Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Education

Do Children Really Need To Learn To Code? (nytimes.com) 310

Long-time Slashdot reader theodp writes: In India, parents are being aggressively sold the idea that their children must start coding at 4 or 5 or be future failures, prompting Neelesh Misra [a writer, audio storyteller, and founder of a media and organic products company] to ask Do Children Really Need to Learn to Code? [Alternate URL here] In a New York Times Opinion piece that's sparked 1,000+ comments, Misra writes that "Aggressive campaigns pushing Indian parents and schools to embrace coding might help meet corporate targets, but they are creating a fear that a generation of children will lose out if their parents don't sign them up for these coding programs. Parents struggle to resist these shrewdly framed campaigns."
From the writer/storyteller/founder's piece: WhiteHat Jr., which operates in India and the United States, mounted an advertising blitzkrieg in India telling parents that our children need to learn coding from the age of 4, 5 or 6 — or they will fall behind in life. Indian celebrities promoted the brand and spread the fear of losing out among families... Although numerous experts advise against teaching children to code, a skill that will soon become redundant, the WhiteHat Jr. campaign taps into a parent's deepest fear: Will my child be left behind...?

Relentless advertising campaigns are telling Indian parents that coding is critical because making children code will develop their cognitive skills. Storytelling does all that too. And singing songs. And asking questions or being offered choices or visiting interesting places...

I realize that our world is about to change unrecognizably. Robotics, artificial intelligence and virtual and augmented reality shall soon be concepts and a way of living that will be second nature to our children. The future should excite us, not make our children feel afraid and ill equipped. The future should — and I am sure will — have a place for dreamers and doers, and not just those hunched forever over a computer.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Do Children Really Need To Learn To Code?

Comments Filter:
  • by gosso920 ( 6330142 ) on Sunday January 03, 2021 @06:01PM (#60891940)
    They said miners, not minors.
  • by MpVpRb ( 1423381 ) on Sunday January 03, 2021 @06:03PM (#60891946)

    ..being a good programmer requires talent and hard work.
    Yes, it's probably a good idea to teach everyone the basics, but only a few will ever be really good at it

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Krishnoid ( 984597 )

      I'd start with a spreadsheet. Start by entering data into cells, then formulas that operate on cells and ranges, move on from that to coding -- for example, writing small functions in Google Sheets/Excel/LibreOffice. After that, they can move to standalone programs, if they get the hang of it.

      If not, working a spreadsheet is enough of a ubiquitious skill on a ubiquitous medium that familiarizing yourself to whatever level you can is valuable enough on its own as a job skill.

      • by CastrTroy ( 595695 ) on Sunday January 03, 2021 @06:20PM (#60891990)

        I agree with this. By learning spreadsheets, they can get a good start in programming and also be able to do something useful even if they never move beyond the basics. Contrast that with learning something like Python which has the potential to go much more in depth, but the problem is that most people won't reach the point of being able to do anything useful in their day to day lives.

        It's almost like learning a spoken/written human language. If you don't learn something you will use on a regular basis, you will stop using it, and forget how to use it at all. Any time spent learning it was probably a waste of time that probably could have been spent learning something else.

        Even learning music is probably useless to most people because they won't go on to use it and will probably forget things like how to read music and how to play their instrument after they fall out of practice. That being said, its something that a lot of people enjoy doing, and there is value in doing things that are considered fun. But for people who don't enjoy doing music, they really shouldn't be pushed to learn it to get by in school because ultimately it's useless for a lot of people.

      • by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Sunday January 03, 2021 @06:41PM (#60892058) Journal

        That is the most boring way to learn to program that I can possibly imagine.

      • by Ogive17 ( 691899 )
        Just teach basic logic, if/then type stuff. No one knows what programming language will be dominant in 15 years but the logic behind programming remains consistent.

        Speaking as someone who uses excel quite a bit - I'd rather not expose my 2nd grade son to spreadsheets :)
    • They taught us "Religion" at school in the 70s-80s. Later did they introduce "Ethics" as an alternative choice, but still.

