Yes. Paxman—though he is great at holding politician's feet to the fire—is an Oxbridge old boy who has very little time for science and tech and is very much stuck in the old Two Cultures model of science vs. humanities.
In his mind, there are the privately educated, Oxbridge Classics/PPE (Politics, Philosophy, Economics) crowd who run the world through politics or business, then there are basically not particularly valuable "geeks" or "boffins" who do their bidding on technical matters.
He's great at interviewing Prime Ministers and holding their feet to the fire, but like a lot of journalists, he doesn't really get science and tech stuff.
I don't think this will do much good. I was forced to take 5 years of Spanish through school. Hardly know how to speak it now. The people who excel are usually driven by their own interest. Nothing makes something miserable like a gov't/school mandate.
Making it visible and accessible is important. Otherwise how would people find out that they really liked Spanish, US Civil War history, or programming?
It is visible and accessible. Perhaps not if your only interaction is with the smartphone singularity, but I agree with the OP that programming is largely self-guided.
Making it a compulsory school subject isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is distressing as to how well it'll actually be taught, whether good impressions will be received from it and whether or not it will be deceiving. Schools aren't known for being apt at actually fostering education (but rather routine and rote), much less being engaging.
I have a feeling this will be simply an excuse for the education system to ostensibly appear progressive and forward-thinking, but without actually providing decent resources. An exercise in flaunting that will likely have no actual effect on student impressions, especially not if typical public school teaching methods are employed.
I think that it's better to have no real understanding of coding than no understanding whatsoever.
That and I honestly think system administration is more important for most people. Learning to code without learning sysadmin work and how your environment actually functions is an unfilled gap.
> this will be simply an excuse for the education system to ostensibly appear progressive and forward-thinking, but without actually providing decent resources.
This has been my impression of the U.S. education system since NCLB. Most core subjects share this malaise, so it's not like programming is unique. Perhaps your qualm is misdirected?
I feel the same way about Spanish, but I do think some of my current interest in computation is related to computers in the curriculum when I was younger (sometimes indirectly). Among other things I remember positively: playing with Logo when I was very young; playing some educational games like Oregon Trail; and doing a few assignments in Hypercard in a general computer-literacy course. That one was kind of interesting because it was not officially "programming": we mostly learned how to type, how to use basic office software, how a Mac desktop worked, etc. But somehow someone had thrown Hypercard into the "computer literacy" jumble, probably because it was part of the default Mac ecosystem at the time, and had some buzz. And that started letting us do programming of a sort, which quite a few kids picked up on as being something you could express yourself in, while not being particularly intimidating.
Towards the end of high school I did take AP Computer Science and that was indeed some mixture of stupid and boring. I don't know how much to blame C++ (student questions ended up devolving into being mostly about iostreams) and how much to blame the teacher or curriculum. But that would probably have killed my interest in CS, if Logo and Hypercard hadn't already kindled it (and on my own time, I stumbled across the ability to write mIRC scripts).
It does open up doors for kids who were not aware of programming and are now open to develop an interest in it that they may have never had a chance to develop before. It's hard enough getting to the end of school and figuring out what you want to do for a living.
> Yeah, electromagnetism isn't as intuitive as kinematics. But maybe it would be if kids grew up playing with circuits instead of wooden blocks.
Some kids have an aptitude for programming, and some don't. Perhaps initiatives like these will introduce "the discipline that is CS" to some whom otherwise would not have known it exists?
The interview was fine. She described code as it is. Frankly, it isn't important whether she knows how to code. It isn't her job. She's an example to no one.
All that matters is that the program is properly marketed, and that the teachers are competent.
Mmm, I'm not so sure. She's a spokesperson for code education telling a journalist that it's easy to code, and she doesn't know how. If she has to speak for the program like that, she should understand its learning process.
But coding is easy to learn. It is not rocket science. It is merely language and syntax to learn the basics. They teach math without expecting kids to become math-gurus. How is code different?
I'm amazed at the pace they think they can get teachers up to speed with coding. Learning to code in a few months while working full time, and knowing it well enough to teach others? That doesn't seem like enough time to prepare the teachers.
Why? Isn't that the worrying part? She should have the knowledge and experience to realistically explain why coding matters and how long it takes to learn it.
Anyone vaguely technical would cringe at the Lottie Dexter interview, and the first and easiest reaction is to just bemoan the boneheadedness of government trying to yet another shallow initiative headed by (apparently) shallow people.
Then again, it’s worth considering that the there is enough work to do to just get technical skills on the educational agenda. That requires getting attention, and it just might be that Dexter might be more relatable than a domain expert.
BTW, I think a truly ambitious initiative would be built on free software. With FOSS it's easier to explain how people who know how to code can use those skills to make changes to things that they use rather than just be consumers or specialists.
31 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 83.0 ms ] threadhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7x7GYItzS4
In his mind, there are the privately educated, Oxbridge Classics/PPE (Politics, Philosophy, Economics) crowd who run the world through politics or business, then there are basically not particularly valuable "geeks" or "boffins" who do their bidding on technical matters.
He's great at interviewing Prime Ministers and holding their feet to the fire, but like a lot of journalists, he doesn't really get science and tech stuff.
Making it a compulsory school subject isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is distressing as to how well it'll actually be taught, whether good impressions will be received from it and whether or not it will be deceiving. Schools aren't known for being apt at actually fostering education (but rather routine and rote), much less being engaging.
I have a feeling this will be simply an excuse for the education system to ostensibly appear progressive and forward-thinking, but without actually providing decent resources. An exercise in flaunting that will likely have no actual effect on student impressions, especially not if typical public school teaching methods are employed.
I think that it's better to have no real understanding of coding than no understanding whatsoever.
That and I honestly think system administration is more important for most people. Learning to code without learning sysadmin work and how your environment actually functions is an unfilled gap.
But like I said: the intentions may be benevolent, however the execution will likely be mediocre.
This has been my impression of the U.S. education system since NCLB. Most core subjects share this malaise, so it's not like programming is unique. Perhaps your qualm is misdirected?
Towards the end of high school I did take AP Computer Science and that was indeed some mixture of stupid and boring. I don't know how much to blame C++ (student questions ended up devolving into being mostly about iostreams) and how much to blame the teacher or curriculum. But that would probably have killed my interest in CS, if Logo and Hypercard hadn't already kindled it (and on my own time, I stumbled across the ability to write mIRC scripts).
> Yeah, electromagnetism isn't as intuitive as kinematics. But maybe it would be if kids grew up playing with circuits instead of wooden blocks.
Some kids have an aptitude for programming, and some don't. Perhaps initiatives like these will introduce "the discipline that is CS" to some whom otherwise would not have known it exists?
All that matters is that the program is properly marketed, and that the teachers are competent.
I have leniency for things like that. I'm sure if given the chance she would have a reasonable explanation.
Then again, it’s worth considering that the there is enough work to do to just get technical skills on the educational agenda. That requires getting attention, and it just might be that Dexter might be more relatable than a domain expert.
BTW, I think a truly ambitious initiative would be built on free software. With FOSS it's easier to explain how people who know how to code can use those skills to make changes to things that they use rather than just be consumers or specialists.
It seems to me there are some similarities in the 'boneheadedness' of the approach. What do people think?
Reminder: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7045202