$500K NSF Grant Boosted Girls' CS Participation At Obama Daughters' $37K/Yr HS

theodp writes: On Friday, a paper entitled Creative Computation in High School will be presented at SIGCSE '16. "In this paper," explain the paper's authors, "we describe the success of bringing Creative Computation via Processing into two very different high schools...providing a catalyst for significant increases in total enrollment as well as female participation in high school computer science." One of the two schools that participated in the National Science Foundation-supported project — see NSF awards 1323305 & 1323463 for Creative Computation in the Context of Art and Visual Media — was Sidwell Friends School, which a 2013 SMU news release on the three-year, $500K NSF grant noted was best known as the school attended by President Obama's daughters. Interestingly, in a late-2014 interview, the President lamented that his daughters hadn't taken to coding the way he'd like, adding that "part of what's happening is that we are not helping schools and teachers teach it in an interesting way." Hey, nothing that a $4B 'Computer Science For All' K-12 Program can't fix, right?

Comments

Computer programming is not computer science

[fustakrakich]

Why do they call it that?

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the problem has more to do with your understanding of what the definition actually is.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[malditaenvidia]

Software development is not "computer programming"- Why do they call it that?

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[dgatwood]

Computer science is the study of software at a broad level, including software design methodologies (practical CS) and problem complexity (theoretical CS). The first is science (a social science, specifically), because you can experiment with different methodologies, see how they perform, and draw conclusions. The second is more of a theoretical science because you're studying the way computers behave and modeling real-world systems in simplified terms and hopefully verifying how those models relate to real-world behavior, though the latter part is often ignored by theoreticians.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[Anonymous Coward]

So... Computer Science is a think tank?

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[slashping]

Computer science is not a science, but the name just stuck. Your best approach would be to just deal with it.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[Anonymous Coward]

Computer science is not a science, but the name just stuck. Your best approach would be to just deal with it.

It's generally thought of as an "applied" science (engineering) but can be heavy on math ("Formal Science" - boolean algebra, big O notation, statistics), and other "formal" sciences (information theory, logic, systems theory)

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[Tablizer]

Actually, there is NOT a lot of science in computing studies outside of the guts of hardware. Science is about modelling the physical world, but computers run virtual worlds (OS's, programming environments, database models), and that is where most students will spend their time.

If you are doing "science" on a virtual world, you're really doing math: proving things about a model, NOT about the actual world. Science is about modelling and predicting the real world, while math is about modelling and predicting fake/virtual worlds.

Science could be done on the software engineering side, such as getting the best code (maintainable) and best customer satisfaction with the fewest resources, but this is closer to economics, finance, and psychology: "soft" sciences. They don't call it "economic science" or "psychology science".

Further, such "efficiency" studies are expensive in practice and there's a very limited amount of actual data on them. It's like field-science without a budget to do field science such that it turns into a big argument over pet theories (i.e. fancy sounding guesses).

The subject perhaps should be called "computer engineering" or "computer technology" and/or "software technology" or "computer studies" or the like.

But titles like "computer studies" and "software technology" sounds too fluffy. You can't charge fat tuition on fluffy-sounding subjects. Thus, there's probably a marketing angle to the current usage of "science" in "computer science".

Oh well, perfect and sufficiently-compact labels for subjects are hard to come by. Tradition may trump better titles. If I were king, I'd make them use "computer technology" or "information technology" in their course/subject titles. It's vague enough to not trigger purity fights, and vague enough to cover lots of sub-topics, which a good IT course set would do.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[phantomfive]

Au contraire, computer science is the best science, and the best way to teach science. You can test your hypotheses almost immediately, eg, "Is sort A faster then sort B?" by merely writing the program. Of course that's settled science now, but I've seen professors teach their students in exactly that way.

It's an important skill to have as a programmer, too. Too many people skip important phases (like the measuring phase, saying, "oh, we'll just replace this algorithm, it'll be faster." In reality, if you don't measure, you don't know). Not long ago, we had to replace a very slow algorithm, and everyone came up with their own algorithm, with their own reasons it was the best. But we didn't know which one was until we tested it.

In short: computer science is the best science because many hypotheses can be easily tested.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[Tablizer]

Well, that's still a focus on hardware, which I already pointed out, but perhaps I should have elaborated on.

Further, a sufficiently smart compiler could perhaps optimize a bubble sort to be as fast as the more commonly-used algorithms such to say bubble sort is "objectively slower" than the usual algorithms is probably either wrong, contentious, or very complicated to fully prove.

One has to make assumptions about the brand or nature of the compilers and CPU(s) being used before making broad efficiency/speed claims.

As far as what's practically more efficient giving existing/common compilers and tools, I'd still be hesitant to call that "science". Is for example testing boat speed on the ocean "science" in the strict sense? I'd call that "engineering" more so than "science". Science discovered the laws of physics. Testing specific devices (boats) against existing models of physics is not really part of that.

And, most of the tricky or controversial debates I've seen about software are not related to execution speed.

For example, nobody has proven that nested blocks are "objectively better" than go-to's, even though in practice most (now) agree nested blocks are usually the better choice for most algorithms. But the answer to such a proof is probably tied to the human brain more than any external laws of physics.

That's where the interesting/puzzling/sticky parts of the field lay, NOT in machine speed (unless you are a speed fan).

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[phantomfive]

Further, a sufficiently smart compiler could perhaps optimize a bubble sort to be as fast as the more commonly-used algorithms such to say bubble sort is "objectively slower" than the usual algorithms is probably either wrong, contentious, or very complicated to fully prove.

It's wrong. A bubble sort is typically faster when N < ~10

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[istartedi]

I'm obviously not the guy who said that; but I'll take a stab.

To me, CS is language agnostic. You could teach CS without a specific language or even a computer of any kind. You can teach binary arithmetic, recursion, sorting algorithms, and lambda calculus with pencil and paper. To me, CS is just specialized math.

Programming, as opposed to CS is the more practical working end of things. You need a computer with a language to teach programming.

You can teach programming and impart very little CS knowledge, although I think some is bound to creep in. Programmers are going to know things that pure CS students don't know, such as what a compiler error actually means. Likewise, many programmers have gone through their entire career without lambda or curried functions!

I don't think a course in pure CS or "just programming" would be good. They should, IMHO, be taught together. It's easier to call the course CS even if it's not pure CS. We shouldn't really pass judgement until we see the curriculum, which I doubt anybody commenting here has.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[Anonymous Coward]

Science is about modelling the physical world

Wrong. Natural Sciences are about modeling the physical world. Formal sciences are not. Go read an attempt at proving P(!)=NP or STFU. "Virtual worlds", as you call it, is only a tiny part of CS, just like algebra is a tiny part of Mathematics.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a definition of it now? Geez, we had this exact problem back in the 60s because no one really knew what we were really doing. I think the simple answer is that the name itself, computer science, is just a really bad name. I usually prefer the term computing science or even datalogy since that's mostly what it is about. Both software engineering and computer architecture is absolutely part of it, but it's a bad term mainly due to too many universities teaching the computer part of CS without ever going into the science. That's why we have so many misguided people thinking that CS == programming, because that's what they did when they did CS. It's like suggesting that physics equal MATLAB. Sure a lot of physicists use it, but it's actually just a tool. The science is mostly not about the tool itself.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I have no problem with the term "software engineering." Sure, it may not have a formal engineering discipline (yet), but that's a relatively new phenomenon. We've had engineering for 1000s of years.

Engineering is building things, and software engineering is building software. Software is a machine; programming languages are the tools for building those machines. Some people insist CS is just "math," but software is applied math. It's unique in that it's built out of math.

The way I look at it, programming is engineering software, and CS is knowing what you're doing while building software. If coders are the construction workers, CS graduates are the architects.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[Tablizer]

Well okay, can you prove it's "objectively slower" for say 5,000 items?

If that's still too open-ended, then select some typical/realistic/common limits or constraints to do it with so we are not dealing with edge cases or unlikely situations.

Re: Computer programming is not computer science

[Anonymous Coward]

Just look a good lil liberal, you see everything in a vacuum. Or are you really suggesting a mythical compiler that only optimizes bubble sort while leaving the performance of other algorithms consistent?

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[Tablizer]

That's math, not science. The main difference between the two is that science has to be somewhere tied to reality while math doesn't.

Re: Computer programming is not computer science

[Tablizer]

No! I'm simply saying it depends on compiler design such that one cannot tell by the algorithm written in a high-level language ALONE which high-level algorithm is faster or more efficient.

The compiler design may or may NOT affect other sort algorithms, but that issue depends on the specifics of compiler design. A high level computer language does NOT specify exactly "how" to carry it out on the chip or machine level. That's ultimately up to the compiler and/or chip designer, and they have a lot of choices, and potentially future choices that nobody's discovered/invented yet.

Even with existing compilers, certain high-level constructs are more optimize-able than others at the compiler/machine level. You write the high-level code one way and you get fast, but slow another way, even though it may be the same general algorithm. One has to know something about the compiler to know that's the result. It's NOT an inherent factor of the algorithm choice used in the app language.

The app-level algorithm coding is one factor among multiple (such as compiler and chip design), and that's why a proof based on the app-level code ALONE is probably not possible (other than constraining the results to various degrees).

