Slashdot Mirror
Harvard: Prospective CS50 AP Teachers Must cc:Microsoft On Training Applications
theodp writes: Did you know that Microsoft has supported Harvard in creating a new version [of its wildly-popular CS50 course] called CS50 AP, designed specifically for secondary school educators?" asks a Microsoft Born to Learn Blog post. "If you might like to teach CS50 AP (and, in turn, AP CS Principles) in your own classroom this year," Harvard informs prospective teachers, "you are cordially invited to join us at one of our teacher training workshops to be held in various locations around the country and the world!" But before applications can be successfully submitted, teachers are required to respond to the following statement, and Harvard won't take 'No' for an answer: "Our friends at Microsoft are helping us distribute the teacher support materials for this version of CS50 for secondary school teachers and students. By checking the box below, you acknowledge that we may share the data you submitted through this form with them as part of this planning process." Microsoft is certainly calling the K-12 CS education shots these days — heck, the White House even let Microsoft President Brad Smith brief reporters about plans to spend $4B in tax dollars on a new CS for All K-12 initiative before the President told taxpayers about it. By the way, the CS50 AP Wiki contains a CS50x/CS50 AP Authorization and Release form which, among other things, requires camera-shy CS50 AP students to agree to "sit in a 'no-film' zone" if they do not want photos or videos of themselves used by Harvard to promote the Microsoft-supported course."
From the agreement: "I understand that my teacher will take reasonable steps, with my cooperation, to avoid including identifiable images of me in the Recordings. I understand that I am free to opt out of the Recordings in this way, and that doing so will not affect my grade or my ability to participate in course activities. Unless I opt out of the Recordings as described above and take the steps that will be outlined by the instructor to avoid being filmed, I authorize Harvard and its designees to use the Recordings. I understand and agree that the Recordings may include my image, name, and voice. I also understand and agree that, even if I opt out of the Recordings, my spoken name and voice may be picked up by microphones outside any "no-film" zone and may be included in the Recordings.
If you don't like it, don't participate. Nobody is putting a gun to anyone's head. It's really that simple.
That's irrelevant whether it's coerced or not. A major corporation is trying to gain control of education in order to promote their products and services. So the question is whether we should stand by meekly and allow this or to tell Microsoft to shove off.
CS 50 AP is a silly idea anyway. It's not really computer science and it would be better for studens to know core fundamentals about mathematics before learning computer science. We need to stop treating universities as job training mills.
Would people be okay with the idea of Exxon helping to design AP Environmental Science curriculum?
No, because they have a vested interest obfuscating the issue, and a history of doing so in the past. Designing a curriculum in geology, or mineral extraction? Why not, they probably have quite a bit to offer, here.
Should criminal justice coursework be overseen by Smith and Wesson?
No, because they're a manufacturer of precision machined products, and have no core competency in law. I'm sure, though,they their engineers and machinists would do a hell of a job in educating those on the vo/tech side of the high school educational path.
Should Microsoft be able to contribute to CSCI educational coursework? (I'm putting words in your mouth, for the sake of argument)
Yes, yes, they should. Apple, Google, Cisco, HP or whatever they're calling themselves these days, etc, yes, they can absolutely play an important role, here.
Corporate sponsors don't belong in these roles
Now we come to the crux of the issue. Despite my statements above, the idea that Microsoft should be interesting themselves in the AP process to the point where they must be included on all correspondence is absolutely ridiculous and should NOT be allowed. "Giving back" by devoting some of the talent an experience these companies have at their disposal? Yes, absolutely. Being part of the "process?" Fuck no.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
microsoft certrified AP: I was trained in a microsoft approved and endorsed course sponsored by a carte blanc effort by taxpayers to learn to code or die trying. I couldnt tell a router from a switch, but so long as its in visual basic im good to code!
anyone else: I couldnt afford harvard, couldnt afford community college, but spent my nights and weekends playing doom and hacking underhanded C. I wrote my own autoresponder in perl. I interfaced my coffeemaker in python with an arduino. ive been "suspended" from school for a combination of wearing too much black, not attending enough pep functions, and knowing more about computers than the teacher. I will be hired for 1/3rd the salary of the AP grad, but be charged with fixing or replacing nearly everything he did. but dont worry about all that...just fixate on the fact that im a girl, and girls + code == important.
US President->Next() learn to code! future! grlz in coding! programming is fun! everyone must code! code is future! all glory to the hypnocode!
Good people go to bed earlier.
That's kind of like saying hotels are forcing non smokers into non-smoking rooms.
No, it isn't.
You may or may not want to smoke. Hotels don't give you a smoking room unless you request otherwise. Instead, they ask your preference without presuming what it is.
The course presumes you want to be photographed unless you indicate otherwise. That's wrong on its own. But what's worse is the presumption that course participants would be used to promote a private company at all. Any such promotion agreement should be strictly between the company and the participants, and should be decoupled entirely from the course and the institution that is hosting it.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
There are already schools oriented towards being job mills. They're called trade schools. For engineering related stuff these would be IIT, DeVry, and so on. And trade schools can produce graduates who are very good and who continue their learning process after graduation. However these are not the same as universities. A university should be preparing the student for a lifetime in a particular field, whereas a trade school prepares the student for their first few entry level jobs only. A university is overkill for a technician whereas a trade school underprepares people for a full engineering mid level job.
Of course there are university graduates who are incompetent as well as made trade school graduates who are top notch. The difference is that the former didn't make good use of their education while the latter excelled above and beyond their education.
A university education is absolutely not needed for many jobs; street cleaning, traffic cop, board rework technician, IT help desk, etc. But if you have a knowledge worker then it makes sense to have someone who's been given knowlege and trained in how to learn. A lot of companies outsource the lower level jobs to places in the third world; not because those workers necessarily have a better education but because they're cheap. So skipping out on good education means competing directly against those workers. If the US wants to remain a top country with the best knowledge workers then it needs to encourage high level education instead of just enough to get a basic job.
There are people who can do without a university education and still succeed, but everyone can do better with one.