:Coding or merely time with Macbeth?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't doubt that learning to code can train a child to think logically and be creative, but I would put the increase of knowledge of the play down to merely spending more time with the play, rather than coding itself. The conclusion of the study seems to be very self-serving.

The aptitude to solve problems using a programming language derives from fundamental mathematical skills not the other way. Computer programming can be reduced to applied mathematics. Having children "create" the next Angry Birds does not teach them the broader more important skills required. Besides the causal link between music and mathematics has been established; children involved in learning a musical instrument tend to perform better in mathematics, while children who excel at mathematics might not always perform well in terms of learning to play of musical instrument.

Consider the number of students not participating in sports due to the "win is the only option" attitude of coaches and parents. The only sports that I enjoyed were self-organized with other kids and played for fun. Remember getting a group of friends together to play baseball on a summer evening? Remember how much fun everyone had and the laughter even when your team scored fewer home runs?

The entire drive to have children from kindergarten to high school engaged in computer programming has one goal. Reduce software development to a blue collar trade for 99% of those pursuing a career in software development. The doctorate holders will be the only people involved in software development earning a living wage above subsistence.

Re:Coding or merely time with Macbeth?

[adhdengineer]

The aptitude to solve problems using a programming language derives from fundamental mathematical skills not the other way. Computer programming can be reduced to applied mathematics. Having children "create" the next Angry Birds does not teach them the broader more important skills required. Besides the causal link between music and mathematics has been established; children involved in learning a musical instrument tend to perform better in mathematics, while children who excel at mathematics might not always perform well in terms of learning to play of musical instrument.

I fundamentally disagree. The aptitude to solve problems using a programming language derives from logic, not maths. There is a great deal of overlap in core skills used for maths and core skills used for programming however. For example breaking the task down into the smallest parts. This is common to maths as well as programming but it cannot be said to be a mathematical skill.

Correlation != Cause

[msobkow]

All of these articles about CS lately confuse correlation with cause.

The simple fact of the matter is that kids who enjoy the "challenge" of programming are more likely to be logical, analytical thinkers than their peers, and are therefore likely to do better at all subjects that require those skills. Taking a CS course is not "causing" them to be better at those other subjects -- their ability is innate.

Forcing someone to take a class they neither enjoy nor are good at is not going to magically make them better students. It will expand their experience with different subjects, but it's not going to make them good at it.

Re:Correlation != Cause

[AmiMoJo]

All of these complaints about children needing to have an existing aptitude or interest in CS and logic confuse children for adults.

An interest in CS and logical thinking are not things children are born with, like blue eyes or blond hair. They are things that are learned and discovered during their childhoods. One of the reasons we "force" children to do activities at school that they have no previously shown any interest in is so that they can experience them and learn about them.

While a small number may experience programming outside of school, most probably won't. Doesn't meant they are not interested, just means they don't know if they will be interested yet. Also, even if they don't enjoy it at first, they may come to in time. Children grow up fast, they change fast, and often they need to have a basic understanding of something before they can really start to enjoy it. I hated reading books when I was 5, but loved reading then at age 10.

The idea that some people are just born programmers and some are not is ridiculous. Most of us learn to read and do basic maths, and we don't assume that the majority of people are just are not cut out for reading or asthmatic.

Re:Correlation != Cause

[msobkow]

That is just liberal hogwash. Some people are better at some things than others, and no amount of forced classes or training is going to make them any better at it.

Re:Correlation != Cause

[azcoyote]

Well said.

Re:Correlation != Cause

[gstoddart]

You know, a good quality education, and engaged parents can probably go a long way to fostering both ability and aptitude.

From what I can see, kids are like sponges. All things being equal, give them opportunities and teach them, and they'll just get better.

But pretending like CS is some mag bullet which makes all kids smarter and excel at all things is just plain fantasy.

The one and only time in school I was sufficiently afraid of failing an exam than I intended to cheat, I spent a bunch of hours reviewing it, summarizing it, making tiny little notes I could use for cheating ... and found myself in the class realizing that, quite shockingly, I understood the material.

I don't think it's the magic of creating a chatbot which made these kids understand Macbeth. I think it's the fact that they spent time studying and interacting with it on a level other than simply reading through the play.