Just look a good lil liberal, you see everything in a vacuum

Such insults are unhelpful. I believe conservatives have patterns of defective cognitive processes, but find it doesn't change anything to tell them that, other than start flame-wars.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[phantomfive]

Yes, actually, we can model it anyway. We model the algorithms based on how many steps it will take to solve the problem (we will say running time is equivalent to number of instructions, to simplify for now). Because of the way bubble sort is set up, with a loop inside a loop, we can say (where N is number of items):

RunningTime = c*N*N
Where 'c' is the amount of time it takes to run through one internal loop.

In comparison, for example, with merge sort, we have:
RunningTime = d*N*lg(N)

So, once N gets big enough, the running time of merge sort will always be shorter than the RunningTime of bubble sort, because an N^2 graph will also increase faster than an N*lg(N) graph. Where exactly the cross-over happens depends on the size of c and d. If that didn't make sense, I can try to clarify.

*Note: lg(N) here means log base 2, and is log base 2 because for merge sort, you keep dividing your list in half over and over.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[Tablizer]

As mentioned elsewhere, a sophisticated optimizing compiler may find shortcuts. Even existing compilers can parallelize loops written a certain way. I'm not saying these will help bubble-short in particular, but saying what looks like a sequential loop in the high-level app code does NOT have to be executed as a sequential loop under the hood as long as the results are equivalent. We have existing specimens of this for certain kinds of algorithms/loops. Thus, as a general concept, it's not theoretical.

We can model things based on a simple/typical/common compiler, but that's making assumptions about the compiler.

A thorough proof would need to consider "all possible compilers", which is a very tall order.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[phantomfive]

As mentioned elsewhere, a sophisticated optimizing compiler may find shortcuts.

It doesn't matter. The compiler can reduce c, but it's still going to be an N^2 algorithm.

Whether bubble sort could be automatically parallelized is an interesting question, but that's a question for further research, and if it can, we can include it into the model.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[Tablizer]

but it's still going to be an N^2 algorithm.

If the compiler doesn't care or ignores that "fact", then that's just an abstract classification. I'm asking for proof of speed, not proof of classification.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[phantomfive]

btw, there has been research done on the parallelization of sorting, and at best, you can only get a speedup of dividing it by the number of cores. So if r = number of cores, then you are going to have a bubble sort RunningTime = c/5*N*N, which is great, but it means bubble sort is still going to be slower than merge sort, no matter how good the compiler is.

I'm asking for proof of speed, not proof of classification.

The classification tells you how fast it's going to go. Again, we have this equation for the running time of bubble sort:

RunningTime = c*N*N

The compiler can reduce c, which is nice, but it's for large enough N, it will always be slower than an algorithm whose running time is RunningTime = d*N*lg(N)

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[phantomfive]

I wrote this incorectly, it should have been:
... So if r = number of cores, then you are going to have a bubble sort RunningTime = c/r*N*N,....
So if you can divide the sort among five cores, you'll get the task done in ~1/5 the time.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[phantomfive]

. We shouldn't really pass judgement until we see the curriculum, which I doubt anybody commenting here has.

There's a description of the curriculum in the paper (so yeah, maybe you're right, maybe no one here has seen it).
It's basic programming concepts, followed by python, followed by a lot of OOP.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[rtb61]

Computer science in it's simplest terms is the applied study of the digitising of an analogue world and that it implies ie converting a 'O' into a series of joined straight lines, the more lines the greater the detail. The art of digitally simulating a real world. So software, hardware, digital mathematics, digital physics, digital chemistry, digital biology (think simulations, required degrees of accuracy and getting order out of perceived chaos, getting 1 and 0s out of human thought). Software is not computer science, it is the application of computer science.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[Tablizer]

I didn't say parallelism is the only possible optimization; I mostly gave it an example to illustrate a point. And million-core chips may be something possible or viable in the future. Perhaps they'll find out that many simple CPU's perform certain problems faster than a few complex ones.

Are you saying for all possible chip designs and all possible compiler designs, bubble sort will ALWAYS be slower than merge sort (for non-trivial sort sets of relatively random keys)?

If so, can you provide the proof?

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[phantomfive]

Are you saying for all possible chip designs and all possible compiler designs, bubble sort will ALWAYS be slower than merge sort (for non-trivial sort sets of relatively random keys)?

Yes, as long as it's the type of computer that follows a sequence of steps (as opposed to some kind of weird slime computer that is magic). Although if it doesn't follow a sequence of steps, it's not bubble-sort anymore.

If so, can you provide the proof?

Yes, the proof involves counting the number of steps required to complete each algorithm.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[Tablizer]

Perhaps they'll find out that many simple CPU's perform certain problems faster than a few complex ones.

Addendum: That's arguably closer to how the human brain works.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[Tablizer]

"Step" is not a clear word, and why rule out slime computers or things that borrow ideas from them?

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[phantomfive]

We can clarify that "step" means a computer instruction. If you'd like to be extremely formal, we can define it extremely clearly as "instruction for a Turing machine," although that would be rather painful so likely the first thing we would do is show that an Intel processor is identical to a Turing machine for our purposes. Any computer ever invented is identical to a Turing machine for the purpose of counting steps.

The slime machine might be interesting, but (since it's defined as magical) doesn't exist. So for our purposes, we define "computer" to be a Turing machine, because those are the only things that exist in a way that we can study.

If you can think of a way to describe what a magical machine would be like, then even before it's invented we could reason about it. Adding any finite number of cores will not make a difference, though.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[TechyImmigrant]

Are you saying for all possible chip designs and all possible compiler designs, bubble sort will ALWAYS be slower than merge sort (for non-trivial sort sets of relatively random keys)?

Yes, as long as it's the type of computer that follows a sequence of steps (as opposed to some kind of weird slime computer that is magic). Although if it doesn't follow a sequence of steps, it's not bubble-sort anymore.

If so, can you provide the proof?

Yes, the proof involves counting the number of steps required to complete each algorithm.

It depends on the efficiency of the computational steps available to you. The classic example is the spaghetti sort, which is O(n). Hang each bit of spaghetti from a pole. Repeat until pole empty [pick the longest length of spaghetti]. This presumes that [pick the longest length of spaghetti] is an O(1) operation, which it is in normal human experience. Logical architecture matters.

 

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[TechyImmigrant]

Designing computer circuits is engineering.
Debugging is exactly like science.. You want to know what's going on, you make hypotheses, test them, iterate until you know.
At least with chips, where you can't see what's happening directly. Software just expands to the point one step beyond our ability to debug it through observation.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[phantomfive]

That's basically a radix sort translated to real life, and it only works for items shorter than the pole.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[Anonymous Coward]

> This presumes that [pick the longest length of spaghetti] is an O(1) operation, which it is in normal human experience.

Well, not really. What looks like a single step is a hugely complicated process operating in parallel. Brains are not Von Neumann architecture.

> Logical architecture matters.

Clearly - but since O() notation is defined in terms of mathematical functions, you'd have to define a function for your "step" that incorporates the billions of neurons in the visual and cerebral cortices that do the job of selecting the longest noodle.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[Tablizer]

We can clarify that "step" means a computer instruction.

That depends on the design of the chip. And the physical implementations of a Turing Machine can vary widely.

What's a "step" in the human mind? It's a computer.

because those are the only things that exist in a way that we can study.

Your proof would have to cover "all possible" compilers/chips/computing-hardware to be thorough or relevant here. I already agree with the sort claim for existing/known/typical/familiar technology. But, that's not the issue of contention.

You implied one algorithm is "inherently" faster than another. It's not (or at least not proven), because it also depends on the compiler and hardware, and we DON'T know all possible ways those 2 things can be built, and therefore you cannot make any general statement about their speed.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[phantomfive]

Your proof would have to cover "all possible" compilers/chips/computing-hardware to be thorough or relevant here.

It can cover all known possible computing hardware, or even theoretically possible hardware, and over time investigate to see if there are other possibilities.
We don't have to know everything for computer science to be a science. In fact, if we did know everything, there would be nothing left to investigate.
So therefore computer science is a science.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[buck-yar]

^^^Maybe at a community college. What you describe sounds like the syllabus for the CS205-Software Engineering course I took.

A real CS curriculum will be much broader than just software.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[Anonymous Coward]

Computer science is the study of software at a broad level

Wrong.
Computer Science is the study of Algorithms. A better name would probably be "Computing Science".
All the other stuff you wrote are specific aspects of this Study.

To answer the original question, it's because we use Computers to Compute and process Algorithms much faster than we can do so as humans. In order to do that, we need to be able to Program, because that's the language we use. It doesn't have to be a formal language to be programming, but if you want to actually run it on a computer it kind of does need to be.
Or put another way, you can't study Math, especially at a high school level, without first teaching the kids the language and symbols used for Math Notation. So the first step to teaching kids CS is teaching them how to program, and once they start to learn how that works you can actually start studying CS.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[Tablizer]

"known...hardware", yes. It's no more of a science than boat design. You don't call boat designers/engineers "boat scientists" even if there may be a tiny bit of "cutting edge" research involved.

Now if there were a "boat scientist" studying cutting edge theories on boat building materials, automated visual wave inspection and prediction to pre-counter waves, etc., then I'd feel comfortable calling that person a "boat scientist" or "naval scientist" or whatever. But that's only if the majority of his/her work is such cutting edge.

The vast majority of "computer science" students, probably around 99%, are NOT going to be doing something comparable to that.

And Big-O notation is a rule of thumb, not an inherent "law" of the universe, because it makes assumptions about compilers and chips that are not proven to be required.