      At age 4-5 can one teach kids about anything, and they'll love it. So unless there is something of better value to teach is there no good reason to question it.

      Coding provides a solid understanding of what computers do. Computers are practically unavoidable in many jobs. Just understanding the basics removes fears and hurtles when using computers later in life.

      • by lsllll ( 830002 )
        Obviously, you've never had children. Children, like all humans, are different in nature from each other. I am very musically inclined, as is my daughter, but for the life of me, I could not get her to like and play the violin when she was 5-6 years old. Could I teach her (actually she had a violing teacher who played in CSO) violin? Sure, if I could put up with her crying and whining and pulling one of hear baby teeth every time it was time to practice. But the fact that she could be taught didn't mea
        • by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Sunday January 03, 2021 @09:52PM (#60892658)

          Obviously, you've never had children. Children, like all humans, are different in nature from each other. I am very musically inclined, as is my daughter, but for the life of me, I could not get her to like and play the violin when she was 5-6 years old. Could I teach her (actually she had a violing teacher who played in CSO) violin? Sure, if I could put up with her crying and whining and pulling one of hear baby teeth every time it was time to practice. But the fact that she could be taught didn't mean that she should be taught.

          I'd mod you up if I had the points. Writing code simply is not for everyone. And some people will hate it with a passion, and there are so many other Stem type fields that they might be exposed to. Personally, I believe that if we are trying to get young ladies interested in STEM activities, the absolute worst way to do it is with a niche activity like writing code. It's a niche requiring a certain way of thinking, and people who do think like that will tend to gravitate to it anyhow. Forcing kids will just turn them off.

          FWIW, I spent about a decade working with a team of mostly women trying to get young women interested in STEM. The bad news was that more wanted to be pop divas than STEM.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      There are a lot of other "basics" that are more important. For example, as recent events show, most people do not understand what "exponential growth" is or how "infection" works. I think coding is very low on the list of things people need to learn compared to things like that.

    • Not all programming tasks is the equivalent of writing the firmware of a 777.

      A programmer doesn't need to be the best, just good enough. Let's face it, 90% of what corporate America needs from a programmer is pretty basic and can be done by someone with even 2 or 3 years experience.

      Like an auto mechanic, you don't need someone who can increase your engine's efficiency by 10% or redesign the suspension system when you in for an oil change.

    • by quenda ( 644621 )

      ..being a good programmer requires talent and hard work.

      Talent yes, but hard work is optional.

      "We will encourage you to develop the three great virtues of a programmer: laziness, impatience, and hubris." -- LarryWall, ProgrammingPerl (1st edition),

  • This is like a twisted Dickinson version of Alan Kay's dream...

    • This is like a twisted Dickinson version of Alan Kay's dream...

      And yet, a lot of children in India will happily jump at that sort of life-changing opportunity!

  • by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Sunday January 03, 2021 @06:14PM (#60891968)

    Let's put it this way. If wanker programmers (some of whom inhabit this web site) whine they shouldn't have to take English or art classes in school because they're not going to use those skills, kids do not need to learn how to code and such classes should not be included in their curriculum.

    • If some whiners exist, we apply their logic to the curriculum everywhere? Did you even think?

      You offer kids a lot of options they may use later, and some they may not. Lots of kids don't know what they will do later in life.

      Theo has a long history of trying to minimize the insistence of pro STEM folks on teaching a vital tool used by STEM folks, that somehow just understanding how computers work is unnecessary. Like they are going to take his job.

  • by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) on Sunday January 03, 2021 @06:15PM (#60891972)
    This will guarantee them a job in the future.
    • iPhones will most certainly be assembled completely by machine in the near future.

      • by tsa ( 15680 )

        Woosh.

      • That depends on how many machine repairpeople to low skill laborers you have available...

      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        iPhones will most certainly be assembled completely by machine in the near future.

        Expecting anything else is insane. Apple is still learning how to do that, but they get better at it every day.

