Slashdot Mirror
50% of Parents in the US Believe Coding Most Beneficial Subject For Their Children, 75% Believe Big Tech Firms Should Be Involved in Helping Schools: Study (microsoft.com)
Long time reader theodp writes: According to a Microsoft-commissioned survey, 50% of parents in the U.S. with children aged 18 and under believed coding and computer programming to be the most beneficial subject to their child's future employability ("compared to foreign language skills at 28%"). From the Microsoft Education blog post: "When asked about the technology industry's involvement, 75 percent of parents said they believe big tech companies should be involved in helping schools build kids' digital skills. Many companies, including Microsoft and organizations like Code.org, are working to do just that. Programs like TEALS, which is supported by Microsoft Philanthropies, pairs trained Computer Science professionals from across the technology industry with classroom teachers to team-teach the subject." In 2016, Microsoft partnered with Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo to help bring computer science education to every public K-12 school across the state, an initiative that Raimondo is now touting in her 2018 bid for re-election (political ad).
Writing software is intended to serve a purpose, not just making programs for the hell of it. What the heck problem does a kid need to solve with software? Kids need to learn basic math and science, not screwing around with computers. Writing code is a trivial side issue related to solving other problems, not an end to itself.
Let's just teach all of our children brain surgery, far more lucrative than programming. After all, anyone can do it, right?
End of story.
Guess 'coding' is going to be about as respectable as secretarial positions in a few years then! Fortunately it is still a difficult subject and to be useful you actually need to be able to convert requirements into a solution - that is the difficult bit, not being a simple code monkey.
I would imagine that for new students, by the time they reach of the end of their schooling, the landscape will be completely different.
We are already starting to see programs that will code for you. I could imagine in the not too distant future, there will be no need to know code. "Programmers" will be more akin to architects, arranging code blocks like Legos to get the desired outcome. The program will do the rest for them to complete the application.
I think that things are advancing fast enough that we will surely see this type of situation before my children are grown.
Personally, I feel that time is better spend learning core disciplines, like mathematics, physics and especially critical thinking skills. I think when you have a good grasp on core areas, that it becomes much easier to derive the correct answer in other areas.
Programmers are in high demand and command high salaries. Tech businesses own the world and basically print money. In addition, they have been blanketing our country with propaganda about how great a career is and how easy it is to learn coding. And it has worked, people believe this.
So, parents think their kids need to learn coding, to have stable careers and make lots of money.
None of this addresses the much-resisted fact that doing really well as a software developer requires above-average intelligence and a natural enjoyment of abstract problem solving. Most people do not fit that bill, and no amount of education will make them fit that bill.
If this wasn't true, we wouldn't be in a position where programmers are in high demand and can command high salaries. We would have a market awash with competent programmers, probably relying on programmers unions to protect themselves from employer abuse.
...have no experience of or insight in programming what so ever, but they've seen the word "coding" used by many mainstream outlets.
Those parents should be asking where the majority of Fortune 500 companies (and mom and pop outfits too) currently get their coding done, and then consider if they want their precious snowflakes to spend their school years learning a trade that is almost completely outsourced (and certainly will be in the next decade with various countries racing to the bottom bidding for coding and IT jobs). Does little Johnny want to compete with a foreign programmer that is perfectly happy making $50US a day?
Looking forward to the day we can just feed AI a set of plain language requirements and it will code everything for us.
Let me help you. The story starts with:
"According to a Microsoft-commissioned survey"
Questions that you should ask:
1. How does "more coding for children" help or hurt Microsoft?
2. How does "having big tech firms involved in helping schools" help or hurt Microsoft?
Answer those two questions, then read the claims again.
Seriously, this is insane. The idea that tech firms should be directly involved in helping schools is a horrible mistake.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I do have a degree in Computer Science. I was never a programmer, except in college.
That being said, I never wanted my child to learn coding as anything other than as another tool to solve problems, not as a profession.
Critical thinking and problem solving skills were always more important to learn. Knowing the right questions to ask, and having the ability to know when someone was "stretching the truth" or outright lying to your face.
There are other far more valuable computer tracks than programming, like Network Security specialties. Design, and architecture that pay far more than programming.
Why wouldn't they? Everybody has been telling them that.
In reality, the tech firms want to flood the market to push down wages.
I agree. That's why I discourage from learning an Apple specific language like Swift. And yes I know in theory it can be used on other platforms.
Isn't MS Philanthropies an oxymoron ??
...I can say that story telling (I mean *YOU* reading a book of children strories to them every evening), practicing sports and exploring nature together has been very beneficial to my children. They both grew developing a deep and wide way of thinking, are very skilled in math and are committed to take a science career like their father. Oh, I almost forgot...they spent ZERO time in front of a computer and very little time in front of a TV set during their early youth.
Coding as an academic subject. Important to understanding many of the systems that drive modern life? Yes. Should be included in required school curricula moving forward? Yes. More important than reading, writing, math, science, critical thinking, history, psychology and economics? No.
everything they know about coding they learned from Hollywood movies.