As a thought experiment, most agree the human mind is a "computer". A human can study an algorithm and find shortcuts or even rewrites to speed it up (on known hardware). As long as the results are correct (or expected) to the user on the other side of the black box, they won't know or care if a human compiler/computer was involved in compiling and/or running the program.

Similarly, but more simply, existing compilers can recognize that the results of say an inner loop are not even used by the program under certain conditions, and skip running the inner loop. Thus, what superficially looks like a "double looping" application doesn't have to be executed as one on the chip.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[phantomfive]

"known...hardware", yes.

No, not just known hardware. Any imagined hardware. If you can dream of a hardware that is not magic, then we can prove it's not faster.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[Bengie]

Virtual worlds are perfectly valid worlds. Math in and of itself has no world. Physics is the application of math to the real world and CS is the applied of math to a virtual world that resides inside the real world.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[Bengie]

Math is always tied to reality, but mathematical models are not. Math is a human created language that allows us to describe the rules of our Universe. I don't mean "rules" like laws of physics, but logical rules that apply in all situations. The real "truths" of the Universe. eg If you can prove the A is greater than B, then you know for a fact that B is less than A. This is a fundamental understanding of how our Universe's logic works.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[dgatwood]

Computer science is the study of software at a broad level

Wrong. Computer Science is the study of Algorithms.

First, what, precisely, do you think algorithms are, if not computer software?

Second, no, computer science is broader than the study of algorithms. That's pretty much the definition of theoretical computer science. Computer science can also include subjects like:

• Software engineering methodologies.
• Human-computer interaction
• Programming language theory
• Computer networking

These have almost nothing to do with studying algorithms, but they all fall squarely within the realm of computer science.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[Tablizer]

Are you saying any imagined hardware would fit the mentioned speed profile, or is merely "testable"? Everything made is testable; that's not an key fact here. Nor does it mean most "computer science" students will be doing that testing.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[dgatwood]

If it is broader than software, then it's really a computer engineering or electrical engineering curriculum. The line might get a little fuzzy around the edges, but the line is still there.

For example, right now, I'm teaching a CS class that deals with C programming on Arduino, which combines a basic electronics course with a basic CS course. We call it a CS course because you have to categorize it as either CS or EE for curriculum purposes, but in reality, it is a combination of a CS course and an EE course. It isn't strictly CS.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[phantomfive]

Are you saying any imagined hardware would fit the mentioned speed profile, or is merely "testable"?

It would fit the mentioned speed profile.
Also, whether 'most' students would be doing the testing or not is kind of irrelevant......most biology students don't grow up to be biologists. Research is something for PhDs, both in CS and biology.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[TechyImmigrant]

That's just implementation details. We're talking about formal models of abstract spaghetti here.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[phantomfive]

Yeah. Everything that applies to spaghetti sort also applies to radix sort, and has been analyzed in depth, including why it's not a general-purpose sorting algorithm (but very very good in a subset of cases).

In brief: at some point it's going to get harder and harder (take longer and longer) to hang spaghetti on the pole, and you need to include the time required in your calculation.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[TechyImmigrant]

The length of one's pole can be a problem.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[Tablizer]

It would fit the mentioned speed profile.

You keep claiming that without solid evidence.

I don't understand your biology analogy. The topic of the course is indeed "biology": it's spot-on. If I go by your analogy, then the "computer science" degree should really be "computology". I'm okay with that. Sold!

But, it's a shortcut for "computer studies", which I don't think will fly for reasons I already stated.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[phantomfive]

You keep claiming that without solid evidence.

I've shown it several times. Every known or imagined computer (ie: with sufficient detail to not be magic) will fit into the model of the Turing machine.

My point about biology was: people with undergrad degrees are not typically scientists. That's true in physics, and it's true in computer science.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[Anonymous Coward]

> First, what, precisely, do you think algorithms are, if not computer software?

"A detailed sequence of actions to perform to accomplish some task."

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[Tablizer]

Again, a Turing Machine is a virtual machine. It does NOT escape dependence on the compiler and chip/brain/hardware design/implementation levels. Did you forget that point, or did you not understand it?

Adding yet another layer doesn't remove the dependence on the other layers. Something MUST translate Turing notation into machine-level instructions/commands, and some hardware MUST run it. (The equivalent of a compiler could be built into the hardware, I should point out.)

As far as titles, I'm talking about "computer science" as a degree or general field of study. Neither "biology" nor "physics" have the "science" suffix and therefore don't offer comparable examples. If anything they underscore my point by NOT having the "science" suffix. They are basically shortcuts for the study of biology and the study of the physical.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[phantomfive]

Again, a Turing Machine is a virtual machine. It does NOT escape dependence on the compiler and chip/brain/hardware design/implementation levels. Did you forget that point, or did you not understand it?

If you don't understand how a physical machine can map to a turing machine, and that can be used to prove things, then you are not a computer scientist.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[Tablizer]

how a physical machine can map to a turing machine

Why would we want to do that? It's not related to this debate that I see.

Notation by itself has no "speed".

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[Tablizer]

Addendum:

I've numbered the general steps to one of my arguments. If you disagree with the conclusion, which specific clause(s) do you disagree with?

1. A human can recognize a bubble-sort algorithm and convert it to merge-sort algorithm or implementation.

2. A human mind is a type of "computer".

3. A human can fulfill the role of a compiler. (A human can "be" a compiler.)

4. A compiler can convert a bubble-sort algorithm into a merge-sort "under the hood", per above.

5. A bubble-sort can thus run with a performance profile of "n log n" because a compiler can convert it into a merge sort, per above. (Bubble sort "normally" has a "n^2" O-nation profile.)

6. There's NO evidence that an "artificial" compiler can NEVER be made to do what a human does (1 through 4 above).

7. One cannot rule out the possibility that an artificial compiler can run (or create an executable to that runs) a coded bubble-sort with a "n log n" performance profile.

8. One cannot rule out the possibility that with a sufficiently powerful artificial compiler, a bubble sort can run "as fast as" a merge sort.

Now, you may point out it's never been done in practice, which is true. I'm only saying you cannot rule it out and thus cannot claim that a bubble sort is "inherently" slower than a merge-sort. You can only say such about "known compiler and chip implementations", which I don't dispute.

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[Tablizer]

Addendum 2:

Let's look at a more here-and-now example. EXISTING compilers can take code like Version 1 below and "convert" it to Version 2 under the hood (for execution).

Thus, a compiler can take what "traditionally" is considered an "n^2" algorithm and convert/run it with an "n" performance profile.

// Version 1
for x = 1 to foo
  z = blah(x)
  for y = 1 to bar
      if z < 7 then
        someRoutine(y)
      end if
  end for
end for
 
// Version 2
for x = 1 to foo
  z = blah(x)
  if z < 7 then
      for y = 1 to bar
        someRoutine(y)
      end for
  end if
end for

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[dgatwood]

Yes, pedantically, an algorithm doesn't have to be used with a computer, but in practice, when we talk about algorithms in the context of computer science, we're talking about those algorithms in the context of a computer program, rather than, for example, instructions for assembling IKEA furniture....

Re:Computer programming is not computer science

[Anonymous Coward]

> Actually, there is NOT a lot of science in computing studies outside of the guts of hardware.

There is a lot of mathematics, though.

Arguably you could divide computer science up into elements of psychology, electronics, and mathematics, and very often you find university psychology, electronics and mathematics departments sometimes have a significant level over overlap.

whaaa?

[Anonymous Coward]

So... Obama redirected $500k of federal money to his daughter's expensive private school? Am I supposed to applaud this?

Re:whaaa?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, technically the NSF did. And technically, the $500k went to the research institutions and grad student salaries of the people actually conducting the study. Still, I should have realized when I was doing my EdD I could get positive results by just applying experimental methods to high-achieving private schools. Then I'd be rolling in grant money.

Re:whaaa?

[Austerity Empowers]

Apparently the rich plan to grow up to be code monkeys rather than hedge fund managers, CEOs or anonymous board members these days.

Re:whaaa?

[sycodon]

Half a million to what is probably the most expensive and exclusive school in the US. And, a Private school at that.

Wasn't there some school in the not so nice areas of DC that could have used that money?

Re:whaaa?

[110010001000]

Sidwell isn't even the most expensive private school in DC.

Disadvantaged schools

[Anonymous Coward]

It sure is great that FEDERAL money is going to helping DISADVANTAGED POOR MINORITIES learn more to get some UPWARD SOCIAL MOBILITY.

Then again, only positive results get accepted in academia, so they can take a lesson from private schools - if you only teach the most advantaged in society, you never have to report bad news to the granting agency.

Don't mind me - I'll just stop volunteering at urban public schools with failing grades and take my talents to silicon valley where I'll be paid what I'm worth. I'm sure Bill Gates will one day pour the graces of his beneficence on those undeserving souls and get magic positive results for the next conference.

but its not obamas fault.

[nimbius]

It may be convenient and tempting to blame Obama for this, but its actually something he benefits from thats existed for more than a hundred years. Namely, how wealth learns and lives as opposed to the rest of us.

