Right. A four-year degree isn't necessary to be proficient at coding. It isn't necessary to be proficient at debugging, either, which I think is one real test o

Right. A four-year degree isn't necessary to be proficient at coding. It isn't necessary to be proficient at debugging, either, which I think is one real test of how good of a programmer you are, the other being architecture and making good design decisions. That last one doesn't require a degree, either, but it requires more experience with larger and more ambitious projects than either coding or debugging does. And that's what a four-year degree should provide experience with: Giving people larger and more complicated projects in a setting where their errors will be corrected and it won't cause a huge amount of pain for anyone else if the project collapses or is never really finished. And I think Cook basically agrees with me: > "I think that's an old, traditional view. What we found out is that if we can get coding in in the early grades and have a progression of difficulty over the tenure of somebody's high school years, by the time you graduate kids like Liam, as an example of this, they're already writing apps that could be put on the App Store." It's entirely reasonable to begin working on ambitious projects in high school, at ages 14-18 for those who are unclear on the education system being discussed here. People have the mental maturity to tackle big things at that age if they're motivated and given sufficient guidance. And that concept of tackling big projects involves working in a team, with coordination between team members, which is another part of being a mature programmer.