Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Education Google

Google/Gallup: Kids Aren't Drinking CS Kool-Aid, 'Interventions' Needed 224

theodp writes: Despite the $80+ million Google.org alone spent promoting K-12 CS, a new Google-commissioned Gallup report on students in grades 7-12 shows that "students are generally unconvinced that computer science is important for them to learn," adding that "Interventions from parents, educators, community leaders, policymakers, nonprofits and the technology industry are needed to encourage girls, Black students and Hispanic students to take computer science courses." According to the report, only 22% of boys and 9% of girls "believe it is very important to learn CS."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google/Gallup: Kids Aren't Drinking CS Kool-Aid, 'Interventions' Needed

Comments Filter:
  • how bout no? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jarwulf ( 530523 ) on Thursday October 01, 2020 @02:07AM (#60559698)
    Coding isn't reading and writing. Computer science is a specialty field. There is no need or market for everyone to be inventing the next iphone or new programming language. Just like not everybody needs to be a sewage system engineer. The field is already crowded as is. Teach people basic things they actually need instead like financial management and basic logic.
    • Re:how bout no? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Thursday October 01, 2020 @02:24AM (#60559728) Journal

      Well I disagree.

      We teach people to write, even though not everybody is going to be writing the next great novel.

      We teach people algebra! Almost noone is going on to win the next fields medal, and very few people actually use it ever.

      We teach people how to wield a saw even though most people will never become carpenters.

      We teach people how to draw even though most people will never pick up a pencil in anger let alone produce anything that will go in a gallery.

      Etc

      Programming I think is a good thing to learn in school. It serves two purposes, one is that it's a combination of practical maths, combined with breaking down problems into very small steps, combined with problem solving, abstract thinking, logic and so on. No other topic does that at school. The other is if you expect kids to leave school with some understanding of the world around them. Computing is pervasive, and even if they don't write programs after they leave, having a vague notion about how they operate is useful.

      • Re:how bout no? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ilguido ( 1704434 ) on Thursday October 01, 2020 @03:14AM (#60559788)

        Well I disagree.

        We teach people to write, even though not everybody is going to be writing the next great novel.

        As an engineer I write a lot of letters, emails, reports and I have to read a lot of emails, reports.

        We teach people algebra! Almost noone is going on to win the next fields medal, and very few people actually use it ever.

        Very few people actually use it, even when they should. They should use it before retweeting silly, illogical news about saving millions adopting some stupid, trendy policy, they don't, their fault and the fault of their school.

        We teach people how to draw even though most people will never pick up a pencil in anger let alone produce anything that will go in a gallery.

        It is an anti-stress activity for kids and they actually learn some useful skill (e.g. paying attention to details). Moreover, learning how difficult it is to achieve good results is a good way to better appreciate artists' work. A lot of "modern" art is made by con-artists, instead of artists, kids should learn to see the difference.

        Programming I think is a good thing to learn in school. It serves two purposes, one is that it's a combination of practical maths, combined with breaking down problems into very small steps, combined with problem solving, abstract thinking, logic and so on. No other topic does that at school. The other is if you expect kids to leave school with some understanding of the world around them. Computing is pervasive, and even if they don't write programs after they leave, having a vague notion about how they operate is useful.

        It may be useful, but there is nothing in basic computer science that good mathematical problems cannot teach you. All the skills you listed (breaking down problems into very small steps, combined with problem solving, abstract thinking, logic and so on) are better developed by good mathematical/geometry problems. To understand computing, you have to understand how computers are built and their internal logic, something that many grown-up programmers do not know. Schools right now are lacking on basic teachings (math, read/write, history, geography), they should start with that basics.

        • Re:how bout no? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Thursday October 01, 2020 @03:25AM (#60559808) Homepage Journal

          We teach people algebra! Almost noone is going on to win the next fields medal, and very few people actually use it ever.

          If people don't use algebra, it's because they're too lazy to be curious. Even just in my day-to-day life, I use algebra randomly at least a few times per year, and statistics every couple of years.

          What I never use is all of the math we were expected to take beyond that point. Vectors? Approximately never. Differential calculus? Approximately never. Integral calculus? Exactly never. I kind of feel like we'd do well to spend less time on the higher-level math and science courses and make the high school curriculum broader overall. Number of times I've used even first-year chemistry? Exactly never. First-year bio? Approximately never. And so on.

          The stuff in high school that has been most useful in the real world has been history, economics, American government, English, and band. College? Statistics and psychology (which did a deep dive into statistics as it applies to science), writing courses, and CS classes.

          And even in CS, the stuff I've used in practice is not at all what I would have expected to use. I'd have expected to use more operating systems, more C++, and none of the database course, whereas in reality, it's the other way around.