    • If they live in a country with good relations with Taiwan, this might be true.

      I have a Thai cousin-in-law who works in Taiwan for a 4 years at a time (temporary work permits) and makes enough money to take the 2 year waiting period off in between stints.

      That's why those big factories provide on-site housing; most of the workers don't want to pay for housing, and they're not locals, they don't want to live away from work. They want to save money for when they get home!

  • by nomadic ( 141991 ) <nomadicworld@@@gmail...com> on Sunday January 03, 2021 @06:20PM (#60891988) Homepage

    Rationally, learning to code should really supercharge children's cognitive skills.

    Empirically, I don't see how it does that. I've known a fair number of talented programmers and I haven't seen programming skills carry over to other domains that much. It seems like getting real good at coding makes you really good at coding, but that's it.

    • Re: you know (Score:5, Interesting)

      by NagrothAgain ( 4130865 ) on Sunday January 03, 2021 @07:28PM (#60892168)
      There are two base skills needed to be a good programmer. One is the ability to analyze a problem or goal, and break it down into logical subsets. This is a skill that carries over to many areas in life. Another is the ability to hold multiple pieces of information in your mind at once, and to observe and manipulate relationships of that data. Again, there are many other things in life where such talent can yield benefit. These are things which can be trained over time, but come more naturally to some.

      But to be blunt, if you're one of those kids who hated story problems in Math, or hated proofs in Geometry, then programming is not likely to be something you will enjoy or excel at.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Excellent observation, matches mine.

      The problem is that most coding happens for an extremely limited and abstracted view of things. Most people just put the skills learned there in a box labelled "coding" and never try to apply them anywhere else. The few that do better ("independent thinkers"), do not need coding in the first place. Some may benefit, most will not.

      The problem is that most people put mental tools into specific boxes only to be developed and used in that box. Developing more general approach

  • by Clived ( 106409 ) on Sunday January 03, 2021 @06:22PM (#60891996)

    I wish that I had learned to code around 4 or 5. I learned to code at 35, and regret my late start at it. Still, am now 72, and enjoy every second when I am coding

    My two bits

    • by gtall ( 79522 )

      I didn't learn to code until age 20. Never bothered me one bit. I do, however, regret the time I spent in CS when I could have been taking math and physics and philosophy.

    • With all due respect.
      2020-(72-35)=1983
      2020-(72-5)=1953
      Could you have learned programming any sooner than 1983? Even my parents that learned about computer programming really just learned about punch cards and didn't quite understand that it's more about logic than writing instructions for machines to follow. Like, could you even had gotten enough regular access to a mainframe back then to really have learned programming? Even C++ and OOP didn't appear until 1985. Honestly, I didn't learn real programmin
      • Yes. My HS had a program my senior year, just started, that brought a keypunch machine to the class and cards were taken downtown to the mainframe every night, run and printouts returned in the morning. This was 1975. We used fortran, I took the class. I ended up embracing it and was the top kid and ended up going downtown for a day to run my program as I made changes via their keypunch machine. I think it was like 1000 cards. By college, between CS and EE I was well versed in programming both in terms of a
      • by timelorde ( 7880 )

        Could you have learned programming any sooner than 1983?

        I did, in 1974. My high school had a computer course, taught by a recent CS graduate. Dial-up access (with acoustic coupler modems!) to a shared HP minicomputer. More than just a programming course, we did learn about basic concepts in logic and math as well.

      • I started learning in `86 and I was just a poor kid who had to do it in the computer lab after school.

        There was already an old book at the public library on Object Oriented BASIC. But I preferred GOTO, because if I ran out of line numbers I could just jump to an empty neighborhood, I didn't have to renumber and then re-write all my notes. (I'd write most of my code on lined paper first, and type it in later, so renumber is extra painful)

  • by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Sunday January 03, 2021 @06:26PM (#60892012) Homepage

    Any child that wants at least middle class life style in the modern world needs to know:

    1. To read and write.
    2. Basic math - addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, Algebra and exponents.
    3. Basics of electricity.
    4. Basics of coding.
    5. Basics of some kind of art.
    6. To learn at least two languages, one of which should be: English, Mandarin, Hindu or Spanish.
    7. Enough logic to dissect a conspiracy - such as realizing that 99 times out of a hundred the party in charge of the election is the one trying to steal it, and that it is easier to go to the moon than to fake going to the moon.

