Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
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.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
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.
Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
What poor life choices do you suppose grade school students made that landed them in poverty?
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.
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.