I'm all for giving kids access to computers and encouraging them. But I think it's a complete crock to claim that the act of learning to code improved their understanding of Macbeth. The act of studying Macbeth in a personal way improved their understanding of Macbeth.

Re:Correlation != Cause

[William Baric]

So what you're saying is training is useless? Don't get me wrong, the person you replied to is denying reality, we all have different natural abilities, some people are naturally a lot better than others, but training pretty much do make everyone better.

Re:Correlation != Cause

[bluefoxlucid]

The simple fact of the matter, as you say, is everyone making blunt, complex observations. The results are all inefficient: teach people to code and hope the exercise forces them to magic up how to "think logically". Throw kids into $43k/year schools, when the worst performing schools consume $20k+ per student-year, and the best performing schools moderately cluster around the lowest cost (8 of the top 10 school districts consume under $9k/year, and two are the lowest-funded school districts in the country; one of the best is also like the third highest-funded school system in the country, and one of the worst ones is one of the lowest funded districts in the country). Excessive time, effort, and money all around to achieve simple results.

Poor kids come from an environment which doesn't train executive function as well as middle-class environments; I am a strong proponent of early-life executive function training because EF training *is* a silver bullet for a lot of things. Cognitive Therapy for depression is EF training (the therapist also attempts to identify and specifically draw your attention to your own distorted thinking), and 4 months of CT remains twice as effective at the 24 month mark as 24 months of continuous drug therapy in treating severe depression. EF training of people with ADHD minimizes the effect of ADHD, and synergizes well with drug therapy (and allows you to lower the dose). EF training in adults makes them markedly more capable of accomplishing any and all tasks. EF training in children not only dramatically improves their academic performance, but also reduces the impact of ADHD and depression, as well as improving risk behavior--they take more controlled risks, but control risks better--thus has a high probability of reducing both teen suicide and teen social problems (gangs, teen pregnancy, etc.), an impact I'd love to see some real studies on.

People talk about how programming teaches "logical thinking"--a term they use to simultaneously mean "problem solving" and "undistorted thinking"--and yet we can easily train these things directly. Learning to use your response-inhibition system properly is like learning to walk: it's the single skill that allows your brain to run, jump, play sports, and engage in martial combat. Nobody bothers using the broad body of literature and research into executive function training to develop first-graders in public school systems so they can use that prefrontal cortex of theirs, instead of going directly and exclusively for whatever most captures their interest at any given time. They're all daft.

Re:Correlation != Cause

[bluefoxlucid]

Not true at all, according to scientific understanding of the development of expertise. "Talent" is a myth.

Re:Correlation != Cause

[bluefoxlucid]

You know, a good quality education, and engaged parents can probably go a long way

Your parents should be married...

Re:Correlation != Cause

[oh_my_080980980]

So you're saying people can't learn. Got it.

Re:Correlation != Cause

[oh_my_080980980]

No, what you are spouting is bullshit which isn't back by any shred of research. Move along Zippy.

Re:Correlation != Cause

[Hognoxious]

I don't think it's the magic of creating a chatbot which made these kids understand Macbeth. I think it's the fact that they spent time studying and interacting with it on a level other than simply reading through the play.

Exactly. Doing something active with the material helps it to stick. Translating it into a foreign language (or rewriting it in modern English), performing it, or making a cartoon strip of it would have had a similar effect. Even reading it out loud would be better than nothing.

Re:Correlation != Cause

[phantomfive]

Here is the relevant scientific paper.

Re:Correlation != Cause

[msobkow]

If education could magically impart an IQ of 120 on someone with an IQ of 75, do you think we'd have people like you in this world?

Re:Correlation != Cause

[bluefoxlucid]

Your argument is the complement to the argument that a poor education can't produce a poor student.

General education can't, categorically, impart an IQ of 120 because we would simply settle that level of intelligence as an IQ of 100; however, yes, it turns out that adjusting our education system can provide for running poor, black, inner-city ghetto kids through a low-cost school system and getting out people who are competent engineers and capable of passing into MENSA by current standards.

Re:Correlation != Cause

[AmiMoJo]

Of course, but you completely missed the points. People need to experience things before they know if they will like them, and almost everyone, save those with developmental disabilities, can achieve a certain minimum level if given the opportunity. Like most people can read and do basic arithmetic, I'm certain most people could learn the basics of coding. It might even help them think logically about other problems.