    • by tsa ( 15680 ) on Sunday January 03, 2021 @06:36PM (#60892036) Homepage

      What about topography, history and some basic theology? I would replace nrs 3 and 4 with that. You need to know how your country got to where it is now so you understand your society a bit, and you need to know that there are people who believe in other deities than you, or none at all, and what the consequences of that are. That makes it easier to move around in your society.
      Your other points I agree with totally.

      • and some basic theology?

        In the U.S. we have separation of Church and State outlined in the First Amendment. Unless you're going to teach about a wide variety of religions, including Satanism, theology is best left to religious institutions and those who become priests.

        • by tsa ( 15680 )

          That’s what I meant. Describe the most common religions and their peculiarities, so the kids learn that there is more than one religion and they can choose wether or not to adhere to one or more of them.

      • Those are important, but the actual class varies by country. That is, if you live in America, you should probably learn American history and basic Christian theology. But in Iran, you need to learn Iranian history and basic Islamic theology.

        Topography, well, America has demonstrated that you can be middle class and still not know the difference between Puerto Rico (Island, American Territory 100% full of Americans) and Costa Rica (entirely different country, only Americans are tourists).

        Shameful, stupid

    • Hindi is the language, not Hindu.

      English and Chinese I understand, but Hindi? It's of no use outside India, and inside India English is the business language.

      • Thanks for the correction on spelling Hindi.

        English, Mandarin, Hindi and Spanish are the four most common language, by far. No other language has more than 300 million native speakers, all of them do.

        Moreover, India itself has many languages, including #5 on the most common, Bengali. If you live in the parts of India where Bengali is the main language, it is reasonable for a child to learn Hindi and Bengali, rather than English. Most likely you will learn English as an adult, but it is not absolutely

    • Your list is close to what is needed unfortunately, there is not enough time in the school day for learning anything beyond the required government prescribed brain-washing. I know plenty of successful adults who don't know basic electricity, plumbing, carpentry, chemistry, physics, or have any interest in the workings of the computer they use everyday. Let's call number 3. Basics of S.T.E.A.M. and number 4. A comprehensive understanding of world history so they don't keep voting for the same old, incompe
    • I don't agree with much of this.

      1. Read and write. Yes, I think everyone in the world should be able to read and write.

      2. Basic math, sure. Algebra? Exponents? Doubtful.

      3. Basics of electricity. Unless you're working in engineering of various types or in industry or as an electrician, what does this matter? Plug goes into outlet. Switch goes on. Don't touch the metal.

      4. Basics of coding. Meh. I think some people could use an _extremely_ low level of information about coding. I agree with the other person wh

      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        2. Basic math, sure. Algebra? Exponents? Doubtful.

        So you think it is fine if people in general do not understand exponential growth? May as well stop to teach them that germs and infection are real threats. A really large part of the population already seems to think that anyways.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      1. yes
      2. yes
      3. yes
      4. nope, not at all, complete waste of time except for a small minority with special interests
      5. nope, see 4.
      6. one is enough. The primary benefit is to see that language shapes perception of reality. Most never get there, regardless of 1 or 2 or n languages.
      7. Forget about this. This is not an education problem. The problem is that people do not want to apply mental tools in an open-ended fashion. They decide on some emotional basis what they want to be true and only then use their mental

    • Any child that wants at least middle class life style in the modern world needs to know:

      1. To read and write. 2. Basic math - addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, Algebra and exponents. 3. Basics of electricity. 4. Basics of coding. 5. Basics of some kind of art. 6. To learn at least two languages, one of which should be: English, Mandarin, Hindu or Spanish. 7. Enough logic to dissect a conspiracy - such as realizing that 99 times out of a hundred the party in charge of the election is the one trying to steal it, and that it is easier to go to the moon than to fake going to the moon.