          IMO, the most important thing about an education is getting a broad base on which to build. From there, once you've instilled an understanding of how to learn and a desire to do so, you can build almost anything on top of it. The specific details that you learn are less important than having a good foundation-level understanding of everything, so that when you see things that look kind of vaguely similar, you can reason about them.

          Programming I think is a good thing to learn in school. It serves two purposes, one is that it's a combination of practical maths, combined with breaking down problems into very small steps, combined with problem solving, abstract thinking, logic and so on. No other topic does that at school.

          This. Though I do think I remember picking up a bit of that in some of the higher-level math classes, too. IMO, the basics of coding should be taught in early elementary school, by the time you're getting started with math. By the time you get to high school, you should be doing higher-order thinking, such as talking about logical fallacies, etc., and applying it to subjects ranging from real-world problem solving to politics at a much deeper level than anyone actually does while in school (which is perhaps why so few people apply it after they get out of school).

          The other is if you expect kids to leave school with some understanding of the world around them. Computing is pervasive, and even if they don't write programs after they leave, having a vague notion about how they operate is useful.

          I'm not sure you really want them knowing how the sausage is made. Just saying. :-) But as long as it's a *very* vague notion...

          • Re:how bout no? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Carewolf ( 581105 ) on Thursday October 01, 2020 @04:51AM (#60559946) Homepage

            I use my now intuitive understanding of vectors, differential calculus and newtonian physics whenever I drive especially in wet or snow. Also everytime I ski. It helps me understand exactly what is going on and what is possible and how to achieve it.

            You probably underestimate how much you use it yourself. Think back on your understanding of physics in early school. I bet it was rather Aristotlean, which is common among low educated people and people not paying attention in higher math classes.

            • by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

              I don't think the best racing drivers out there are all well-versed in physics and differential calculus. In fact many of them haven't even been to college. Knowledge of that sort is neither necessary nor sufficient to be a good driver.

              • I don't think the best racing drivers out there are all well-versed in physics and differential calculus. In fact many of them haven't even been to college. Knowledge of that sort is neither necessary nor sufficient to be a good driver.

                You can either train and learn it the hard way, or you can understand it without training. Most of us never train extreme cases, and would need to rely on our natural understanding of how the world behaves.

            • I use my now intuitive understanding of vectors, differential calculus and newtonian physics whenever I drive especially in wet or snow. Also everytime I ski.

              And yet the professionals who do those things and make money from it (rally-racing, skiing) do it better than you with none of the formal learning of vectors, differential calculus and newtonian physics.

              Are you sure that that is the point you wanted to make?

          • Re:how bout no? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Thursday October 01, 2020 @08:54AM (#60560492) Homepage Journal
            One thing not taught in the US and is desperately needed:

            CIVICS

            Apparently we don't teach kids how the US is set up per the constitution, the three branches, how the electoral college works...how power is to be divided between the states vs the federal govt, etc.

            Heck, I didn't get a very good education on it in school and had to learn a lot on my own.

            We really need to give more attention to this in our school system, so that people would know more about what powers reside where and how their government works (or is supposed to work).

            • by antdude ( 79039 )

              During my high school years in the early 90s, that was in the required American History class when I was a senior.

        • I am not sure what goes into a computer science course these days. I studied engineering at uni many years ago. We did not have personal computers in those days.

          At the low level end, almost everybody needs basic computer use and competence skills. This has perhaps become almost as important as learning English. People that are "computer illiterate" are at a significant disadvantage, when it comes to getting good jobs, and so on.

          At the high level, there is what I prefer to call "computing science", which is

      • Re:how bout no? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Mouldy ( 1322581 ) on Thursday October 01, 2020 @03:14AM (#60559790)
        Programming !== Computer science.

        Computer science has some programming elements. But also includes a bunch of other more generalised aspects like;
        * Common design patterns
        * Different paradigms (functional, OO, procedural)
        * History of computing (turing machines, difference engines etc)
        * Boolean logic, gates & CPU architecture
        * Algorithmic efficiency
        * Operating system fundamentals (HAL, kernels etc)
        * Data formats (text, media, executables, different encodings etc)
        * Networks and communication protocols (TCP/IP, UDP, HTTP etc)
        * Security
        * Databases
        * Ethics
        * etc


        Most of that stuff isn't useful to most people. Heck, most of it's not even that useful for people who want to be average programmers.

        While I agree teaching people problem solving skills, abstract thinking, logic etc is very valuable - computer science isn't the only way to get those skills. Python 101 would get you a lot of the way - or even some engineering field completely unrelated to computing.