Re:Correlation != Cause

[msobkow]

I'm not arguing that improvements to education wouldn't produce better and more knowledgeable students. Far from it.

What I am arguing is that some people are innately better at certain things than others, and that no amount of education will correct for that. Some people are "smart", others are gifted in art or music, others are athletically inclined. Without the differences between us, the world would be monotone.

But there are differences between people, and no amount of education or practice will magically "correct" those differences to the degree that you seem to be arguing.

Re:Correlation != Cause

[parkinglot777]

The idea that some people are just born programmers and some are not is ridiculous...

That is just liberal hogwash. Some people are better at some things than others, and no amount of forced classes or training is going to make them any better at it.

True and false. I just don't understand whenever we talk about learning, why do people look at it as black and white. In other words, why do they look at learning as CAN or CANNOT.

Every single person has CAPABILITY, which is the limitation of learning, and LEARNING SPEED; however, EACH person could easily have different level of capability & learning speed. Not everyone can learn the same thing and achieve the same level of knowledge.

If we look at learning this way, we will UNDERSTAND that both quotes above (from GP & OP) are WRONG. Some people are born programmers because they have capability to be (and could have higher capability than average). Also some people cannot learn fast, so there is a certain amount of classes or training that those people need in order to achieve the required level.

Re:Correlation != Cause

[wyattstorch516]

Training isn't useless, forced training is. Making kids take programming classes is about as useful as forcing them to take Art appreciation or classical music training.

Re:Correlation != Cause

[bluefoxlucid]

What I am arguing is that some people are innately better at certain things than others, and that no amount of education will correct for that. Some people are "smart", others are gifted in art or music, others are athletically inclined.

Science suggests this is about as real a phenomena as Santa Clause, save for people having variation on how well they develop physical stamina or strength. Artists, musicians, and engineers aren't born; they're made; athletes *are* born--they're made, sure, but you actually have to start with the right stuff to work from, and not everyone has that. Everyone can learn and apply the same training methods and the same expertise in the play of various sports exactly as well as anyone else, but some people simply won't build muscle in the same way.

there are differences between people, and no amount of education or practice will magically "correct" those differences to the degree that you seem to be arguing.

The difference between you and I is I take in new information and assess it by using existing information as support; you take in new information and assault it by using existing information as a measure. As a result, when I encounter conflicts, I work out why they occur, and determine if this new information is correct or if the old information is correct, or if I've made a misassessment somewhere about the implications of any information I have; you have an emotional reaction to information that conflicts with what you already know, and so don't think too hard about it.

In my case, I've suppressed the emotional reaction--triggered inside the basal ganglia under these conditions, causing activation of the amygdala and deactivation of the prefrontal cortex--and taken a systematic approach of naive assessment: I approach new information as a naive, uneducated individual who happens to have a massive library at hand to research into these new facts. It's a skill you can learn as well: my brain is physically wired the same as yours, and I'm just leveraging the response-inhibition system.

Hawking, Einstein, and Steve Jobs do the same, to some degree. Everyone whose success has ever been found to be built on their willingness to listen and carefully assess new information, to recognize when the situation has changed--including when people have learned new things about old concepts--has developed this method of thinking. Those who do the greatest things, who appear as geniuses in the entire, are applying trained executive functions which any human can develop readily (with effort, just as you can develop your muscles with effort--regardless of whether you're genetically an athlete or not, building your muscles is going to be both painful and annoying).

Unlike physical training, the mind does not carry inherent variations in capability--so much so that normal individuals can fully emulate abnormal individuals, producing within themselves synesthesia and various defective modes of thinking by training themselves, although some individuals are obviously damaged. The debate over talent--what's left of it--is almost entirely over whether the mind carries inherent variations in expression, or if that's just a matter of environment during early childhood. In other words: scientists mostly are uncertain if a person starts at 60% or 40% of capability because of genetics or environment, but they're almost certain every person is 100% capable of exactly the talents and skills and intellect of the most skilled and intelligent people who have ever lived, if only they would train their minds.

Re:This is just propaganda to get cheaper labour

[gAdrev]

Exactly. Every time I see some article like "Why You Should Teach Your Kids How To Code" or "How Can Coding Can Make the World a Better Place", you can always find some executive that all really wants is more, MORE cheap labor, higher margins, whatever that costs the profession. Seriously, fuck the "why everyone can code -- and should!" initiatives.