What is easier for companies... helping prepare the next generation of American workers by ensuring they get a good education in... whatever... or hiring H2B visa workers that have whatever skill they want at a lower rate than the US rate?
They'll never care so long as you let them do that.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I'm a coder.
I've been coding since the mid-1970's.
These parents are all wrong.
Coding is dead.
Not yet but soon there will be no need for coders.
10 years, maybe less.
It's going to become a gourmet thing.
Something people do for fun perhaps.
Like art but not as a profession.
Getting kids into coding is not preparing them for a future career.
It's a great introduction to thinking clearly.
But be realistic.
tech companies have been doing a non-stop ad blitz to get kids to code. As somebody in IT the first thing I tell anyone who asks is "Don't send you're kids to IT, a Math degree is fine but no programming".
American companies don't hire rank and file code monkeys anymore. They outsource or use H1-Bs if they need somebody onshore. The last thing on earth you should do is go to school for programming. Yes, there are still top end programming jobs in cryto and security, but that's not really programming, it's math. A math degree is fine (albeit probably the hardest one out there). But skip comp-sci. Go be a nurse or something.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
This is the result of big name tech companies dumping money in to flooding markets they don't want to pay high salaries for. When they're also advising the gov't what do you expect? You live in a corporate oligarchy. Money decides all things.
You prefer the current system where they just use H1 b's to get what they need instead?
Lots of people that weren't really into coding learned how to be shitty coders, and got their relevant piece of paper about the time the market for coders went to shit.
The shitwinds are blowin....
Programming is commonly understood as a trade-school skill, and there seems to be a belief that highly paid developers have their jobs because they got into the right school, knew the right people, or are the right color and gender. Somehow it's understood that not every child can get a 5 on the AP calculus exam, get an invitation to the all-state orchestra, or run a five-minute mile, but there's little understanding of the ability and practice needed to land a highly paid position as a software developer. So they see that ordinary-looking people that no one paid much attention to in high school are drawing six-figure salaries and think "My kid should do that". We will see a surge in popularity of programming classes for a few years until there's a general understanding that it's hard. Still there are people who could do well but are currently not getting an opportunity, and I hope that improves.
For some reason, people see coding as a way to write programs. I don't understand that.
I am a computer engineer and can say that ever since learning how to code, I've routinely used coding as a means to solve problems - one time problems.
I code to code. If I'm editing code that I know has a pattern to it (almost everything does), I find it faster to throw the pattern into a macro than to use manual means - even for one time use. Because of this, I prefer editors with macro languages that look like regular programming languages.
While working on large scale projects, I write code to detect errors, often project-specific, that I've seen repeated and incorporate it into the check-in process. I also often write a precompiler that incorporates some language extensions to cover common project coding patterns.
I code to perform a quick calculation. I code to answer virtually any complicated question involving math. I find it quicker to code than to use a calculator and with coding if I make a mistake, I can fix it rather than starting over. Usually, I do this in a spreadsheet though, unlike most, I am quick to dive into the macro interface. If no spreadsheet is available, I find that most good command line interfaces have quick calculation ability and there is always perl from the command line.
I code documents. I actually prefer MS Word because I use the macro capabilities with virtually every decent sized document I write. And documents with regular patterns are usually easier to create from databases using merge macros.
In my personal life, when I dive into doing a drawing to imagine how some room would look with furniture or a painting scheme, I use a CAD program that lets me code the drawing. I find it much faster, more precise, and vastly easier to tweak a drawing that is coded than to use the mouse interface.
I often explore topics in the news by writing some code to do quick little simulations or run the numbers for a sanity check.
To put it simply, coding has become a very valuable way to solve problems of all sorts in my life. It is my version of scratching stuff out on napkins.
I think it would be even more valuable if it had been ingrained into me at the earliest levels and been a tool that I used in all of my classes that involved any sort of problem solving - and note clearly that I see writing as an engineering problem solving operation too. I cannot think of a class that wouldn't benefit from coding. Even art. I have coded art many times.
PowerBuilder, anyone?
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
How about they just pay some taxes- that will help the schools.
Speaking as a former software engineer who is now a k-12 coding instructor, the justification for this initiative is unlocking student creativity and potential. Teaching kids some block-based coding skills through Code.org or Scratch and helping them to build some basic games unleashes a torrent of creativity. It unlocks their imagination and improves their problem solving skills as they learn to craft and debug more complex programs.
I'm amazed almost every week at the things my students come up with after some minimal guidance and instruction. No, most of them will never become professional coders or compete for your job, but most will have a better understanding of the increasingly digital world we live in and be able to imagine or even create new ways to interact with it. It's not a coding cure-all, but it is a worthy initiative and for some kids, it can be a game-changer.
CS done right is expensive. Given that education (the teaching bit), has been slowly but systematically gutted since the hey day of the 60â(TM)s, it beggars belief that if CS is to be an area of effort that it will be funded in any meaningful manner.
My guess is that the other 50% are composite with 20% coming from the bible studies fanatics you mention, 20% are deadbeats that don't give a fuck and the remaining 10% are parents that actually have an idea what programming is like and what's needed for it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
When I was in high school, we were taught typing, and there was this assumption that everyone should learn MS Word and MS Excel. I never understood why these tools would be useful, and moreso didn't know why anyone would ever need training to use them anyway.