        You do make a good point around the pervasiveness of computers though. Just about every job requires interaction with computers these days and people should not be oblivious to how they operate. A plumber who doesn't know how to use his tools properly would get fired, but somehow it's OK for a desk jockey who uses a computer 9-5 every day to not know having 200 chrome tabs open might slow things down.
      • Programming is the entirely wrong thing to foist upon most students. Programming doesn't itself teach any of the skills you mention and it requires a level of computer literacy most people lack. It's the computer literacy that should be the main curriculum with programming being the elective.

        You wouldn't jump right into teaching someone algebra if they had no real knowledge of basic arithmetic. You're unlikely to have students magically learn arithmetic as a byproduct of trying to teach them algebra. They w

      • Well I disagree.

        We teach people to write, even though not everybody is going to be writing the next great novel.

        We teach people algebra! Almost noone is going on to win the next fields medal, and very few people actually use it ever.

        Exactly. Thank you for making the parents point , and confirming mine.

        Why is it, that we can never seem to remove anything defined as "tradition" from curriculum that is obviously worthless, and instead stand around as ignorant humans asking the same stupid question every generation? Why do we continue to teach stuff we never use?

        For the Hey Siri Generation facing being sent to the Expendable Pastures by automation and AI, we REALLY better be asking that question even more. Otherwise, we'll soon find a

        • by jbengt ( 874751 )

          Why do we continue to teach stuff we never use?

          At least two reasons:
          Because learning that stuff broadens the mind and gives you a better understanding of the world, even if you don't use it in day-to-day life.
          Because you don't know ahead of time which stuff you're going to use.

      • It serves two purposes, one is that it's a combination of practical maths, combined with breaking down problems into very small steps, combined with problem solving, abstract thinking, logic and so on. No other topic does that at school.

        It seems any Math classes you ever attended were something of a joke. What makes you think CS will be any different? (as a hint, one is far more likely to learn those skills you enumerated in a properly taught Math class; without that as a basis there's little chance a CS class will compensate)

        • It seems any Math classes you ever attended were something of a joke.

          Welcome to K12 (is that correct?) education. I didn't study math(s) in America, but I have bumped into school-maths as an adult and it's... well... I don't think Lockhart was wrong.

          Also I don't agree, doing a proof especially of something I don't know is a very different feel from programming.

      • Instead of trying to teach computer science, they should try to teach actual userful computer skills that everybody can use. Teach actual classes in using word processors and spreadsheets. Don't just expect that people will pick this stuff up on their own. You can even get into user level databases like Access. Once they understand these things, then they can a move on to basic coding using spreadsheets and user level databases. If they are really interested in programming, they will then move on to pro

      • Well I disagree.

        We teach people to write, even though not everybody is going to be writing the next great novel.

        I used to share this same sentiment, and actually wrote my final ENG101 essay on exactly this: the pointlessness of taking the course, as I've no desire to be a writer.

        But then in the Marine Corps I had to type out everyone's responses to our ISOPREP form...I'll skip most of the details, but the requirements were basically: "In each of the four boxes below, write 3-4 statements that can be used to form 3-4 questions that only you would know the answers to. This could be something such as 'My first car was

      • by bws111 ( 1216812 )

        Writing, and even drawing, are forms of communication, something that everyone does every day. It is important people know how to communicate effectively.

        Algebra. WTF! 'Very few people use it ever'??? OK, maybe nobody actually writes down 'y = x - (x*25/100)' if they want to figure out how much something 25% off will cost, but that is what they are doing in their heads. Algebra is used constantly, whether you are conscious of it or not. Besides that, it is the basis for all higher math. Pretty much a

      • We teach people to write, even though not everybody is going to be writing the next great novel.

        We teach people algebra! Almost noone is going on to win the next fields medal, and very few people actually use it ever.

        We teach people how to wield a saw even though most people will never become carpenters.

        We teach people how to draw even though most people will never pick up a pencil in anger let alone produce anything that will go in a gallery.

        So, I'm 38 now. Virtually all my education was done in the US. All the schools I went to are public schools. And, to set a base line, I'll be referring to required classes. Since "we teach kids X" should not mean "it's been offered as a class." but rather "It's a required course in elementary/middle/high school." Because an optional class isn't "we taught them". An optional class is, by the sentence itself, "We made it available." This is because they're talking about making CS a required course. And also,

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Not everything you learn has to have practical application in your work or later life. A well rounded education is very valuable.

      Also kids need to be exposed to a bit of everything so they have the opportunity to see if they want to pursue it.

      Learning to think logically and break problems down into steps sounds like a pretty transferrable skill.

      • by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

        Time is limited. If those kids are picking up programming, they're going to have to give up something else. Is that going to be sports? Workshop? Choir? Or socializing with their peers?

        My issue with schools trying to teach it is that they don't have qualified people. Last I checked, teacher salaries in my area are about a third to half of an average programmer's salary, so the school either have to get super lucky with someone who don't care about making money, or they'll have someone who can't code their w

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          In the UK I'd say give up Religious Education and replace it with some CS and philosophy. Geography could probably be scaled back a bit too, and refocused to give children more of a concept of where counties are and geo-politics.