While most of us go to public school, eat school lunches and attend public universities when and if possible, the cloistered elite do not. An entire parallel yet grossly superior system of education exists for millionaires and billionaires, and everything from its fundamentals to its lunchtime is radically different. While we are playing gym and learning typing in highschool, the children of wealth learn elocution, policy, and various other traits that help them to accept their future roles as C level management, elite constitutional law attorneys, and even members of world banking organizations. If obamas children are learning programming, its merely as a jovial introduction into the world of directing, managing, or guiding long-term and broad stroke efforts in the field. They will not themselves become a "programmer."

that having been said, the children of the elite will always benefit disproportionately from government grants alongside their already generous foundation and nonprofit donations. they have overwhelming resources to secure and exploit them that public, and many private institutions, do not.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The children of elites tend to have parents who care about scholastics, which is far and away the most accurate predictor of scholastic success, not school quality, dollars per pupil, class size, teacher quality, or other irrelevancies Democrats and Republicans argue about.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[slashping]

An entire parallel yet grossly superior system of education exists for millionaires and billionaires

And yet, that grossly superior system of education only managed to produce crap politicians. Half of them even deny basic science such as evolution and greenhouse effect of CO2.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[nimbius]

Not necessarily. Paris Hilton is a premier example of a parent who clearly did not care about scholastics. Conrad Hilton has less sired and more excreted a petulent child incapable of even simple arithmetic. Many of the children of saudi elites and royalty are themselves incapable of anything more than conspicuous consumption. Muhammad bin Nayef, of the house of Saud, is nearly illiterate.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[ShanghaiBill]

The children of elites tend to have parents who care about scholastics, which is far and away the most accurate predictor of scholastic success

No. This is wrong. The most accurate predictors of scholastic success are 1) IQ of the child's biological parents, and 2) Household income. Having "parents that care" makes no measureable difference once you compensate for IQ and income. What the parents do matters far less than who the parents are.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[slashping]

The most accurate predictors of scholastic success are 1) IQ of the child's biological parents, and 2) Household income.

Is that also true if you correct household income for IQ of the parents/caretakers ?

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[Anonymous Coward]

What horseshit. My dad's parents were dirt poor, his father had a 6th grade education and worked in a paper mill. Yet he sent his kids to college, and my dad earned a Ph.D. and worked as an English professor his whole life at a private college.

Yeah, I know, "plural of anecdote is not data," blah blah. But you made the claim, so put up or shut up.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[Anonymous Coward]

The grandparent was discussing the demographics of education in the USA. Specific cases that don't match the pattern aren't relevant. The demographics of education in other cultures is also not relevant.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[drew_kime]

An entire parallel yet grossly superior system of education exists for millionaires and billionaires

And yet, that grossly superior system of education only managed to produce crap politicians. Half of them even deny basic science such as evolution and greenhouse effect of CO2.

Yet they got elected. Which means they succeeded at their chosen profession. Seems their education prepared them just fine.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[ShanghaiBill]

Paris Hilton earns millions annually through TV, product endorsements, and her own brands. She has a net worth of over $100 million. Less than $5M of that came from her inheritance. She manages and invests her money well. I don't think she is as dumb as you think she is.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[slashping]

Seems their education prepared them just fine.

Or, more likely, their education had little to do with it.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[slashping]

Less than $5M of that came from her inheritance

Her biggest inheritance was the family name, and she exploited that to get the earnings you talk about. Her only talent is being famous.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[jedidiah]

They have to keep on repeating the Big Lie. They can't portray themselves as the knight in shining armor if there isn't some grave injustice that needs correcting. They need to repeat the media narrative that upward mobility isn't possible.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[ShanghaiBill]

Half of them even deny basic science such as evolution and greenhouse effect of CO2.

That is because the focus groups tell them this is what they need to do to win the election. Politicians at the national level are very smart people. They would not get to that level if they were not. Bill Clinton has an IQ of 160, but he talked like a hick because he knew people would not vote for a pointy headed intellectual.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[Anonymous Coward]

Her biggest inheritance was the family name, and she exploited that to get the earnings you talk about. Her only talent is being famous.

Lots of people have a family name. Turning it into a brand the way she did is seriously impressive. Few here are anywhere near that caliber.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[Anonymous Coward]

I went to a top ranked private school and this was very true. Our campus sucked compared to the public school next door and we were always using their facilities for things like auditoriums or playing fields, basketball courts. We used depression era desks and no cafeteria. And the teachers were paid well below that of teachers from public school. Half of them weren't even real teachers, but people retired from industry.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[alvinrod]

Being dirt poor or having a limited education does not mean a person is unintelligent, no more than being rich or having every educational opportunity in the world means a person is intelligent. If it were that easy, we could just give stupid people additional schooling and everyone could be a rocket scientists or a doctor.

It's very likely your grandfather was an intelligent man, but did not have much opportunity in his life for any number of reasons. For instance, if he or his own parents were immigrants, they likely had to uproot and start with very little. My own grandfather only had a high school education, but worked hard and had children who attained more academically than he had, but he was by no means unintelligent. He was always quite skilled with machines, even though he had no formal education or training. He just figured out how they worked by tinkering or reading through the manual and did his own work on them rather than paying someone else for repairs.

Although I do agree that the person you're responding to should have posted a citation for his claim.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[slashping]

They would not get to that level if they were not.

They only have to outsmart the other candidate, not actual people with brains.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[slashping]

Lots of people have a family name. Turning it into a brand the way she did is seriously impressive. Few here are anywhere near that caliber.

You are right. A family name isn't enough, you also need a sex tape.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[Anonymous Coward]

Grandpa was no dummy. Neither was grandma, but they had "street smarts." Neither of them was a particularly distinguished student, that I'm aware of. They went to school and did the homework as they were told. Polish Catholic - strong sense of duty (and guilt).

Anyway, I think you'd be hard pressed to find the gene(s) that made my dad an academic.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[Anonymous Coward]

When oil companies, Rupert Murdoch and the Koch Bros. are buttering your bread, you say what they want you to say.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[ShanghaiBill]

You are right. A family name isn't enough, you also need a sex tape.

The sex tape was not something that "just happened". It was "leaked" just three weeks before the premier of her first TV show, just enough time to reach maximum buzz before the show was aired, and it doubled or maybe tripled the number of viewers. She took no legal action to stop it, or limit its distribution. She was able to ride the publicity for a five-season run. She also wrote a New York Times bestseller about her life. She is not an air-head, but she plays one on TV.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of people have a family name. Turning it into a brand the way she did is seriously impressive. Few here are anywhere near that caliber.

Yup, nobody had EVER heard of the brand Hilton (Hotels) before Paris came along...

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[swb]

Does she actively manage all that money, or does she have some trusted insider do it for her?

I could see where she could possibly have some insight into a slice of the decisions that end up making her money -- she's probably as good an arbiter of what's fashionable in her circle as anyone.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[ShanghaiBill]

Yup, nobody had EVER heard of the brand Hilton (Hotels) before Paris came along...

Hilton Hotels is not a reality TV brand. Conrad Hilton had dozens of great-grandchildren. None of the others are near as famous, or as rich, as Paris. She certainly had a lot of advantages in life. But she has built on those advantages, rather than squandering them like most of her relatives. Holding her up as an example of a "petulant child incapable of simple arithmetic" is nonsense.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[Falos]

>She has a net worth of over $100 million.
>I don't think she is as dumb as you think she is.
I can't say much because I'm not an expert on this subject: It's 2016 and I still don't know what a Kardashian is.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[Anonymous Coward]

upward mobility isn't possible

Upward mobility isn't possible for everyone. Can you imagine an America with 300 million CEOs? Someone has to be the employee.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[Nethemas the Great]

If you bothered to do any research you'd find that this school, follows the Harvard, MIT, etc. model wherein tuition is exceedingly high, but financial aid is made available on a need basis. According to the school the average recipient is awarded $25,708. While still a bit steep, that places tuition within reach of those not in the %1 club, and helps ensure only academically motivated parents apply to send their kids there.

Bashing successful people might seem like a fun, cathartic way to deal with your own lack thereof. It however, is often--not always, but often--more correct and certainly more productive to assign blame at your own lack of thoughtful drive and determination. Rich brat offspring may get a head start, but if they lack those traits they usual end self-destructing. Regardless, their parents started on the ground floor, they made themselves using the resources available to them as a commoner.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[operagost]

Oh. I kind thought it was like that South Park episode where the cure for HIV was injecting tons and tons of cash directly into the bloodstream, but I think your idea is more sound.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[Nethemas the Great]

Citation required. To go stereotypical, Asians consistently outperform other groups having similar (low) incomes. The common cultures associated with each minority group however, have very different priorities regarding the value of education.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[Bigbutt]

Babylon 5?

[John]

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[sanjacguy]

1) Sidwell Friends is a merit based entry program, meaning you have to test well and perform well in school to get in. Public Schools take anybody.
2) Sidwell Friends has had the children of President Nixon, President Clinton, and President Obama, which tells me their staff can handle working with increased security needs the children of the first family require.
3) The study this article refers to handled two very different student bodies, which was kind of the point.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[martinX]

Huh. I thought sex tape was something you used to prevent leaks.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[Anonymous Coward]

> She has a net worth of over $100 million ... She manages and invests her money well. I don't think she is as dumb as you think she is.

"If you're so rich, how come you ain't smart?"

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I were to hypothetically say:

"The children of whites and asians tend to have parents who care about scholastics, which is by far and away the most accurate predictor of scholastic success, not school quality, dollars per pupil, etc. It is only natural that Asians should succeed and black fail, and that Asians should hold the blacks failure over their heads"

The world would be up in arms. Yet this exact same thing is happening with the elites.

