3 ms·

I don't agree with your approach at all. You seem to start with an assumption that problem solving skill is innate and cannot be learned, which I strongly dispu

by ronaldx 13y ago

I don't agree with your approach at all. You seem to start with an assumption that problem solving skill is innate and cannot be learned, which I strongly dispute. If you focus early on identifying kids with good skill, you might be pushing kids down the wrong path for them, or you might be excluding a lot of kids who will develop greater skill a little later, or exclude those with great creativity that could be applied to coding with a little tuition. Creating a group of people who are pre-approved for coding careers seems to me like an awful idea. In fact, I believe that this already exists, and that's where your problem comes from.

ForHackernews 13y ago
Innate ability may be a large factor in programming success. See: http://blog.codinghorror.com/separating-programming-sheep-from-non-programming-goats/ http://blog.codinghorror.com/separating-programming-sheep-fr... If true, it would explain the apparent contrast between many programmers' attitude of "C'mon, this is easy! I can't believe they pay me to do this." and non-programmers view of coding as abstruse and frustrating.
- ronaldx 13y ago
  The study that Jeff comments on is dubious. The 'double hump' he discusses is nonsense. The study evidences it from test results where a group of people scored nearly-full marks and another group of people scored a lot lower, i.e. the inevitable result of any test where each question is testing the same skill.
doctorwho 13y ago
I didn't say "push" I said "encourage to explore" and I didn't mention any kind of cut off age where educators would stop evaluating kids, this would have to be a continual process not the "GATTACA" style career predetermination you fear. Realistically, there is a segment of the population that will never be able to acquire skills that good coders have, or have acquired, regardless of how much you try to teach them. The "Hello World" crowd. I went to university with some of them. If you stop and REALLY think about it "everyone should learn to code" makes about as much sense as "everyone should learn to repair their own car". Would everyone like to be able to repair their own car? Sure. Would this be a useful skill to have? Sure. Is everyone capable? Absolutely not. How about this.. go and spend a few hundred hours to acquire a skill you may never use again. It has to be one with which you have had no previous exposure or proficiency. Sounds a bit stupid when it's put that way doesn't it? That's essentially what "everyone should learn to code" really sounds like.
- ronaldx 13y ago
  > I didn't say "push" I said "encourage to explore" and I didn't mention any kind of cut off age where educators would stop evaluating kids, this would have to be a continual process not the "GATTACA" style career predetermination you fear. You would have to be more specific about what you are proposing, because it really sounds like testing for career predetermination.

by ronaldx 13y ago

ForHackernews 13y ago

Innate ability may be a large factor in programming success. See: http://blog.codinghorror.com/separating-programming-sheep-from-non-programming-goats/ http://blog.codinghorror.com/separating-programming-sheep-fr... If true, it would explain the apparent contrast between many programmers' attitude of "C'mon, this is easy! I can't believe they pay me to do this." and non-programmers view of coding as abstruse and frustrating.

ronaldx 13y ago
The study that Jeff comments on is dubious. The 'double hump' he discusses is nonsense. The study evidences it from test results where a group of people scored nearly-full marks and another group of people scored a lot lower, i.e. the inevitable result of any test where each question is testing the same skill.

doctorwho 13y ago

I didn't say "push" I said "encourage to explore" and I didn't mention any kind of cut off age where educators would stop evaluating kids, this would have to be a continual process not the "GATTACA" style career predetermination you fear. Realistically, there is a segment of the population that will never be able to acquire skills that good coders have, or have acquired, regardless of how much you try to teach them. The "Hello World" crowd. I went to university with some of them. If you stop and REALLY think about it "everyone should learn to code" makes about as much sense as "everyone should learn to repair their own car". Would everyone like to be able to repair their own car? Sure. Would this be a useful skill to have? Sure. Is everyone capable? Absolutely not. How about this.. go and spend a few hundred hours to acquire a skill you may never use again. It has to be one with which you have had no previous exposure or proficiency. Sounds a bit stupid when it's put that way doesn't it? That's essentially what "everyone should learn to code" really sounds like.

ronaldx 13y ago
> I didn't say "push" I said "encourage to explore" and I didn't mention any kind of cut off age where educators would stop evaluating kids, this would have to be a continual process not the "GATTACA" style career predetermination you fear. You would have to be more specific about what you are proposing, because it really sounds like testing for career predetermination.