      • by Sigma 7 ( 266129 )

        A well rounded education is very valuable.

        I only got the "well rounded" bits outside of school.

        What was done in-school was simply sampling things once, doing it so lightly that it doesn't generate interest, and never visiting it again. At best, someone going through that would know the field exists, but that's all.

        What was also done in school was limited recognition of specialization - if you're good in math, you get to partake in one of those math contests. That would be your first introduction to logarith

    • by 1s44c ( 552956 )

      +1 for teaching people financial management instead. Teaching people to not get robbed blind by credit cards and bad loans would help so many people to avoid debt traps no matter what profession they end up following.

      • The kind of teaching needed to protect them in the future would be quickly labeled socialist/communist/anarchist/unpatriotic and purged from the curriculum.

        Like the fact that banks commonly forge signatures and documents to suit their needs. [theguardian.com]
        Kids might start talking unfavorably against major school donors.
        Which may constitute "disturbing a school" in their state - making them one of 70k students arrested annually in US schools. [npr.org]

        In 2015, one video that got a lot of headlines was of a girl being arrested in South Carolina.
        A school-based officer pulled her out of her chair and dragged her across the floor before arresting her.
        The charge that she and her classmate [Niya Kenny] were arrested under was disturbing a school, which is a South Carolina law.
        A lot of folks argue that it was originally written to apply to people who came in from the outside and disrupted public schools but that it's often applied to students.
        That law specifically limits things like obnoxious behavior.

        [Kenny] is the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging the disrupting a school law in South Carolina.
        In other states, folks argue that laws against disorderly conduct are applied pretty broadly and subjectively â" both in schools and on the street and that, if you have any kind of an implicit bias, that's where it will come into play.

        One girl was arrested for refusing to hand over her phone.
        The other one was arres

        • > The kind of teaching needed to protect them in the future would be quickly labeled socialist/communist/anarchist/unpatriotic and purged from the curriculum.

          Just FYI, the most popular financial literacy course in US high schools is produced by Ramsey Solutions. It's based on a program that has taught millions of people to get out of debt and on the path the financial freedom by not getting ripped off by credit cards and car leases. Dave Ramsey is hardly a socialist or anarchist!

          Halfway through your po

    • Seems to me you have unrealistic expectations as to what grade school CS actually includes. It's basic computer literacy for doing something useful not just wasting time with social media and gaming.
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Very much this. Unless you have specific talents and interests you will never be any good in programming or applied CS. These kids are smarter than the ones trying to push them into a dead-end (for most) direction.

    • I agree with this. Though first of Google is being racist and sexist. If someone doesn't want to do CS I have no problem with that. I certainly have no reason to also care about their race. Imagine pressuring someone to take up CS when they don't want to because they're black.

      The thing is computer science really isn't something that is necessarily pleasant or good. In fact by default it is unpleasant. It's demanding and straining work. It's hard. It's very much like chess. It's not something that's autom
    • Re:how bout no? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by SkonkersBeDonkers ( 6780818 ) on Thursday October 01, 2020 @06:57AM (#60560150)

      And I'd say the computer skills that are common throughout all walks of modern life too. Like how to use the Internet effectively, how to spot bad information, word processing, keyboarding, how to protect yourself from security threats.

      I've believed for a while that public schools should be teaching a form of what used to be called Home Economics but really should be just general life skills. Like show them specifically how things like compound interest affects them so that people are signing for loans that they can't afford, but also do you know how many young kids there are nowadays that don't know how to do basic cooking, cleaning, washing clothes, etc because so many helicopter moms have them so focused on obsessive academic achievement that they never bothered to teach them how to survive on their own. So if you had a class like that every year, you could include those sort of general purpose computer skills as well.

      As an aside, others have said coding != computer science and that is very true. In my experience as a coder for 30 years having tried to mentor people who are interested, IMO it isn't just intelligence that is required to become a good coder, it's having the sort of personality that thinks coding is fun and interesting. My own younger sister tried taking an intro to coding course in college and with very little assistance from me, she got an A, but she also hated every single minute of it. When young people now express an interest in becoming a programmer the first thing I say is if you're only doing it because you've heard it's good money, then you need to think real carefully about that. Then I tell them before you put up a lot of money for college, go to udemy or the like and take an intro course and see what you think. The vast majority have elected not to pursue it after that.

    • Boiling down CS to "coding" is the mistake. Coding is a means to an end. The idea that in order to solve problems we ask questions, do research, construct a hypothesis and experiment, actually put in the work of validating our hypothesis, and then draw conclusions from our work results has applications across many disciplines. With CS the skill of being able to adapt to novel situations and learn something new in an evolving landscape of technologies also makes students more pliable and adaptable to othe
  • The sheeple's offspring is smarter than Google gives them credit for, huh?