I am not saying anything is wrong with this. Survival of the fittest and all. I just have a problem with the politically correct attitude that would hold one view accountable and give a pass to the other.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[penandpaper]

Kardashian

Kardashian are a humanoid race, with light grey skin. Their faces have small ridges on their sides, which converge to a characteristic crest shape on their foreheads, with female Kardashian sporting a blue or blue-green coloration to their crest. This crest has led to the derogatory nickname "spoonheads" used by other races.

Not sure on the spelling though.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Can you imagine an America with 300 million CEOs? Someone has to be the employee.

We're an anarcho-syndicalist company. We take it in turns to act as a sort of "executive officer for the week."

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[Falos]

Thank you for your informative efforts, sister posts. Perhaps together we can figure out why the surface dwellers worship the Kardashian. Their religious texts don't indicate any sort of grand events, legends, or accomplishments, biblical or otherwise, that would prompt the exhaustive rituals and culture.

But the Kardashian phenomenon (not sure if sacred location, diety, or artifact) has a net worth of over 9000, so _clearly_ there must be something of value for me to find.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[rtb61]

Should not politicians responsible for the state of public schools be required by law to force their children to attend those schools. Consider this, they judge the schools they manage not good enough for their children but for the majority of the electorate, suck it up, those schools are as shitty as they can get away with. If public schools are good enough for the children of politicians, then those politicians are not good enough for the parents of children in public schools!!!

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your idea depends on getting a law passed by those same politicians.

You'll have to convince them it's for their own good!

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[Anonymous Coward]

You had to bribe girls to the tune of $500,000 to do computer courses (not computer science)... stuff that boys do for free in their own time.

Who is the real problem here?

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[AmiMoJo]

No, that's wrong. In the UK there was a big push to encourage parents to read to their children, and then to start teaching them to read so that by the time they started school at age 4 they could at least recognize some letters. It had a significant effect on academic outcomes and has been integrated into many pre-school activities.

On the other end of the scale, it's been shown that children starting school unable to speak English (e.g. because their parents speak something else) is a major disadvantage and has effects lasting right through to adulthood.

Re:but its not obamas fault.

[Hognoxious]

It wasn't due to their education, it was due to everyone else's lack of it.

interesting

[slashping]

part of what's happening is that we are not helping schools and teachers teach it in an interesting way.

It's a feature, not a bug. Coding isn't interesting unless you have a mind for it. And if you have a mind for it, you don't need a creative teacher and colorful projects to make it interesting for you.

Re:interesting

[thesandtiger]

That's ridiculous. Many, many people come to things later in life that they were initially turned off of by truly horrid teachers.

When I was in elementary I *HATED* maths and science because the way my teachers taught it was aggressively boring. It was all rote memorization of formulae and processes, and there was zero joy or excitement - they taught it like people who didn't actually know the material and were just reading from a teacher's guide, because that's exactly what they were.

We moved and I went to a better school, and I was STUNNED at how interesting the teachers were able to make subjects I previously hated and dreaded.

Flash forward to now and I've had a long career as both an engineer and a research scientist. Given my successful career, I'd say I definitely have a mind for it, which I might never have come to realize if I'd had to continue staying with shitty teachers who seemed to go out of their way to make it boring.

And I know a LOT of people who have had similar experiences. Dismissing a huge swath of people as somehow unworthy or incapable simply because they don't immediately become fascinated by a subject is absurd. Funny enough though, it's a pretty common attitude by people in tech.

Re:interesting

[slashping]

Dismissing a huge swath of people as somehow unworthy or incapable simply because they don't immediately become fascinated by a subject is absurd.

No doubt cases like yours happen, but very doubtful we're talking about a huge swath. And in the context of national budget allocations, it's best to focus on the big groups, and not worry too much about the few that fall through the cracks. Has nothing to do with emotional terms such as "unworthy". It's just basic statistics.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you explain to me how to make football interesting?

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you explain to me how to make football interesting?

I'm not sure, but I think it requires replacing the existing players with hot babes and the uniforms with lingerie. And having lots of pre-game warm-up jumping jacks.

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

they taught it like people who didn't actually know the material and were just reading from a teacher's guide, because that's exactly what they were.

I don't mean to intrude on a good rant, but if you *really* want to improve things, you need to re-examine this statement. Do you truly believe that your elementary school maths teachers did not know elementary school math?

You see, this is *exactly* what the problem is. People had a hard time at school (and I am one of those people), didn't like their teachers and conclude that they must have been so incredibly idiotic that they couldn't understand things like fractions. And so they push the school boards to "improve" things by making sure that teachers take comprehensive tests -- of things like fractions. Or lets make sure that someone has a degree in math -- to teach fractions. I don't know what we'll do if the teacher can't do multi-variate calculus and differential equations -- while they are teaching fractions.

I will even admit to having this same thought. OK, maybe not about elementary school teachers. But middle school or high school? Hell yes! There is no way those morons knew what they heck they were teaching. They were just going through the motions and reading out of the textbook. Right?

Then I got a job as a teacher. And guess what? It turns out that *teaching* is hard. Not elementary/middle/high school math. It turns out that relating to your moody but bright student who is always avoiding eye contact *while you are stopping 3 other ruffians from setting the school on fire* is really, really, really challenging. It turns out that 20% of your class didn't eat to day because their parents ignored them, or were beaten or abused, or were stuffed in lockers by the ruffians who are still trying to set the school on fire. And you set up a fun group exercise and ask everyone to find a friend to work with -- and one of your students bursts into tears because *they literally have no friends*. And you record how much time you have spent individually with each student in your class and your jaw drops when you discover that the only people you have spent more than 5 minutes with this term are the ruffians who are *still* trying to set the school on fire.

But the thing is... there *are* good teachers. But from my perspective, these people are not good at math. They aren't even just good at making math interesting. They are fscking miracle workers. And if you work as a teacher, you just pray to god that you can get in a school with even one of them and learn from them (even though the entire system makes it virtually impossible to have more than a passing interaction with your other colleagues).

So to sum up. Teaching is not about math. Or making math interesting. Or any other subject. If you truly want to improve your schools, you need to impress upon everybody you know that teaching is about people. Teaching is about reaching out to people who may very well be in the worst time of their lives and helping them get through it. There are also limits. A teacher *can't* teach a class of 40 people. In a 50 minute class that gives you barely over a minute for each student even if you have 100% efficiency. Such a thing is impossible. Cut your classes to 20 people and give them *2* teachers, not one! *Now* you can teach.

Re:interesting

[0100010001010011]

How many people interested in cooking, baking, or wood shop know what coding can do for them?

I have yet to see a high school or voctech program that teaches practical uses to coding.

To a controls engineer the modern home kitchen is an embarrassment of control systems. Steam engine centrifugal governors had better control than an over bought in 2016. It has zero disturbance rejection (opening the oven door). And has one setting. I've got all the items and am going to make my own ramp/soak controller so that I can have perfectly consistent baked goods.

Measuring by hand still? I know some refrigerators have a 'measure x amount' but it's only on the high end ones. I should have a counter top device that can measure out with perfect accuracy any liquid.

Doing wood working projects is painfully slow because it's measure, cut, measure cut... I stepper motor, arduino and you can tell it how many boards and of what length you need and all you need to do is pull the circular saw down when the green light tells you it's ready. With better precision than I could ever do in a reasonable amount of time.

I could teach a middle schooler to do anything I've mentioned in a semester and for under $50 but kids aren't taught the practical applications to coding. It's all "Learn to do a for loop" without explaining the physical equivalent of a for loop.

Coding isn't a job. It's a skill. Hearing that kids don't need to learn to code because some don't have a 'knack' for it is like hearing that most people don't need to learn to type because there isn't a real need for some professions to learn to type.

Re:interesting

[slashping]

I should have a counter top device that can measure out with perfect accuracy any liquid.

Great, but the challenges of making a design that works with any kind of liquid without cross contamination, or bacterial growth inside the device have nothing to do with basic coding skills.

it is like hearing that most people don't need to learn to type

Typing is an easy and useful skill that nearly everybody can learn. For a better analogy, compare coding to playing the piano. I have absolutely no talent for music, and all my school music lessons have been a total waste of time. Concert pianists aren't discovered through basic music lessons at school.

Re:interesting

[thesandtiger]

I don't mean to intrude on a good rant, but if you *really* want to improve things, you need to re-examine this statement. Do you truly believe that your elementary school maths teachers did not know elementary school math?

Yes, I truly believe my elementary school maths teachers did not KNOW elementary school math.

I believe they could DO elementary school math - as in, they had, as most people do, the processes down and could arrive at a correct answer when presented with an arithmetic problem.

But they did not KNOW elementary school math. They didn't understand why those processes worked and weren't able to do anything but shrug and say "that's just how it is" when a student would ask the why, rather than the how. They weren't able to present multiple different approaches to solving the same problem and use that to get at larger concepts like critical thinking.

When I was in those classes, I did NOT learn elementary school math. I learned very specific processes to obtain "correct" results, but not WHY those results were correct, why the processes worked, or even if there were other processes for getting those same results. Unless one wants to argue that rote memorization IS elementary school math, in which case I say, what a fucking waste of 4-5 years of prime learning time.

I agree that there is a ton of ancillary, non-subject related skill and knowledge that teachers must have; we put a huge burden on teachers, treat them like shit, and pay them as little as we can get away with. We set things up so that people who actually do have subject mastery wouldn't be willing to put up with the bullshit they have to in order to be teachers, except in very rare cases.