Macbeth

[RogueyWon]

We covered Macbeth at school when I was 14. I don't think I was particularly disadvantaged by covering it the old fashioned way; with a decent teacher who helped us over some of the linguistic bumps, covered key themes and character arcs and had us do rough-and-ready re-enactments of a few of the scenes to understand both the "flow" of Shakespeare's language and the pace and tone of the play. I struggle to understand how technology would have helped much above and beyond that.

We've had a flood of articles on the issue of "does learning to code make you better at learning other stuff" recently. I can't help but feel that the question itself isn't quite the right one (and that the wrong question might be getting a deliberate push by commercial interests).

If there is evidence to suggest that learning to code produces wider educational benefits, then I suspect that it is because coding is something that needs to be taught in a structured manner, with strong logical underpinnings. This is something that is missing from many subjects on the modern curriculum. Even mathematics is usually taught by rote these days, with students simply learning how to plug numbers into a formula in a mechanical manner.

Having recruited and managed a number of school and college leavers over the years, I've noticed that those whose education has included subjects with strong structural and logical underpinnings often tend to be more adaptable and faster to learn in the workplace. That can mean computer science and it can mean mathematics, but it's not limited to them. Ancient and non-Indo-European languages can be particularly good, as learning these requires engagement with the logical underpinnings of "how a language works". French/Spanish/German etc, unfortunately often tend to be taught using a "phrasebook" approach that might result in a faster route to a passable fluency (provided the conversation remains within comfortable bounds), but doesn't bring the same wider benefits.

Re:Macbeth

[Barbecue911]

Ancient and non-Indo-European languages can be particularly good, as learning these requires engagement with the logical underpinnings of "how a language works". French/Spanish/German etc, unfortunately often tend to be taught using a "phrasebook" approach that might result in a faster route to a passable fluency (provided the conversation remains within comfortable bounds), but doesn't bring the same wider benefits.

Except for the basic grammar, logical is one of the last things I'd use to describe a natural language. Computer languages more in common with math than with natural languages. So trying to understand Macbeth with computer science is like finding out the magic formula for a Hollywood blockbuster. You know Hollywood movie follow a certain formula, but why is a cretain big budget movie a bomb, and another one is a blockbuster?

Re:Macbeth

[tehcyder]

Anyone who has done a bachelor's degree in any subject has had to learn the necessary organisational, self siscipline and critical thinking skills to be able to train to do more or less any job. Otherwise, there's no point in having university degrees.

Re:Macbeth

[tlhIngan]

Ancient and non-Indo-European languages can be particularly good, as learning these requires engagement with the logical underpinnings of "how a language works". French/Spanish/German etc, unfortunately often tend to be taught using a "phrasebook" approach that might result in a faster route to a passable fluency (provided the conversation remains within comfortable bounds), but doesn't bring the same wider benefits.

European languages reflect the history of the world quite well.

You've got the Romantic languages (from the Roman Empire), Germanic lanuguages, English (really, Barbaric), Greek, etc. French, Italian, Spanish are Romantic, and share a great deal of similarity - enough so that if you know one, you can passably survive in the other two countries. But that's because the roots are common (Roman Empire).

Trace the history of the world and you'll see how the languages evolved as one race conquers another.

Re:WRONG!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ane economy is first and foremost ideology.

Hogwash!

[reboot246]

Poor kids were "grasping" Macbeth before computers were invented. All it takes is a little motivation, you know, like wanting to get an education to get out of poverty. Being poor should be a great motivator. People who stay in poverty generation after generation should be ashamed.

I know because I was one of them. We were one of the poorest families in town. Yeah, there were computers back in the 50s and 60s, but no home computers.

Re:Hogwash!

[hattig]

You clearly had an opportunity to pull yourself out of that situation.

However studies have shown that in the main, it doesn't matter how motivated you are to get out of being poor - everything is stacked against you, and in a competitive employment environment you will always be overlooked in favour of someone who had opportunities that you didn't because they simply got further, have experience more, and done more, and are better educated. These differences have been traced back to being a toddler - toddlers in poor families who become better off still do worse than toddlers in well off families. Basically, if you're poor, you're fucked in a society that doesn't equalise and provide opportunity.