    Reeducation now commences.

  • Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by scdeimos ( 632778 ) on Thursday October 01, 2020 @02:13AM (#60559704)
    I don't see any companies forcing students to take up artistic painting for creative expression so why should CS be any different? Forcing kids to study CS when they're not interested is just wasting everybody's time and resources.
    • by ElectraFlarefire ( 698915 ) on Thursday October 01, 2020 @02:38AM (#60559746) Journal

      I'm closer to this view.
      Every kid should be exposed to programming and computers. Just like every kid should be exposed to drawing, metalwork, drama, home economics and art.
      You need to be forced outside your comfort zone for at least a little bit, so you can discover what you can and can't do.. And so you can look back and at least have some idea what it's about.
      If it's not for you, then you don't pick it for your electives, if it is, you jump in and do it!
      School is about discovering what you have the mind and aptitude for, as well as teaching.

    • Same goes for science, math, history, I imagine. We can't all be Uber drivers though.
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Kids aren't interested in a lot of things until they have a chance to try them out and understand what they are about. It works the other way too, they might think being a pilot is really cool when they are 8 but when they understand the salary and the long boring hours flying the same routes back and forth they may change their minds.

      Anyway if we only taught kids things they were interested in they will mostly end up unable to do basic maths or read properly.

      • Kids aren't interested in a lot of things until they have a chance to try them out and understand what they are about.

        Isn't this article complaining that the kids tried them out and still weren't interested? The numbers haven't moved at all.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          "Interventions from parents, educators, community leaders, policymakers, nonprofits and the technology industry are needed" says the report and the whole thing mostly seems to be discussing the lack of opportunity.

          • Isn't this article complaining that the kids tried them out and still weren't interested? The numbers haven't moved at all.

            "Interventions from parents, educators, community leaders, policymakers, nonprofits and the technology industry are needed" says the report and the whole thing mostly seems to be discussing the lack of opportunity.

            Your non-sequitor aside, isn't the point being that the kids weren't interested after trying them out? If you need interventions from the kids' entire environment to make them like this thing that they don't like, maybe occams razor applies.

            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              No the point being that the report says they lack opportunity to try them out, particularly due to a lack of knowledgeable and enthusiastic teachers.

        • This. I still think self taught coders are better than most out there. The reason is simple, they are self taught because they actually like it. If you like something and enjoy it, well you probably will take pride in your work. Hell you might even become good at it.

          -You can lead a horse to water...
      • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

        It works the other way too, they might think being a pilot is really cool when they are 8 but when they understand the salary and the long boring hours flying the same routes back and forth they may change their minds.

        Yeah. I mean, who would want to make 6 figures a year working only 15-20 hours a week. Sounds horrible.

    • If they don't make sure there is a excess supply of programmers, how do you expect them to suppress wages?

  • by Pseudonym ( 62607 ) on Thursday October 01, 2020 @02:18AM (#60559708)

    Students aren't convinced that CS is important for them to learn.

    In further news:

    Programmers aren't convinced that CS is important for them to learn because employers don't want educated people, they want a buzzword checklist resume instead of broad-and-in-depth knowledge of fundamentals.

    Universities seem unconvinced that CS is important to teach, behaving more like vocational training centres.

    Society as a whole seems unconvinced that rigour, expertise, and competence are valuable or desirable.

    And in the mean time, the quality of the software that our industry produces is worse than it's ever been.

    • Society as a whole seems unconvinced that rigour, expertise, and competence are valuable or desirable.

      This is a problem, even among programmers. It only bothers me because I have to work with their code.

    • Universities seem unconvinced that CS is important to teach, behaving more like vocational training centres.

      This is probably true.

      I wish universities were more interested in teaching students about data security. We get a few groups of CS students through for industry experience on special projects each year and every one of them are surprised when we pull them up for stupid things like storing plaintext passwords - or barely any better, encrypted passwords. Of the forty or so we've had so far I think only one of them had actually heard of OWASP.

      It's my assessment that CS professors and lecturers are more interes

      • Universities seem unconvinced that CS is important to teach, behaving more like vocational training centres.

        This is probably true.

        I wish universities were more interested in teaching students about data security. We get a few groups of CS students through for industry experience on special projects each year and every one of them are surprised when we pull them up for stupid things like storing plaintext passwords - or barely any better, encrypted passwords.

        What's wrong with storing encrypted passwords? Are they forgetting about a salt, or something?

        • Your question is excellent.