      You forgot the need of knowing how to administer an enema.

  • Families generally want one thing: to have their kids be competitive in the workplace to earn a living. From this article, this work ethic is being taught in India, and from what I've seen, it's been taught in India and China for decades, if not centuries.

    So here in the USA, we get upset because jobs are shipped overseas, and in particular those of us in software know the familiar refrain "We're not getting jobs here because companies want to hire only cheap labor or specialized labor with PhDs." So what
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Have you seen code from India or from China? I have. They are nicely productive line-wise and what they write is complete and utter crap. Not that people in India or China are fundamentally dumber, but the smart ones there do not work in coding outsourcing.

  • by Drethon ( 1445051 ) on Sunday January 03, 2021 @06:36PM (#60892034)

    Coding by itself is OK but too often focuses on how to code trivial problems. Being able to truly problem solve allows someone to know how a program will work, regardless of the language. I'd like to see more teaching of problem solving, such as diagram as to what the buttons for a cruise control will do given the current state it is in. All of this can be taught without any programming language, moving onto teaching programming languages later on if desired.

    • This.

      The thing about coding is that it allows you to define a set of tools available and a problem, and then solve that problem using those tools.

      I don't think we need to teach programming or coding per se, but rather how to break down big problems/jobs into small problems/jobs and solve each one to solve the whole.

  • Of course not (Score:5, Insightful)

    by subreality ( 157447 ) on Sunday January 03, 2021 @06:40PM (#60892050)

    Parents want to push their kids into a well-paying job. Politicians want to point at something when old jobs become obsolete. Programming has had a pretty good run for the last couple decades, especially in India where it became a ticket to the good life. I think some of it also comes from a desire for kids to grow up computer literate, but the people involved don't really understand what that means, and so they push programming.

    The kids should choose the path that makes them happy, being realistic about what that path entails. Programming, medicine, business, mechanical engineering, art...

    You have to expose kids to a bunch of things so they can find out what they enjoy. The opportunity to try some programming should be one of those things - not because it's a skill that everyone needs, but because they deserve a taste of it to see if they want more. If that sparks something, THEN they need to learn to code.

    • There are certain things which are important to societies. Food, clothes, shelter, communications, logistics, technologies in general.

      If something is important to your society, you should understand something about how it works, both so that you can better understand the workings of your society and also so that you can imagine the Next Big Thing.

      That means that everyone should understand something about all the basic stuff we all know about like housekeeping, but also computers, and cars, and the electrica

  • What's worse, that such a stupid question is asked or that the editor that pushed this story doesn't know any better.

    The answer is of course not. Every child doesn't need to learn to "code", but society needs some to learn to code. Nothing has changed so fundamentally that the 3 R's don't remain central to an education. What can a young adult NOT do given a good conventional education that he can if coding were added, aside from the head start on a CS program? Nothing.

  • I don't think most people need to know how to code, anymore than they need to know how to design an aircraft, or grow wheat. I do think its important to understand the basic concepts of these things. I think there is value to society so that people can make good decisions and have a good starting point for learning more when necessary. With modern technology its all to easy for things to appear to be "magic" because there are so many layers between the user and the physics of what is going on. I think a
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      You think people in general can make good decisions? Where have you been for the last few years?

  • by Retired ICS ( 6159680 ) on Sunday January 03, 2021 @06:52PM (#60892096)

    With the demise of the keypunch machine I do not really see any need for anyone to learn coding. They should probably take a typing course instead, though I do not know any programmer who does not do their own typing these days -- the day of the coder has passed, much like the day of the Dodo.