And it has got a lot worse since the 50s and 60s, when at least some pretence was made that the "american dream" was doable.

Re:Hogwash!

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly had an opportunity to pull yourself out of that situation.

However studies have shown that in the main, it doesn't matter how motivated you are to get out of being poor - everything is stacked against you, [...]

It's sort of amusing that one historical solution to that problem was emigration to the U.S. These days, you are likely best off returning to Europe and leaving it to the Native Americans to teach all those "self-made" Rockefellers that one cannot eat money.

Re:Hogwash!

[thinkwaitfast]

I came from a poorer immigrant neighborhood and know three families in my neighborhood where every kid in the family wound up as a dr, engineer, lawyer or some high equivalent profession, yet their next door neighbor kids with the same economic opportunities drop out of high school and have 4 kids by the time they're 25 and end up incarcerated for selling meth.

Similar results are possible with any subject

[Required Snark]

It's not about teaching computer programming because software is "special". It's about coming in with extra resources and teaching anything with a high degree of rigor. This could be done with math, English, Latin, Biology, even gardening. (I worked people who were involved with what became the charter school movement, and they used a school yard garden to coordinate teaching biology, math and other subjects. Yes, grades went up in all subjects.)

So surprise, surprise, a company with a big stake in software finds the coding is the key subject. If this were being done in Nevada, the magic subject might be probability and statistics...

Re:Similar results are possible with any subject

[scamper_22]

I fully agree with you. I was always pretty logical and rigorous in my studies.

The issue is that programming is has results right away that show if your thinking is logical and correct.

The same cannot be said of most other subjects.
Math is similar, but has been made less rigorous. As well, for most students, math problems typically lack an end state. For example, math proofs are great. I love em. I love that satisfaction. The end state is great. AHA! I got to where I needed. Yet to a lot of students, this is a pointless exercise and they really don't care about all the steps needed to prove it.

I happened to teach for a while in public high school before returning to engineering. While I certainly made programming fun for my students. Look at the bouncy ball kids! Now make it go left and right... The reality is there was this giant divide that kids either got it, or they didn't get it.

It's the same divide I saw in math class. Some kids got Algebra and variables. Others did not.

Like it or not, some kids fundamentally have an issue with the abstraction of a variable. What we would consider the most basic programming or math concept, is a blocker for many of them. No amount of this box holds this value seems to help.

The same goes for breaking down a problem into steps, algorithms...

I suspect in the end, they'll run into the same problems as math.
The kids who get it will love it. But the same kids who don't understand algebra won't understand or benefit from computer science much. Many kids will be able to get by or just get through the course, but they won't benefit much or get the benefits out of other courses.

Like many things, correlation and causation are often misunderstood. And maybe you are just spending 43k/year just to able to avoid the regular public school system and actually be taught something with rigor. Or maybe you are just getting kids who already think logically and are rigorous.

Re:Nobody is holding 'poor' kids back...

[Zontar The Mindless]

Nice mixture of racism and social Darwinism you've managed to concoct there, but shouldn't you be off attending a Hitler Youth meeting or something?

Oh bullshit

[argStyopa]

Just another example of the classically American naive conceit that "poverty happens" to people randomly, like a strike of lightning from the blue, and not (mostly) from a series of really bad life choices, something which is plausibly heritable.

My point isn't that poor people can't enjoy Macbeth, but teaching them to code isn't going to make a person like something they didn't enjoy before,, either.

Re:Oh bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Just another example of the classically American naive conceit that "poverty happens" to people randomly, like a strike of lightning from the blue, and not (mostly) from a series of really bad life choices,

Well, one of the worst life choices you can make in the U.S. is to pick the wrong parents. In more civilized countries, the effect on your chances to secure an education matching your leanings and abilities is pronouncedly less. The U.S. has about the largest "self-made man" mythology you can find in any country considering itself First World, yet the decks are stacked more against those born without a silver spoon in their mouth than pretty much anywhere else.

Re:Oh bullshit

[asylumx]

What poor life choices do you suppose grade school students made that landed them in poverty?

Re:Oh bullshit

[tomhath]

In more civilized countries, the effect on your chances to secure an education matching your leanings and abilities is pronouncedly less

Really? Where are these "civilized countries" of which you speak?