          The answer is that you don’t encrypt passwords, you hash them (with salt) as you’ve pointed out so that they become checksums for comparison purposes only. When the user submits their password, the input is validated by using the same hashing algorithm (and salt) then compared with what is already stored in the database alongside their username. The reason you don’t encrypt is because then someone can potentially decrypt it, which is an unnecessary risk. There
          • [snipped stuff in agreement]

            With that said, nobody should be using passwords any more as their primary authentication mechanism anyway. Dedicated, multipurpose security tokens authenticating people

            Good luck with that; the convenience trade-off has already been made and people prefer passwords. The tech for tokens has been available and tried over the previous two decades, and no one wanted them.

            using protocols like Webauthn exist to make mugging someone an prerequisite to compromise a formally verified system. Secured further with dead mans keys (fake passwords to wipe/ban), plus real secondary passwords and local biometrics - MFA is the future.

            Biometrics aren't secure. Once a copy is made, you can't go back and change it like you can with passwords.

            Security consists of identification (who are you?), authentication (are you who you say you are?) and authorisation (are you allowed to access what you are trying to access?).

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday October 01, 2020 @02:20AM (#60559718)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by vix86 ( 592763 ) on Thursday October 01, 2020 @03:35AM (#60559834)

      Ya, won't stop Google from crying though. Nobody should be fooled by their complaints on this. Google and the tech companies have been dumping money into this because coders are some of their highest salary, but also "low tier" (read: Non-mangerial, non-executive level) jobs on the market. They want labor saturation in this workforce so they can reasonably drive down these salary positions. This is half the reason why they push so hard for more "diversity" within this field in particular. More women and minorities in the field means more bodies.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by backslashdot ( 95548 )

        You realize that a job at McDonald's is more tiring than a programming job at Google .. yet google has to pay $200K starting while McDonalds gets away with paying $30K. OK, so the programmer has to pay a student loan off (nevermind they could have learned it for free online ,, but I digress). But then even when you account for their student loan payment.. it clearly means there is a programmer shortage. I mean, who would work at McDonalds for $15 an hour when they can make, starting, $100 an hour (subtract

        • by djinn6 ( 1868030 ) on Thursday October 01, 2020 @06:24AM (#60560088)

          I highly doubt programmer salaries will fall. There's just not enough people in the world with both the interest and mental capacity to do it. And throwing unqualified people at the problem just makes it worse, because they create new problems in addition to the original problem and now those few qualified people will have to fix all of it.

    • I was just thinking this. Somewhere around 20% of kids seems enough to me.
  • So code.org, how about NOT fining teachers for teaching CS to boys, you hateful sexist shits ?
  • by zenlessyank ( 748553 ) on Thursday October 01, 2020 @02:37AM (#60559742)

    Teach children the importance of math and science to make the things they want.

    Once you are done with the math lessons, you can start on physics and chemistry to give them an understanding how everything fits together THEN teach them CS and programming.

    Without a good background in math and the physical sciences, no one can understand what they need to program.

    • 100% agreed. Without mathematics you can't understand anything-science or anything-engineering. That said, you can learn some science almost in parallel with math.

    • Like Math and Science, CS is not easy. And that's the issue. Sure you get physics and chemistry in High School. But what portion of students actually takes chemistry past 101? I'm pretty sure not everyone is getting organic chemistry, just like most will not get differential equations. That's maybe 10% of students. The rest is taking Home Ed. and Sociology.
      Same with CS, how far can you actually go in the CS curriculum on one or two hours a week for kids who start from scratch and don't even know what a va
  • by piojo ( 995934 ) on Thursday October 01, 2020 @02:47AM (#60559766)

    If 22% of boys think it is very important to learn computer science but only 9% of girls think it's important, the girls are almost certainly more right. How many people become programmers or tinker with microcontrollers? How many people do home or smart device automation without using visual controls?

    Given that 33% of boys said they expected to pursue a career in computer science, someone must by hyping it up to the extent that this survey results are hard to interpret. I.e., does the survey merely show that boys are more easily manipulated by tech firms? It may show that girls are less willing to contemplate a contemplate a career working primarily with machines. (I communicate in all sorts of ways, but the lion's share of my effort goes toward interacting with logic and data.)

    There is also a gender disparity of confidence in learning computer science, and I'm curious whether this also indicates girls are more realistic. Many people have observed computer science is hard to learn, but it is also not given the same amount of classroom time as a core subject like math.

  • by JakFrost ( 139885 ) on Thursday October 01, 2020 @02:50AM (#60559772)

    Very few people, including young students, have the "knack" (Dilbert Reference) so why force them into a Computer Science or Computer Informatics fields unless they like that sort of thing and naturally gravitate towards it.

    After over 20 professional years in this field and another 10 as an amateur computer wonder kid I would highly disuade any young people from it as a career path because of the constant flux and acceleration in the rate of change of this field.