  • by mikeiver1 ( 1630021 ) on Sunday January 03, 2021 @06:54PM (#60892100)
    So while I can understand the desire and need for the future crop of programmers to be nurtured at a young age not everyone is cut out for it. Just like not every kid is gonna be good at math or sports or physics etc. The trades are looking at grim shortages over the next decade or two as older skilled trades people retire and the ranks shrink. At present it is not hard to bring in $60K USD a year being an electrician or a plumber or HVAC tech. Programmers, not so much. The large selection of programmers will only serve to depress wages for them. Understand I am not complaining about the state of the labor shortage in the trades, it means I get payed handsomely for my skills. As the older trades people retire, even more so.
    • The trades are looking at grim shortages over the next decade or two as older skilled trades people retire and the ranks shrink. At present it is not hard to bring in $60K USD a year being an electrician or a plumber or HVAC tech. Programmers, not so much.

      Master Machinists. If you are a master machinist, you are pretty well set.

      We are now in the throes of the "College degrees are for superior people", where woefully average Yuppie larvae were convinced by their parents and high schools to spend a lot of money on worthless degrees, and end up in a lot of debt. Obviously, the colleges were happy to take their money. In my career, I've worked with a lot of tradespeople, and many of them are a lot smarter than degreed people. And that is really sad, because

  • Talk about degeneration, we are even debating whether kids should learn to code? The answer is YES .. education = good you idiots.
    Do you think China isn't teaching their kids to code? Look around, see all the jobs going? If you can't code what the hell job will you do? Robots and software will take your job. Even rockets depend on software simulation for design and analysis. Everyone should learn to code, everyone should get an education .. we have enough uneducated fools ruining the country. Yes education

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Nope. We do not teach most people how to do brain surgery or how to weld a pipe. "Education for everybody in a specialized subject" = "waste of time". Quite obviously.

      • Brain surgery is highly specialized. We do teach people the brain exists, and what it does. We teach people what organs are inside them and what blood does. Why?

        Everyone should know basic coding the same way they know basic medical things.

        • by gweihir ( 88907 )

          Brain surgery is highly specialized. We do teach people the brain exists, and what it does. We teach people what organs are inside them and what blood does. Why?

          Everyone should know basic coding the same way they know basic medical things.

          You are comparing apples and oranges. Everybody should know computers are run by software. But _writing_ software is analog to _doing_ brain surgery.

    • Talk about degeneration, we are even debating whether kids should learn to code? The answer is YES .. education = good you idiots. Do you think China isn't teaching their kids to code? Look around, see all the jobs going? If you can't code what the hell job will you do?

      Are you being facetious? Coding is a niche activity, and requires a very particular frame of mind. I can see having exposure to various STEM type activities, Coding being one of them, but too many act like writing code is the path to a wonderful career.

      For 99 percent, coding is dreadfully boring.

      A lot of jerbs don't require coding. And I've been around coders my career, and it isn't an insult, but they aren't normal people. Neither am I. We don't think the same as normal people. Sometimes I think part

  • Every hour a child spends 'learning to code' is an hour that can't be used for something else. We know that there are parents who push their children to excel in violin, football, golf, whatever. These children, just like their parents, need release from the 40 hour work week. They need to be kids. They need to play and be with other kids and explore whatever catches their fancy.

    The problem here is an industry that needs programmers but doesn't want to pay them an honest wage. If they can create a surplus o

    • What a stupid attitude. What is that something else? A computer will be able to do that "something else" by the time they grow up. Most of the violinist I know are in the subway station getting quarters. Programmers are nowhere near "cheap labor" .. do you know any minimum wage coders? For every millionaire, ten free range kids end up working at McDonalds or some retail or factory job that will be replaced by robots.

      • What a stupid attitude. What is that something else? A computer will be able to do that "something else" by the time they grow up. Most of the violinist I know are in the subway station getting quarters.

        You are using a bad dataset, almost monovariant. Seeing someone playing on the streets is just one area. A lot of violinists are working studios or orchestras and are doing quite well, thank you.

        Programmers are nowhere near "cheap labor" .. do you know any minimum wage coders? For every millionaire, ten free range kids end up working at McDonalds or some retail or factory job that will be replaced by robots.