Re:Oh bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, their parents are poor which means they obviously made poor life choices [citation needed]. And since poor choice making is clearly hereditary [citation needed], even if the kids haven't made poor choices YET they likely would have if the ball had been in their court [citation needed]. So it hardly matters from an ethical perspective.

Re:Oh bullshit

[hattig]

Those are an effect of being in poverty.

Sure, a few rich idiots fall down into poverty each year, but we're talking about multi-generational poverty here.

No "life choice" at all here.

Your parents are poor. You are born. You miss out of toys, learning, experience all through your young life. A parent becomes ill but without insurance or money you have to quit school to look after them. Or your dad is an alcoholic and you have to leave home... basically, you're fucked already and you aren't even an adult yet.

Re:Oh bullshit

[fuzzychaos]

What poor life choices do you suppose grade school students made that landed them in poverty?

Kool-Aid - It's a hell of a drug

Re:Oh bullshit

[thinkwaitfast]

A brand new $200 laptop and an internet connection will provide more than enough educational opportunities necessary to get a Phd in electrical engineering.

Re:Oh bullshit

[bledri]

Just another example of the classically American naive conceit that "poverty happens" to people randomly, like a strike of lightning from the blue, and not (mostly) from a series of really bad life choices, something which is plausibly heritable.

My point isn't that poor people can't enjoy Macbeth, but teaching them to code isn't going to make a person like something they didn't enjoy before,, either.

Yeah. Little bastard choose to be born to poor parents, in a poor neighborhood. He deserves to suffer for it.

Had he been a better person, he would have forced his parents to expose him to language before he learned to talk by holding a gun in his pudgy little baby hands and forcing them to read to him. Had he been a moral child, he would have made a time machine and borrowed his own fully developed adult pre-frontal cortex from the future to make make better life choices as a pre-schooler.

My point isn't that CS should be a core subject, that's ridiculous. As is your post.

"plausibly heritable": A euphemism for "he ain't my kin, fuck 'em."

Re:Oh bullshit

[luis_a_espinal]

Just another example of the classically American naive conceit that "poverty happens" to people randomly, like a strike of lightning from the blue, and not (mostly) from a series of really bad life choices, something which is plausibly heritable.

Stupid poor child. He/she made the bad life choice of being born out of poor uneducated parents.

Stupid poor child that happened to be born when his father's job went to China and his savings evaporated during the Enron-Apocalypse.

Stupid poor child, who told him to be born out of a crackhead parent?

Stupid poor child, who told him to be born out of a mother that was abandoned while pregnant?

Poverty is a function of moral failure as per the great self-made-man American myth.

Re:Oh bullshit

[luis_a_espinal]

In more civilized countries, the effect on your chances to secure an education matching your leanings and abilities is pronouncedly less

Really? Where are these "civilized countries" of which you speak?

You need to get the fuck out of whatever bubble you live in and travel the world a little. Really, go to Germany, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Luxembourg, Finland, the Czech Republic, Taiwan. Go travel and talk to people. See how they live. It will fucking blow your mind.

pay your f**king taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe if google paid their taxes you wouldnt have this problem, you have to admire their chutzpa though,
they want to get involved in public education but dont want to pay for it at all,
meantime your schools have to beg for pencils http://www.donorschoose.org/

you should be running them out of all education/government contracts

Re:This is just propaganda to get cheaper labour

[LaurenCates]

Yep. And how about things like:

"How to appreciate learning"
"How to think logically"
"How to negotiate a better salary"
"How to be self-reliant"
"How to deal with your emotions as a teenager when your hormones are running wild (aka: You're not the first one to ever have that problem)"

Seems like when there's a hot subject, we push for kids to learn that, when really, it should be more like things that kids can practically use and apply everywhere.

This old geek could never grasp Macbeth

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been in the tech field for almost 4 decades, having done software, hardware, firmware, and embedded, using languages ranged from machine language to asm to C, from Cobol to Fortran to Pascal to PL/1 played with machines larger than a concert hall down to the teeny tiny disposable RF chips ...
 
Yes, I have done all that but still I can't grasp Macbeth

Every single time I picked up the book I fell asleep

Every single time I watch movies / plays of Macbeth my mind just drifted to, I think, the 7th dimension

So what the fuck is so hot about grasping that "to be or not tobe" thingy?