    Even I myself realized long time ago that I should have taken my skills in computers and applied them towards another stable and long term confident field such as Law, for which I have a slight "knack" for, or medicine, or real engineering and I would have flourished there and made a career instead of doing highly paid blue collar work as a glorified scripter and administrator.

    Hey kids! Run as far away from Computer careers and do something _creative_ with your lives and careers. Stay the fuck away from CS and CIS and especially away from the top tech firms, silicon valley, and game companies.

    When these generous companies give you free computer classes, equipment, and forced curriculum then run away as fast as you can lest you become a blue collar computer keyboard cowboy serf.

    • Absolutely agree. I'm mid career, and it just gets tiring having to keep up with the latest stuff. It's not hard - after a few years you realise it's just all reinventing the wheel - but you still need to know all the buzz phrases, and new libraries/shiny languages/new paradigm (that isn't actually new). A lot of effort goes into stuff not associated with fixing real problems.

      When I look around at friends who are lawyers/accountants/architects I have to say I am envying them now. At mid career, if they've d

      • by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

        You're clearly doing something wrong. By mid-career in CS, you should have enough money saved and invested that you could retire on the passive income.

  • One Third (Score:3, Interesting)

    by vix86 ( 592763 ) on Thursday October 01, 2020 @03:29AM (#60559814)

    Years ago, maybe almost 10, I saw a comment here on Slashdot on another story where some journalist was lamenting the difficulties in getting people into CS and programming work in general. I forget the exact details of the comment but it boiled down to this.

    In 20-30 years involved in teaching coding to other people, I've realized a general trend with people learning coding.

    1/3 of people simply don't get coding. You might be able to teach them how to write a for-loop and use some If-statements, but no matter what you do, you can't get them to think like a coder. So they just never cut it in the field.

    1/3 of people sort of get it. They get syntax usage and can think about problems enough to maybe get you a passable solution. These are the people that are still almost always stuck using StackOverflow for every problem they encounter though. These people need a lot of guidance and these people are also the ones that are more likely to move into management positions fastest.

    1/3 of people just get it. They can break down problems into logical steps and actually work in whatever language you want them to if you give them some time. These people are actual coders. (The commenter never implied these were "super star coders" or the like, just that they simply "figured it out" and it "clicked.")

    22% isn't quite a third, but I immediately was reminded of this comment when I saw that number.

  • by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Thursday October 01, 2020 @04:42AM (#60559934)

    Do kids even understand what computer science is and can do for them, or is their understanding about as good as their definition of "the internet" when 99% of their online world is social media?

    I think that is more the problem these days. In the early days of the internet, we would mock those who literally never left the confines of AOL. Those who actually thought AOL keywords was the only way to find information online.

    Today, it is no different for the social media generation. They get their "news" from Facebook. Their relationship advice from Tinder (and you thought Cosmo was bad). And their entertainment from TikTok. And it shows. In grades, attention spans, and narcissistic attitudes which is endless.

    Perhaps we should stop assuming as parents demanding "CS-grade" children that social media is innocent or benign. It's a fucking cancer on intelligence and truth. Only problem with curing a social media junkie child, is curing the addicted parent first.

  • by gnasher719 ( 869701 ) on Thursday October 01, 2020 @04:47AM (#60559938)
    I knew a guy who was proud about his mathemtical knowledge. By profession he delivered furniture. He explained:

    "Say you have a heavy wardrobe, and the housewife wants it exactly in the middle of the wall. Most people put it roughly in the middle, then measure the distance to the left and to the right, and move it a little bit, then measure again, until it is good enough.

    What I do: I measure the wardrobe and the wall. Then I calculate how far it should be from each side, I put a marker on the ground, and put it exactly in the right spot on the first attempt. So mathematics saves me a lot of work".

    I wonder what percentage of adults could do that, and what it says about maths education. Or how many people can check in their mind whether a restaurant bill is right or not, without having to pull out a calculator.
    • by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

      Except when you do the math (heh...) on how many years it took to learn how to do it, versus how many years will not using a calculator save, not learning comes out on top.

      Also if that guy studied a bit of design, he would understand that exactly in the middle is usually not the best place to put something. In order for it to "look right", you need to put it down, step back, and actually look at it, then re-adjust. Due to asymmetrical lighting for example, one side might look wider than the other, even thou

  • Kids are smart (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AntronArgaiv ( 4043705 ) on Thursday October 01, 2020 @06:01AM (#60560048)

    Perhaps they are smart enough not to want to spend their working career writing code for some minor Facebook UI feature.

    All coding is not equal. I met a guy whose first job out of college was writing navigation code (in assembler) for the Apollo Lunar Module. That's a bit different from writing UI code for some random eCommerce site. I don't think the pay was any better, but the intellectual challenge and perceived prestige (nobody ever knew his name, but he knew he had contributed to something important) was quite different.