Re:interesting

[thesandtiger]

When I was very young, my older brother would have friends over and they would play D&D. Being the pesky kid sister, I wanted to play with them, and my folks insisted they let me play. So I made a character (a very time consuming process) and triumphantly joined their game and... my character was immediately killed by a dragon swooping down from the sky who then flew off, job done.

So I took a couple of hours to make another character and... killed by a random passing ogre. My brother and his friends were laughing their asses off about it, and figured they had gotten me to stop wanting to play, because it took me like an hour or so to make a character and if they kept dying...

I told my dad what was going on and, rather than tell my brother and his friends to knock that shit off, he said hey, let's see if we can make it so you can make a new character faster than they can kill it off. We spent about 3 weeks building a character creation program on our Apple ][; it just HAPPENED to also teach me the basics of programming.

Next time I gamed with them, they predictably killed my character right away. So I ran off, printed out a new one and came back. They killed her, too. Came back a minute later with another, then came back with a stack of them and at some point they said fuck it and actually let me play.

Give a person a problem they actually CARE about solving and that is amenable to an engineered solution and some support while they're surmounting the learning curve, and they'll probably pick stuff up really well. Necessity first, THEN abstraction.

Re:interesting

[0100010001010011]

For the want of mod points.

I was always the kid that never stopped asking 'why', 'because' was never a valid excuse (and still isn't). Teachers that showed me how ___ could be used to do what I wanted to do were far more effective than telling me what ____ could do for me.

If you ask a classroom of 30 students what they want to do you're going to get 30 different answers. They key to teaching them advanced concepts it telling them how advanced concepts can help them achieve those goals.

You like photography? Why not make a SQLAlchemy database for your images. Don't like that? Why not use OpenCV to automatically categorize your photos. I *hate* sorting photos. I just want to dump them to disk and move on. Now that I have 10 month old I certainly have less time to mess around with stuff, so I'm writing a script to do facial recognition, pull out the photos. The goal is to 'Tinderfy' the sorting process for my wife, then use a neural net to figure out what faces she finds good and then automatically e-mail them out to family.

I get to take photos without dealing with the boring part. My wife gets to look at photos without dealing with the boring part. My family gets to see photos daily without human input on our end.

And if a middle schooler asks 'why' something like neural networks work, I'll point them to algebra and if they ask why that work's I'll point them to linear algebra and if they ask how that works on computers I can point them to BLAS. But a kid that just wants to sort photos just needs to use the end tool.

Based on my female friends in engineering's interests they were attracted to engineering because they were the girls that like cars and the current 'message' about what engineering is seems to involve cars and mechanical contraptions. But if my daughter is more interested in selfies and facebook status updates then I'll show her Facebook's API and cron jobs. She can spend 30 minutes a week setting up posts for the week and not 30 minutes an hour.

If you don't mind me asking what did you end up getting interested in after D&D and how have you used those basics of programming to help with that?

Re:interesting

[thesandtiger]

With kids especially, since they tend to developmentally lack certain structures that are essential to abstract thinking. You have to be practical because nothing else will work (except in extremely rare cases).

After D&D, we got a modem and I totally lost my mind when I realized that there were other human beings out there who also had computers and wanted to talk, so I started using a really simple chat program on The Source to bug people who were on line (with appropriate parental supervision).

Then someone mentioned BBSs, and after that I wanted to make my own BBS software, so learned a bit about that; I wound up writing a basic wardialer (didn't know things like that existed but I got curious to see if anyone else had a modem). Then after I saw a bunch of different BBSs, I wanted to run my own. I learned how to write a program that would have the modem answer the phone and try to handshake with a caller, then I made a user system, and then a simple menu system, then messaging, and then games, etc. Every time I learned one thing, I saw another feature out there that I wanted to add, so I just kept on learning more since I had a never ending series of problems to solve.

At some point, around 14 or so, I lost interest (or gained an interest in dating and seeing the sun and the outdoors). I didn't start writing software again until years later in grad school (for public health) and had to create a response & notification system for disaster first responders; we were supposed to just make process manual, but I thought hey, maybe this would be less prone to error or panic or human factors if there were software that could tell you what you needed to do, step by step, and how that might make it a LOT easier to train dispatchers.

My faculty advisor said hey, would you take a look at this other thing I've been working on and I'm like oh, hey, you know, we could have a system to do this, that ant the other thing... And years later, despite totally changing fields 2x, I'm pretty much doing that same thing all the time.

Who knew my brother being a dick would lead to this career?

Re:interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have a mind for coding, you don't need a creative teacher and colorful projects to make it interesting to you *once you've been exposed to it enough to find out you have a mind for it*. The programs that succeed best are those that expose kids - say, those who don't have a computer in the home, or who have always been given the impression that coding is for other people, not for them - enough to find the rare one or two whose light up when they can make the computer do something. In that way, it's more like music than math classes - you put all the kids through basic music classes, and one or two will be excited enough to play an instrument that they'll devote significant time to it at home. Whereas for math, you want all the kids to achieve a basic level of competency, not just the prodigies.

Re:interesting

[0100010001010011]

You and I seem to be in the minority on Slashdot. I'm not a CS major. I'm not a computer or software engineer. I'm a Mechanical engineer. Most people in my profession consider coding up there with alchemy and voodoo. I just see it as a tool to get a job done on par with a good hammer or wrench set.

I'm sure some CS guys would look at my code and say I did something wrong on improper, but at the end of the day if 20 minutes of code saved me 10 hours of messing around in Excel I count it as a win.

90% of the coding I do is just pattern recognition and figuring out how to do it in a loop. Freshmen year we were supposed to write our own linear regression tool. The teacher gave us bonus points if we extended it to x^3 and x^4, right off the bat I noticed the 'pattern' of going from x^2, x^3, x^4 and just made it x^n and left it. I have no problem calling myself lazy. I hate doing things twice, I'd rather find the pattern and be done with it. I've been converting a bunch of Matlab code to Jupyter Notebooks. After the first one I decided copy and pasting sucked and was time consuming, so ended up banging this script out in a hackathon. It's not perfect but it's saved me probably 3x as much time as it took to write.

I find it funny that all these guys (Slashdotters) that use coding to do their job can't see how coding can be used to do any other job. Every single article that talks about teaching kids coding has the exact same comments on how kids don't need to know how to code since they might not be interested in CS.

The one and only time I ever learned assembly was making a PID controller for 68k and learned enough that I never, ever want to do assembly ever again. Same with C. I do most of my 'coding' these days in Simulink which is exactly what most Slashdotters say will never work. A simple drag and drop way to make code.

The rich are going to get theirs

[rsilvergun]

Stop asking yourself how you can stop them from getting it and how we can get it for everybody else. All crap like this story does is get people yelling about govt waste. And all that happens when you try to cut it is your education budget for your kid's school gets cut.

Re:The rich are going to get theirs

[sociocapitalist]

Stop asking yourself how you can stop them from getting it and how we can get it for everybody else. All crap like this story does is get people yelling about govt waste. And all that happens when you try to cut it is your education budget for your kid's school gets cut.

The education budget for our kids schools is being cut anyway and if we don't complain about mis-allocation of taxpayer money like this blatant misuse of public funds then nothing will change.

Maybe nothing will change anyway but if we don't complain it is certain not to.

I mean really - half a million dollars of taxpayer money going to a private school for the rich?

It's disgusting.

Re:The rich are going to get theirs

[AmiMoJo]

Rational thought doesn't come into this, it's just anger, jealousy and a vague feeling of unfairness. It's either rich people looking after their own, or racists only helping black kids, or sexists only helping girls... The only way people can feel like victims is if they assume everyone else is getting a hand up except for them.

Re:The rich are going to get theirs

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop asking yourself how you can stop them from getting it and how we can get it for everybody else.

Next time you hear someone at a School Board meeting start whining about how a Government class, or a History class, or a Math subject is something their kid will "never need in the real world", jump up and punch them in the face.
The Elite Private schools outperform Public schools because they know that yes, you DO need to know how compound interest works if you want to be able to handle loans, mortgages, investment, and retirement. Yes, you DO need to understand Government in order to use it and control it. You DO need to understand World History in order to understand why shit is going on like it is today.

They do not outperform the public schools because they have a nicer lunchroom, or more money for their football team. They outperform because the parents demand a more rigorous curriculum, because they pay the teachers better, and because the class sizes are smaller. They outperform because you don't get to fill your elective timeslots with 'study hall' or 'physical education', but rather you have to take additional science, math, history, language, and art classes.

Next time the local teacher's union wants a pay raise, or the City wants a mill levy to fund additional schools and reduce class sizes, vote FOR it. When was the last time you even showed up at a school board meeting?

How to get Women in CS

[ponraul]

Just start giving them a lot more vaccinations.

Re:How to get Women in CS

[Anonymous Coward]

That line isn't going to work. Your 'needle' will remain dry.

Re: How to get Women in CS

[Anonymous Coward]

And stop running the sexist air conditioner!
And check your privilege, ie stfu when a woman is talking because owning a penis invalidates your right to speak.

Any others I missed?

Re: How to get Women in CS

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll still only make $0.03 on the dollar compared to penises.

Trends

[phantomfive]

I'm not sure the trend of 'making programming a game' is the best way to go about it....it works fine at the introductory levels, but how do you move beyond drag-and-drop programming blocks and start using text all the time? Are you going learn about NP-complete with pictures? I think at some point, the students need to develop a passion for solving puzzles, otherwise they will not have the desire to keep going.......