        Dunno if you want to be so sure about the non-replaceable coders:

        https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]

        Even so, attempts to flood the markets with coders will suppress wages in the interim. More people after the same jobs.

        An example of this is after women started entering the workforce in much larger numbers, wa

  • by OneHundredAndTen ( 1523865 ) on Sunday January 03, 2021 @07:28PM (#60892166)
    Otherwise, no. Remember: computer science and coding are two different things. Most computer scientists can code, but most code monkeys have forgotten most of whatever little in the way of computer science they learned, if they at all did.
  • is like teaching everyone to be a professional plumber. Sure plumbing is vital for society but not every tom dick and harry needs to know all the ins and outs of it just like not everybody needs to know how to bang out a clone of Microsoft word in C++. The whole point of software is so someone can download and use it without having to make it for the 10 billonth time. And the hard truth is software has already been created for 99.9% of the usecases of the average schmuck. So unless you think the future will
    • Well you need a certain number of plumnbers per toilet/sink. Now think about how many things have a microchip. Do we have enough plumbers for that?

      We'll never run out of software modifications and customizations. Many videogames that's are out there now will need updates and refreshing and spin-offs. All the software and websites in the world need modifications and customizations.

      You wouldn't want someone with little experience fixing your toilet would you? Every person should know some basic plumbing or th

      • Plumber argument not relevant, a coder can make wares ten millions of people can use. For most people computer is a tool, the user doesn't need to code, any more than most people need to know how to forge a hammer. We have 25 million coders already, more than enough given the high percentage of shit code.

        • If we have enough coders, why is the salary not minimum wage? Try to hire an experienced UI/UX coder with a decent portfolio will laugh at you if you offer anything less than $175,000.

          The average STARTING salary for an inexperienced new Bachelor's degree graduate in Computer science in 2018 is $66,000

          The average STARTING salary for an inexperienced new Bachelor's degree graduate in History in 2018 is $25,000

          If there is an oversupply of coders, why is it that the History graduate makes much less than a compu

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      This. In addition, the coding jobs left are things that need actual engineers because they are hard. Most people cannot learn to understand technology on the level required for that, no matter how much teaching the get.

  • Code.org fine teachers for letting boys come to their classes.
    Code.org are sexist sows.

    https://developers.slashdot.or... [slashdot.org]

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Well, women are generally doing better in low-end jobs (which is all bad and mediocre coders will ever get), so there is some logic to that.

      Yes, that is pretty bad. It also is the observable reality.

  • by rnturn ( 11092 )

    JHC on a crutch! Can't we let kids be kids?

    If corporations really need that many coders, they can train them themselves. It's time they started using all the cash they have squirreled away for something besides corrupting politicians.

  • Or who is going to program my digital VCR?
    Or makes my food in my micro wave?

  • Their real goal is creating a cheap labor force by flooding the market.
  • You could ask them same question for a 2nd language, a musical instrument, art, etc.
    I dropped French at high school because I thought I'd never need it - I was very wrong. 1st job I got after graduating took me to Paris for 3 days every month.
    I played a musical instrument or two at high school but I'm not a professional musician.
    What teaching kids does do is gives them an appreciation of the discipline, how hard it is and how to appreciate its subtleties.
    I'm sure many software developers will agree with me

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      A 2nd language teaches you that there are other ways to see the world. A programming language does not do that, far too limited.
      A musical instrument is IMO a complete waste of time though. Discipline can be learned in ways that are actually beneficial in themselves.

      Coding (done right) is an engineering discipline. It requires a solid basis in mathematics and the sciences to be useful. Create that basis first, then thing about thigs like coding, EE, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, civil enginee

  • Although numerous experts advise against teaching children to code, a skill that will soon become redundant

    Wait, what?

  • by gweihir ( 88907 )

    It was never a good idea, it will never be a good idea. Teach them to do basic math first. The ones that manage that well may benefit from some exposure to coding, but that is already a small minority.

