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.
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.
...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.
everything they know about coding they learned from Hollywood movies.
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.
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?
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.
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.