In any case, here is the curriculum they used:

1) programming (bouncing ball, kindergarten picture)
2) functions, variables, basic loops, 2D arrays (image processing)
3) fundamentals, control structures (Andy Wharhol, Green Screen)
4) algorithm development (finding the robots ball)
**At this point, the students are given a four-week introduction to Python** 5) OOP: classes, polymorphism, animation (bouncing ball, sea creature)
6) OOP and design (space invaders)
7) Abstraction Strings (data visualization)
8) OOP: interfaces (swimmable object, paint)
9) OOP: inheritance (sea creature inheritance)
10) Recursion (hanoi tower)
11) algorithm development, OOP: encapsulation (robot maze)

Personally I would rather see less emphasis on OOP, and more emphasis on "the proving mindset" (the proving mindset being, when you write code, try to think of everything that can go wrong, every possibility). It's kind of hard to understand when OOP is a good thing without writing bad code first.....

Re:Trends

[Anonymous Coward]

The technique you just outlined will produce shitloads of CS grads who can make huge visio sheets but can't solve basic programming tasks like fizzbuzz.

Re:Trends

[Tablizer]

Plus, OOP is not the right solution for some parts of systems. The "OO everywhere" mentality of the last decade is mostly dead. We've learned, yet again, "use the right tool for the job".

The FP (functional) fans are making the same mistake lately, I believe: "FP everywhere". In part because JavaScript (ironically) has a lousy OOP model such that people stick anonymous functions all over the place. (Oh oh, I didn't mean to start a Paradigm War.)

For example, JS's "setTimout" should be part of a "timer" class instead of rely on anonymous functions. That would allow more parameters and options (possibly for future expansion):

// pseudo-code
t = new(timer);
t.milliseconds = 4000;
t.overlap = false; // don't start a new thread if existing not done
t.maxWait = 12000;
function t.onTick { // over-ride (define) event
  doSomethingPeriodically();
}
function t.exceedWait() {
  threadTookTooLongCustomHandling(
        this.errMessage);
}

But a bigger-picture problem is that there is more to IT than coding, and coding jobs may even shrink, as offshoring picks up. I have more to say about this in another message.

Re:Trends

[phantomfive]

Plus, OOP is not the right solution for some parts of systems.

Yeah, teaching OOP at that level is more of indoctrination, because they don't have the tools they need to understand when it is a good choice, and when it isn't.

Re:Trends

[0100010001010011]

You're making the assumption that people need to learn to do all of that.

Most people would be good knowing 1-3 and spending 4-11 learning how to apply it to solve their problems. Someone interested in baking doesn't need to know everything else, they need to learn how coding can help solve their baking problems.

The problem is that it's not being taught with practical applications to most people.

Re:Trends

[phantomfive]

More Americans need to learn to think, that's for sure. Our current candidate crop proves that.
And maybe programming will help with that.

Kipling I'm not

[OffTheLip]

"President lamented that his daughters hadn't taken to coding the way he'd like"

It's that way for many things. I never took to writing a great novel either although I took English, writing and literature most of my school years.

Re:Kipling I'm not

[slashping]

I took PE classes, and I'm still waiting for my first Olympic medal.

Re:Kipling I'm not

[Anonymous Coward]

Take more.

Re:Kipling I'm not

[sociocapitalist]

"President lamented that his daughters hadn't taken to coding the way he'd like"

It's that way for many things. I never took to writing a great novel either although I took English, writing and literature most of my school years.

It's also complete bullshit. As if the President wants his daughters to be programmers. What a crock.

It's an attempted justification for an abuse of taxpayer money.

"CS not interesting"

[Anonymous Coward]

"part of what's happening is that we are not helping schools and teachers teach it in an interesting way"

It has nothing to do with the teaching technique. You can't force people to become interested in computer science and programming. If you aren't the type of person who is naturally drawn towards this particular type of problem solving, you'll quickly be discouraged by the constant setbacks and frustration that accompany all programming endeavors. Very few people have the natural mathematical talent and abstract thinking abilities necessary to enjoy this work and thus overcome the first 5-10 years of pain and eventually become good.

and down the GOP road soon HS will come to loans

[Joe_Dragon]

and down the GOP road soon HS will come to loans. Want to be stuck with 80-100K be for college and to get a good job you need to get the masters or phd for 150-300K more?

Re:and down the GOP road soon HS will come to loan

[Anonymous Coward]

Graduate school for science/engineering actually pays the students.

More Jewish nation-wrecking...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who do you think is behind all this 'women are the same as men and therefore must be given men's jobs' bullshit? You'll notice that women aren't being given DANGEROUS jobs that men die while doing, like construction, foundry work, oil rig work, mining, you name it.
More JEWISH nation-wrecking.

Re:More Jewish nation-wrecking...

[Anonymous Coward]

mod PARENT up!!!!!!!!! make SLASHDOT GREAT AGAIN!

Why teach everyone programming?

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't teach everyone to be plumbers. We don't teach everyone to be rocket scientists. Different people do different things and that's awesome.

This "everyone should be able to program" initiative makes as much sense as trying to teach everyone calculus.

This is why inequality is rampant

[MikeRT]

They would rather throw money at the daughters of the upper end of the 1% than money at the sons of the bottom 50%. Because equality. Because a girl born to a family that can afford $37k/year/kid for K12 tuition is "oppressed" by the "patriarchy" that includes a poor white kid who lives in Appalachia with a dad on Social Security Disability and a mom works as a waitress at a low end restaurant and a minority boy living in a violent ghetto with no father in his life. No siree, those boys have it easy because their penises give them preferential access, should the heavens open up and give them access to an accredited college at some point in their lives. Fight for equality, fight for the daughters of the privileged!

Re:This is why inequality is rampant

[Anonymous Coward]

FTA:
Two very different high schools (public: James Martin High School, Dallas, TX and private: Sidwell Friends School, Washington, DC) were chosen as the initial participants both because of their school cultures and for the marked difference in teacher pedagogical styles. These differences suggest that creative computation can be adapted across a broad spectrum of school cultures by teachers with a range of organizational and accountability constraints and levels of expertise.

So it's a general study, and not restricted to private schools.

You can lead a horse to water...

[K. S. Van Horn]

"part of what's happening is that we are not helping schools and teachers teach it in an interesting way."

If someone needs to convince you that CS is interesting, then maybe CS is not for you. I've never known a really good programmer who got into the field because someone coddled and cajoled them into it. On the contrary, they seek out every opportunity they can find to learn more on their own initiative.

Re:You can lead a horse to water...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never known a really good programmer who got into the field because someone coddled and cajoled them into it.

I have. Oh wait, you said good programmer. The ones I knew were a drag to the entire team. I worked with this one guy who did not know how to list the contents of a directory. True story.

Re:You can lead a horse to water...

[OhPlz]

Not to mention that if they make it their career, they better be able to get enjoyment out of it on their own or they're not going to last long in the workforce. Offices don't generally come with cheerleaders.

Re:You can lead a horse to water...

[0100010001010011]

You're thinking of the problem backwards.

You don't need to teach kids CS to get them into CS. You need to teach them programming and give them practical applications to how they can use it to do what they are interested in

Someone interested in baking doesn't need to know how to make a good bubble sort. They should be able to make a basic PID controller and a ramp-soak controller. Brand new oven 'controls' are an embarrassment to the field of controls. But I would bet that no one sat down someone interested in baking and explained to them how programming could help solve problems they're having.

Are all people going to learn to code? No, but if they know that coding can help them solve their problems it's going to be a lot better carrot to learn to program than hearing "Because".

Re:You can lead a horse to water...

[Anonymous Coward]

> You need to teach them programming and give them practical applications to how they can use it to do what they are interested in

That would be nice, but as I recall from my school days back in the late Cretaceous, NONE of the curriculum was aimed at teaching me how to do things I was interested in. It was pretty much "you have to do this, never mind whether you find it interesting."

I wanted to do computer animation. Art class made me paint and sculpt instead.
I wanted to learn about synthesizers. Music class made me learn to play the recorder.
I wanted to read science fiction. English class made me read Bronte sisters.

Etc. etc.

Re:You can lead a horse to water...

[Bengie]

I had a senior "software engineer" ask me for a list of IDs from a database. So I sent him the list, just separated by linebreaks. He replied with "can you resend the data, but comma delimited". So I opened up the email I sent, copied the contents into my favorite text editor and did a mass-replace of "\r\n" to "," for him.

I had another "software engineer" that learned about the singleton pattern. Made me an library to call that implemented it as a system wide mutex. I could not create the same object more than once in the entire system. When I confronted him, because I had some situations where I actually needed to call the library on the side, he said that it's the proper pattern since I should not need to create the object more than once. So I just ran the library call from another server.

Sidwell Friends ...

[oneiros27]

For those *not* from the DC area --

Sidwell Friends is the school where the kids of many politicians end up going. Clinton's kid went there, as did Nixon's and Teddy Roosevelt's.

For those congress people that bring their families to DC, many of their kids go there, too. Along with ambassadors' kids, VP's kids, judge's kids, various CEO's kids, etc.

It'd actually be more surprising if a president who had grade school kids *didn't* sent their kids to Sidwell Friends.

Re:Sidwell Friends ...

[ponraul]

Jimmy Carter sent his daughter to the public school down the street: "[Amy] Carter attended Washington, D.C., public schools, including Stevens Elementary School and Hardy Middle School. Later, she attended Tri-County High School in Buena Vista, Georgia."