    CS is not an end in itself, it's a means to an end. If you're interested in cryptology, CS or math might be your path to working at NSA.

  • If you can shovel coal you can learn to code, it's easy. So no worries.

  • by AddisonEzekiel ( 921181 ) on Thursday October 01, 2020 @06:28AM (#60560100)
    Read some of report. When one table shows over half of respondents consider searching the internet "CS" we can ignore the stuff about populations being under-represented in actual CS. This is a basic teaching fail. We're not even at "why aren't they interested", rather "what is it."
    • one table shows over half of respondents consider searching the internet "CS" we can ignore Stack Overflow would be on the side of the respondents on this one.
  • Kool-aid? Really? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by BenJeremy ( 181303 )

    So Slashdot's position is that CS education is "kool-aid"?

    With an attitude like that, it's no wonder kids are turned off by computer science. The term "Kool-aid" is a derogatory term meant to describe cult-like fervor for some ideology or religion. I don't think the point of pushing CS education is intended to induce anything like that, so in that respect, there is no "failure" here.

    Not every child needs to be taught programming, but kids should get some basic knowledge in computers as users... like a home

    • No. Slashdot's position is that the term "CS Education" is being corrupted to mean "teach coding to make an army of cheap labor for tech companies."

      The "Kool Aid" is believing that coding is equivalent to computer science. Two different subjects being twisted by an unbelievable corporate media mindf**k.

  • by backwardsposter ( 2034404 ) on Thursday October 01, 2020 @07:16AM (#60560180)

    We should probably just assign careers to people. That way we can get the appropriate representation of skin color and body parts

  • I got into coding because at the time they were pushing university real big. H1-B hadn't started yet and I did the calculation in my head and realized I could be very successful as a developer. Enter H-1B and that success is gone. There is no motivation for a kid to enter CS today.
  • Poor Google, it appears their attempts to reduce their labor costs are not going as well as they'd hoped.

    Based on standardized test scores, a good chunk of this country have trouble with math and reading. From my memory, a lot of kids could do the core math, but fell apart when it came time to apply the math in word problems. Programming is word problems with typing. Maybe Google should focus on helping America with reading and writing first.

  • by MrKaos ( 858439 ) on Thursday October 01, 2020 @08:10AM (#60560348) Journal

    You either want to do it or you don't, however no one *needs* to code.

    Why would you want to inflict the obsessive angst of computing onto a kid unless they were interested in it. Just let kids be kids FFS.

  • by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Thursday October 01, 2020 @08:34AM (#60560424) Journal

    Look, I get it. This is slashdot. A very techy-heavy audience.
    But even you aren't so narcissistic as to believe that CS is *that* important, are you?

    There are legions of jobs that are MORE CRITICAL than programmers. Don't get me wrong, programmers are important, surely. But are you seriously suggesting they're more critical than, say, truck drivers?
    Police?

    The idea that every kid has to be inculcated with the Holy Writ of C++ and become a zealous factionalite of Ruby is ridiculous.

  • Honestly I'm worried about the 22% of boys and 9% of girls who think it's very important. Because it's not. Those kids have bought into a lie.
  • Since all the people who "drank the Kool-Aid" actually died, perhaps this isn't the best metaphor?

    Surely, refusing to drink the Kool-Aid is a good thing?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

  • I'm 44 now.

    I was always good at math. Software at the highschool level is mostly logic and math. They don't need to teach CS to EVERYONE. Some people are interested in how things work and some of them gravitate towards computers. They do it as an interest just like I did in the early 90s.

    Teaching computer science is assinine. A basic programming course might be OK just stop calling it "computer science".

  • by unixcorn ( 120825 )

    Computer Science is hard, that's why they aren't embracing it. It's like math to them. Foreign concepts along with necessary rote learning of languages or networking can be tough when you are trying to learn algebra (problem solving) at the same time. Additionally, kids have no reason to learn CS at that age because there are very few problems they can use it to solve. Any one of us understands the need to learn concepts or new platforms or whatever because our jobs depend on it.

  • by jschultz410 ( 583092 ) on Thursday October 01, 2020 @10:21AM (#60560850)

    The best things that people learn from CS are not programming, software design, or engineering. The most useful things people learn from CS are how to think logically and how to use deductive logic to prove something (e.g. - a program) correct or incorrect.

    A really strong grounding in mathematical logic, probability, and statistics would serve most people far better than an out-and-out CS education.

    Computer science is just one speciality that relies heavily on those more basic mathematical skills. CS can be used as the subject matter that helps teach and practice those more basic skills and makes them interesting. But not everyone needs to know how to program.

    That's coming from someone who had a full CS education at university and has been in R+D in software for 20-some years now.

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Working...