I mean, many of the things that I have done, for the past 40 years or so, are still running somewhere (from coffee machine to drive trains powering vehicles, from codes running on mainframe to embedded code), without Macbeth I still contribute my bit to the world

They can take that Macbeth bit and stuff it up where the sun never shine and I won't even give a damn

Re:This old geek could never grasp Macbeth

[Anonymous Coward]

So what the fuck is so hot about grasping that "to be or not tobe" thingy?

I'm pretty sure that's Hamlet.

Re:This old geek could never grasp Macbeth

[tsqr]

I mean, many of the things that I have done, for the past 40 years or so, are still running somewhere (from coffee machine to drive trains powering vehicles, from codes running on mainframe to embedded code), without Macbeth I still contribute my bit to the world

While all of that is very nice, it's a pity you haven't figured out a way to let Shakespeare contribute to you.

Re:This old geek could never grasp Macbeth

[DivineKnight]

There's a trick to it. First off, don't be in high school. Second, get a good copy of the play (you can find some online, me thinks). Third, get a summary guide of what's going on. Fourth, get a decent video recording of the play.

Let me rephrase that: get a video recording of a good version of the play. There will be a dozen different versions (up to and including modern 'interpretations'), and you need to fine one that strikes your fancy (I'd go with the one where you can make out what the actors are saying, and you don't doze off after five minutes).

Now, while you are watching the film, keep the laptop open, and mentally sync up with the summary. Here's one for Hamlet (http://www.shakespeare-navigators.com/hamlet/One1.html). In a separate window, keep the actual text of the play open (again, here's Hamlet: http://nfs.sparknotes.com/haml...). Don't read the actual text while watching the film (you can, but it's more important to keep pace with the summary than the text). You can pause and rewind when trying to grasp some of the finer nuances of the actual text / plot as need be.

Fifth, go see the play in real life, and enjoy the inside jokes.

 

Re:This old geek could never grasp Macbeth

[thinkwaitfast]

So what the fuck is so hot about grasping that "to be or not tobe" thingy?

You are not reading it in the original Klingon.

Re:This old geek could never grasp Macbeth

[oh_my_080980980]

Yup. He wanted:

“By the pricking of my thumbs,

Something wicked this way comes.”

Re:This old geek could never grasp Macbeth

[hawguy]

So what the fuck is so hot about grasping that "to be or not tobe" thingy?

2B | ~2B = FF is simple binary arithmetic, if you can't grasp that maybe you shouldn't be a developer.

Re:This old geek could never grasp Macbeth

[cyberchondriac]

or "Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble" etc..

This article describes what is rationalization and cheer leading for CS, apparently now some sort of cure-all. Sports, really? Okay, 3D modeling makes understanding things like kinesiology easier, true, but that still doesn't mean jocks and athletes will want to learn CS. CS is great, if that's what you want to do. The whole world is increasingly a more technical place, and some degree of computer skills are practically a necessity. Most of us here happily embraced computers, but it's not everyone's cup of tea, and trying to snowball students by claiming it's a gateway to the arts or sports sounds kinda desperate. Those who really want to engage in art, or sports, will just do so, CS would be the long way around.

Re:This old geek could never grasp Macbeth

[hawguy]

geez 8bit registers

Computers were less sophisticated back in Shakespeare's day.

If anyone was wondering

[sabbede]

Spending per student in Massachusetts public schools ranges from $10 to $30k/year depending on the district.

http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/s...

Re:Nobody is holding 'poor' kids back...

[Zontar The Mindless]

Eh, what?

I'm a Buddhist, and I live in Sweden.

Care to try again?

Re:Nobody is holding 'poor' kids back...

[Zontar The Mindless]

Then don't appeal to genetics to make your case for what's obviously a social and cultural issue.

Re:WRONG!

[Shakrai]

I think you're thinking of calculus not political science, the least scientific of all sciences.

Fixed it for you.

Bullshit ...

[gstoddart]

Kids were grasping Macbeth before there were computers to program.

Sure, if you build your own study aid you learn the material. That doesn't mean programming makes you better, smarter, or more fucking capable of grasping Macbeth.

It means that with high quality teaching, in small classes with dedicates teachers who know their stuff, and for students who have the benefits of wealthy parents and a decent breakfast ... and all of the other benefits kids who go to an expensive private school have ... that education actually works.