Re:Sidwell Friends ...

[Nethemas the Great]

For good and bad, Jimmy was a bit different...

Programming is now equal, time to move on

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps Obama could burn another $4bn to make the mining industry more gender-equal? Or the sanitation industry? Or construction? No?

Well Rounded IT

[Tablizer]

Why emphasize just coding when programming jobs may shrink?

While I agree that programming is decent entry-level job into other IT fields, I'm not sure the emphasis of IT teaching should be on coding. Structural factoring (basic normalization, redundancy identification), set theory, logic, general architecture (clients, servers, databases, networks, security) and so forth should also be part of such courses.

Even if you never code on the job, understanding the relationships between data elements and system parts is important for most office workers, from clerks to managers and most cubicle dwellers in-between.

As far as the programming part, one of the best intro teaching projects I've seen is to have students code up their resume and cover letter, and then use a list or database to populate the resume and cover letter template with destination information (company name, company contact, specialty, address, etc.)

Have a condition whereby if the company specialty is not known (blank), then a sentence(s) about interest in the specialty is bypassed from the result. Thus, they learn looping over data, and conditionals. While not intended to actually be used for job-hunting, it gives students a feel for the practical side of programming. (This is kind of like MS's Mail-Merge.)

So..

[fluffernutter]

Apparently the future CEOs and executives of companies plan to do all the programming themselves? It is just a minor thing to do on the side? Or perhaps the CEOs will only need to know enough to determine which robot to use.

Re:So..

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes you need to automate a task and the process of writing a script is shorter than the process of having someone do it for you. Sometimes you wouldn't even imagine a given workflow could be automated if you didn't know how computers work. You would be surprised at how many people manually mass-rename hundreds or thousands of files.

Re:and down the GOP road soon HS will come to loan

[Anonymous Coward]

not any more when they have unlimited loans

Incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

Computer science is about the designing and building of computers. Things like bus architectures, CPU selection (and design!) and interfacing. You know, the actual hardware.
Computer programming is exactly what it says it is. It includes algorithm design and analysis.

Re:Incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

Computer science is about the designing and building of computers. Things like bus architectures, CPU selection (and design!) and interfacing. You know, the actual hardware.

That's computer engineering

Re:Incorrect.

[Dcnjoe60]

Actually, computer programming is a subset of computer science. You cannot design and build computers without thought to how to design applications for and program them.

But by itself, teaching programming is not computer science any more than drivers ed would be automotive engineering.

Re:Incorrect.

[Anonymous Coward]

No that was Electrical Engineering at the college I went to. All those courses were labeled. EE 101, 102, 103... Computer Science(CS) course covered code, algorithms, and databases. Math(MA) covered logic, matrix algebra, and calculating error/complexity. There were some community colleges that offered classes on "Information Technology"

Re:Incorrect.

[AmiMoJo]

It's an introductory course for computer science.

When my parents learnt French they started by learning the theory, vocabulary and grammar. Putting it to practical use only came later. When I learned French we started by learning to converse. That's just how modern teaching works. Teach the practical stuff first and then expand it with theory later.

Re:Incorrect.

[Dcnjoe60]

I agree, language arts are best taught by learning the vocabulary and then the rules. This mimics how a child learns a language. However, that doesn't work with computer languages, to well, which really are not a true language and instead are a descriptive algorithm. The other difference is that languages are taught are taught conversationally today whereas programming is written out. You need the proper "grammatical" rules in the programming language or it won't compile and run. That is not the case with a spoken language.

As for teaching the practical stuff first and expanding it with theory later, is nice in theory (no pun intended), but when the practical builds on the theory you really need both. Maybe that is why teaching language is considered an art versus a science.

Re:Incorrect.

[Bengie]

I don't learn well that way. I learn best from learning the 80/20 of theory, then going on to practice. Then revisit the last 20% of the theory. When I was young I had to learn about 25 new words per week in school and I typically got a C or D. Now that I'm in my 30s, I am self-teaching Japanese with about 50 words per week in a language I had no prior background in.

Theory gives me a framework in which to place what I'm learning from practice. Without theory, I am forced to use my memory for everything. With theory, I can at least create some rules to reduce the amount of rote memorization.

When it comes to programming, the first thing I do is go read up on best practice, then I read up on theory, then I dive into the details.

sexist program is sexist. grant to rich is evil.

[Anonymous Coward]

america is doomed, and you're all completely pathetic.

do something about it, you pussies.

telescope science != astronomy

[Hognoxious]

Computer science is about the designing and building of computers. Things like bus architectures, CPU selection (and design!) and interfacing. You know, the actual hardware.

My arse it is. Computer science is a branch of mathematics.

Re:telescope science != astronomy

[KGIII]

Ahem... Everything is a branch of mathematics, even if they don't know it, won't admit it, or are doing it wrong. *nods*

I, err... I might be a little biased.

Re:telescope science != astronomy

[buck-yar]

At my alma mater, a few of the upper level CS courses cross referenced as Math courses (like Theory of Computation). They shared enough courses that with a CS degree, automatically came a math minor.

He might not be so keen on this career if he...

[Anonymous Coward]

He might not be so keen on this career if he knew the average salaries.

Of course if you work at Microsoft or Google or Facebook or Apple, you get the big bucks.

He should probably push his daughters into politics, I'm sure the payday is better.

Obama, seduced by the tech hype

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh, Obama, and a variety of national politicians have been seduced by the Silicon Valley billionare campaign of the computer programming shortage myth / need more H-1b visas. I guess this is one of the ways his community organizer past shows up. Oh well, it's less damaging than No Child Left Behind.

I wonder which of Hillary, Sanders, Trump, Cruz, and Rubio would also be persuaded?

She's not brilliant

[sjbe]

Paris Hilton earns millions annually through TV, product endorsements, and her own brands. She has a net worth of over $100 million. Less than $5M of that came from her inheritance.

Presuming that is true then good for her doing so well prostituting herself. I find it amazing that anyone gives a damn about anything she is involved in but good for her for making something of her opportunities.

She manages and invests her money well.

No, she has people that manage her money well for her. I guaran-damn-tee you she isn't managing her money herself. She as agents, investment advisers, family connections, etc.

I don't think she is as dumb as you think she is.

I don't think she is some brilliant business woman either. She comes from a family with money. Along with that tends to come some really smart advisers.

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Two schools out of a nation of schools get a grant.. And wouldn't you know it, just so happens to be Obama's children's school.

It just has to be a coincidence.. Right!?!?!?

Re:Wow

[SoftwareArtist]

Actually, tons of schools get grants for all sorts of things all the time. The only reason you're hearing about this one is that it just happened to involve the school Obama's daughters go to. You don't hear anything about the hundreds of other grants given to other schools they don't go to, because talking about them wouldn't fit the political narrative.

Sidwell Friends School

[westlake]

In keeping with Quaker tenets, Sidwell Friends School seeks a student body that represents varied economic backgrounds. In 2015-2016, 23% of our students will receive approximately $6,700,000 of financial aid support with an average aid award of $25,708, which covers two-thirds of the average tuition cost.

Financial Aid

All students must acquire at least 20 credits before graduating. Students are required to take four years of English, three years of mathematics, three years of history, two years of one foreign language, two years of science, and two years of art. In addition to this, all freshmen must take a full year Freshman Studies course. Sidwell is a member school of School Year Abroad.

Notable alumni

Ann Brashares, author, "The Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants"
Margaret Edison, playwright, Pulitzer Prize for Drama
Walter Gilbert, Nobel Prize chemist
Hannah Gray, later President of the University of Chicago
Davis Guggenheim, director, "An Inconvenient Truth"
Campbell McGrath, poet, MacArthur Foundation "Genius" award winner
Bill Nye, "Science Guy"
Robert Watson, computer science and network security, FreeBSD

Sidwell Friends School/A?

Slashdot Flushed Down The Toilet

[westlake]

That this anti-Semitic drivel should receive a mod-up is obscene:

Who do you think is behind all this 'women are the same as men and therefore must be given men's jobs' bullshit? You'll notice that women aren't being given DANGEROUS jobs that men die while doing, like construction, foundry work, oil rig work, mining, you name it. More JEWISH nation-wrecking.

In 2014, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 9,813,000 people working in the construction industry. Of these, 872,000 of them, or 8.9 percent, were women.

Women in the U.S. earn on average 82.1 percent what men make. The gender pay gap is much narrower in the construction industry. In construction, women earn on average 93.4 percent what men make

Statistics of Women in Construction [National Association of Women in Construction

Best known?

[mbone]

Saying Sidwell Friends is best known because President Obama's kids go there is something like saying that the White House is best known because JFK lived there. The school has been regarded as one of the premier schools in the DC area for over a century; Theodore Roosevelt's son Archibald, Richard Nixon's daughter Tricia, Bill Clinton's daughter Chelsea Clinton, and Vice President Al Gore's son, Albert Gore III, all graduated from Sidwell Friends.

Obamas Daughter

[Anonymous Coward]

I never understood why Obama hates his daughters so much that he wishes they be replaced by H-1Bs.

Rich don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

If President Obama really cared about the underprivileged, he would have made them give the money to an underserved community. He says he cares. He also killed the voucher program that gave underserved communities a choice in the school they sent their children to. Sacrificing other peoples children to the political gods of the Democrats.