  • Not sit in front of a computer for hours a day.
    Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and whoever else, don't need more purpose-raised code-slaves who get paid pennies an hour because they're 'contract employees' working through 'staffing companies' (read as: 'organized parasites').
  • by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Sunday January 03, 2021 @09:03PM (#60892468) Journal

    In public school, books were frequently defaced with things such as "to see Mrs. Smith, turn to page 110". Then on page 110 there was a picture of a gorilla. Sometimes these would take you on a longer journey, perhaps even in loops. I was being taught a programming language, albeit a very limited one and poorly structured. GOTO was the fundamental building block, but there may have even been the occasional conditional: "If you're a fag, turn to page 6". This language in particular not only lacked a code of conduct, but frequently endeavored to be quit vicious.

    Public schools were also pushing New Math at the time, which included teaching different bases to kids at a young age. Ironically, I don't think binary and hex were taught but if you can add in base 5, the others are a snap.

    For 4th -6th grades I went to a strict private school where the punishment for such textbook defacement was sufficiently severe that it was mostly not seen. However, we did something that might not have been covered in public schools: we diagrammed sentences. If you've never done that, it's where you take a sentence and turn it in to a little structure with lines connecting the parts of the sentence, branches for clauses, etc. I didn't know it at the time, but we were graphing parse trees for English.

    Can today's students get by with abstractions, analogies, and incidental concepts that apply? Maybe, maybe not. A little practical coding with actual machines (which I didn't see in a classroom until high school) can't hurt; but you need a foundation too. The new stuff is good, but the classics never go out of style.

  • I learned to code because I thought it was cool. I thought it was amazing that computers could control things.

    Its good to expose kids to coding, you have to know about something to know if you like it. If they like it then they will learn on thier own

  • Yes. Coding is a useful tool for analyzing complex problems. You can attack numerically many problems which are not traceable analytically. Example of such problems are optimization and differential equations. These are very useful tools for anyone who does serious engineering work.

  • My kids understand programming better than I did at their ages (9 and 12). But aged 4? No. I would argue kids shouldn't be learning any intense skill at age 4-5. They're having fun, learning play, being read to.

    It has been shown (look it up, I'm out of date on this so I don't have links) that this aggressive teaching at younger ages doesn't improve educational outcomes. Anecdotally: my son took longer to learn to read. We didn't push it, just kept reading to him ourselves. Now he's blitzing through novels.
  • It should be given to em as a toy, and the ones that have fun with it can go deeper if they want.

  • We failed to teach people basic science and biology now we're stuck with anti-vaxxers.

    People fear and make up stuff about stuff they don't understand, and they are susceptible to misguidance.

  • Learn To Code (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Matheus ( 586080 ) on Monday January 04, 2021 @03:41PM (#60895964) Homepage

    "numerous experts advise against teaching children to code, a skill that will soon become redundant"

    Yeah we've been hearing that for years.... Long enough that "soon"'s definition is stretched beyond measure. "What programming looks like" is an ever changing beast and I imagine how we go about it may be completely unrecognizable in the not so distant future BUT that does not mean the concept goes away. Even if the concept of writing text that gets compiled to run on a processor of some sort gets obviated the many associated skills mentioned above (Logical Thinking, Simplifying Complexity, Automating Processes, etc, etc) will always be useful and someone with these skills will rarely/never find themselves "redundant". This article reads like it was written by someone who is going to find themselves redundant pretty soon (if they haven't already)

    To the OP point I've never been a fan of scare-tactic advertising but frankly our field has negative unemployment and we need as many people getting into the business as possible. The younger they start the better they will be once they hit the job market and also, given that exposure, the more likely they will pursue a career in this field. As was also already mentioned you're not forcing anyone into this career path but knowing how to wield a computer at any level is a pretty critical life skill these days so you put it in front of the children. Many of them will not be interested and go on with their lives (probably improved for that added foundation) some of them will get excited by it an make it their profession. Either way you improve the gene pool.

Dynamically binding, you realize the magic. Statically binding, you see only the hierarchy.

Working...