This is complete and utter crap. It's not evidence programming teaches Macbeth, it's evidence that wealthy kids in really good schools do better because it's a higher quality of education.

It ignores home life, single parent families, neighborhoods where you have to worry about getting shot, and pretty much everything kids with fewer advantages in life have to deal with.

I am so damned sick of listening to a bunch of rich white guys telling us how education will be improved if kids learn to code.

Put your money where your mouth is, and fund some really damned high quality education for a bunch of poor kids, and while you're at it give them some of the other benefits kids who aren't poor have.

And while you're at it, make the spoiled little rich kids live in poverty as a control. Then you can talk about causation.

Until then, this boils down to "kids whose parents can send them to expensive private schools have many benefits in life which aren't enjoyed by poor kids".

You can't take one of those advantages in isolation and claim it's fucking magic.

Poor kids might grasp MacBeth

[rsilvergun]

if they didn't go home to an over stressed and overworked parent (singular, since it's hard to keep a Marriage together when you're poor), didn't suffer from food insecurity (it's coming back in the South & Rust belt) and didn't have 40+ kids in their class.

Naw, Google's right. We just need more coders (which will coincidentally reduce the value of software programming skills, who knew?)

Two Birds!

[src1138]

Teach kids to code by writing applications that do something Liberal-Artsy - whoa, they just learned two things at once!

All this for only >$40K - wow, if only public schools could emulate this amazing technique.

Pfffft.

Re:WRONG!

[oh_my_080980980]

Because research in those areas doesn't follow the scientific method? Or areas considered more scientific, e.g. medical research, don't put out questionable research. *eye roll*

Wow

[CanadianMacFan]

Create an app that echos back lines from the play when you feed it another line. You can learn so much about the play from that.

Here's an idea. How about using the money to get a proper teacher instead of a babysitter and actually learn about the play, what things might mean in it, what Scotland was like during the time it was set in, and even about Shakespeare's time and life and how it would impact his writing. Get an inspiring teacher and the students would learn much more. When I studied plays for the most part we just went around the room and took turns reading a few lines. There was a bit of discussion about what things might mean but not much. For the most part it was very boring.

Motivation

[sociocapitalist]

It couldn't be that Google would like (future) access to coders that would be willing to work for less than what rich kids would expect to make?

Umm

[thrig]

Wait, how interactive? Because, you know, Macbeth ain't alls well that ends well...

Re:Nobody is holding 'poor' kids back...

[Darinbob]

They have the summer off.

Well !

[JimSadler]

We now know that CS education is worse for minority students than for more fortunate students just like all other areas of education. Unreasonable distribution of wealth does cause social strife and ultimately things like revolutions and a lot of violent crime, drug and alcohol addiction etc.. So the real answer is that if we really want poor students to do well we have to redistribute wealth so that the richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor are much closer together economically. Gosh and gee whiz, who would ever have thought that socialism had any serious advantages?

Oh, please

[Jawnn]

So, you're saying that exposing kids to the works of Shakespeare makes them better able to understand it? And that more and more interactive exposure yields corresponding increases in that understanding? Wow. Who knew? So where's your proof that it's computer programming that was the key factor here. Hmm?

Re:impressive

[phantomfive]

Quick review seems to be a bunch of gobblygook

Apparently you didn't understand it.

Sure, even I learned to play an instrument but i was never gonna be the soloist. After 10 years I was technically proficient but never very 'pretty'. Yet our lead could pick up anything by ear and make it sound the same or better. If that's not a talent, you can teach me to play by ear, right? Not happening.

This is confirmation bias. You noticed someone is better than you, and you jumped to the conclusion that it was talent. You couldn't conceive of any other hypothesis? If you can't think of anything else, there's a paper I linked to that will give you some ideas.

(As an aside, you played 10 years and couldn't make pretty music? Why didn't you practice making your playing pretty instead of just focusing on proficiency all the time?)

At a public school in 1989...

[mykro76]

I was animating sprites on an Amstrad CPC664 to re-enact the Macbeth scene "is this a dagger I see before me?". Got extra credit for it too. Kids don't need stinking expensive schools to do this stuff.

double, double, toil and trouble

[arctother]

Do we really need more kids to learn to code? I mean, can't we just get robots to do that for us?