This seems like the same thing to me. People who don't know what coding is or accomplishes assume that because they keep hearing that coding is a critical path to the future that all kids will need it. They won't. There's a future where AI will handle the mundane task of translating human desire into code, but that future will be written by the programmers of today. The programmers of tomorrow likely won't be using the tools we use today, and very likely will need a different skillset.
My oldest son has gone to university dual majoring in math and physics. He knows enough python to run interesting calculations when he needs them, but it's not his primary focus or interest. I think a solid foundation in math and science will prepare him for whatever's next. I don't think that what's next is what was next 20 years ago though.
- Vincit qui patitur.
The first mistake here is to call it "coding". Writing the code is the last step of a long way, and arguably the least difficult one. A parallel you could give to the non-techs is building a house, coding would be the bricklaying part. Yes, it has to be done, but it's arguably the part that earns the least amount of money. What comes before is planning, designing, logistics and probably a lot more steps that I, as someone who doesn't build houses for a living, won't even think about. Programming is quite similar.
With the main difference that writing the code isn't a big enough part that you would usually hire people to even do it and instead you just do it yourself.
The next problem is that people only see the likes of Torvalds or Brin and think that all they really do is push a few buttons and "write code", and that it should be possible to simply teach this. What they omit is that not only is "this computer stuff" way different than law or economy, fields where rote learning does actually get you somewhere. Unfortunately, since solving problems that have already been solved is useless in this field (unlike the aforementioned economy or law where solving the same problems over and over is pretty much a staple of the field), you actually have to understand what you're doing. At least if you want to make it big.
And that's the next problem people omit. Those that really strike it big don't treat this as a 9 to 5 job, where they drop the pencil (or the keyboard) at 5, go home and never think about computers until the next day at 9am when they have to again. We don't have to think about computers. We want to. We enjoy solving mathematical problems and coating them in code. We enjoy watching a well written program execute and do its job. We don't think "when is that project finally done" but "hope I have some time left to improve this bit here".
THAT is the difference. That differentiates those that won't from those that can and do.
And that is not different from any other field. A surgeon will not be a sought after specialist if he doesn't constantly improve his skills, in his spare time and at his own expense. A star lawyer isn't someone who does the same shit every day but someone who takes every new law that he comes across and ponders long and hard how to abuse. And a great marketing guru isn't the guy that runs the same campaign over and over but someone who understands trends and uses them to put his product on top of it.
THIS is the key to success. Not studying the flavor of the month field because this is where the money is. The money is, and has always been, in being one of the few really GOOD ones in your field.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You can no more make 50% of the population good computer programmers than you can make 50% of the population symphony class musicians.
You can't make everyone a "symphony orchestra"-class musicion.
But music is an art that plays an important part in human culture.
And thus it's good to at least have some rudimental ideas what music is.
Hence, music classes are thaugh in school, so everybody has an idea what this thing is. (Then, some - those that have a bit of talent, and a lot of perseverance - might go on and make career in music).
Same here. You can't make a Linus Torvalds or John Carmack out of 50% of the population.
But computer (and other similar smart electronics) play a crucial part in today's life.
And thus it's good to at least have some rudimental ideas of how computer work, and what you can do with them.
Hence, coding classes should be taugh in school, so everybody has an idea what this thing is. (Then, some could manage to make a career. The rest will just go on being users of the tech, but with at least some understanding how it works).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I hate that big tech is involved in my sons school day. Most of his coursework is now done on chrome-books, but nobody can tell me what happens to the huge amount of data he generates by using the Chromebook 6 hours a day in a controlled setting.
The best I get from google is, "We will not use this data to target ads on the chrome-book."
This is such a bullshit lawyer line it makes me sick. I didn't ask what you are NOT doing with the data, and I never cared about where you use the data.
I want to know what you are using this data for, how closely are you watching the kids, how much money are you making with it, how does this effect the curriculum, and how anonymous is it?
These questions should be CLEARLY answered if I am not given a choice of device, and the answers updated every time the school extorts licensing costs for these devices from parents.
Last year I showed my boy how a VPN works, explained the way encryption messes with surveillance, and taught him the value of privacy and his personal information. Days later he says they found his VPN breadcrumbs, and threatened to call me because of his actions. I told him to tell them to go head and call. School starts in 2 days here. This year I'm going to see about bringing our own device- it's all just connecting to google services with chrome anyway.
I get how these devices make it easier on already spread thin teaching staff, interactivity keeps the students engaged, money saved on paper... I understand all of that, but it's not a net win if we are teaching our children to throw away personal privacy, and embrace invasive surveillance in the classroom- it's a net loss.
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
Posting about how important it is for school children to code has been elevated to a form of trolling. Next time you are tempted to post "Microsoft study concludes ... schools ... coding" or "Zuckerberg ... kids ... programming", stop. Think. And take your hands of the mouse.
What is more important?
Learning to "code" or learning personal finance that one would use nearly every day of their lives?