Poll: Okay, this might be a silly idea, but...

[ScoopMeister]

It's already been said, but I'll say it again. That seems pretty pointless- completely useless unless you like that sort of thing, which I don't. Fine, teach it, but certainly don't make it compulsory. It's not like you can't use a computer without it, and it's certainly not 'big three' material.

 

[ScoopMeister]

Yes.

We use programs on a daily basis, but most people don't even know how they work. We should at least teach this, and possibly some optional really simple programming using tools like scratch, and pygame/more powerful things for advanced courses.

But if you can use them, you don't need to know how they bloody well work. That's not only irrelevant, but a waste of time if you haven't any interest in it.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Programming is an application of basic skills.

Basic skills are:
Mathematics
Reading
Writing
Speaking

Science is separately taught because it is a field which needs workers, and needs certain types of people. Like programming, you don't take any exhaustive coursework unless you choose (electives).

Yes, but we still teach children basic science. Why not teach kids basic programming?

Besides, computer science needs workers and certain types of people as well.

Computer Science isn't exactly bleeding for employees like other biological sciences are.

Not sure what you mean by "bleeding for", but there are a hell of a lot of software development jobs of various flavors out there.

Besides, science is established as an industry which will always be around. Computer programming (sorry to say) is not something which is more than the current technological era. This will be replaced eventually (at a much shorter cycle than the basics of biology, chemistry and physics haha!) so it makes less sense to force kids to learn it.

How the hell will computer be replaced? Something that is such a driving force in the world won't just go away. It might change forms, like the phone or the book, but it will always be with us.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Commuter literacy is good. Programming will never be needed by most people.

To re-iterate post #4: neither will geometry. Yet, that does not seem to stop schools being required to teach kids the basics of geometry, since geometry is still required to graduate.

 

[Esotera]

Also, programming is very advanced and they need to know maths and writing. It could be an option in High School.

It's as advanced as you make it. Something like print "Hello World!" or print 5 + 5 is incredibly intuitive, and learning how to program simple games would be immensely popular if done well.

Yes.

We use programs on a daily basis, but most people don't even know how they work. We should at least teach this, and possibly some optional really simple programming using tools like scratch, and pygame/more powerful things for advanced courses.

But if you can use them, you don't need to know how they bloody well work. That's not only irrelevant, but a waste of time if you haven't any interest in it.

You can argue that for any subject. I don't use geography or history at all, nor do I have much interest in them, but I still had to learn them, and it gave me a general perspective on how things work in that field.

But students don't know how to use simple applications, and haven't for a long time. There's clearly a gigantic flaw in all educational systems when their focus is based on teaching kids how to use one type of office software, and they manage to screw even that up. There needs to be a more general approach on how to use programs, how they are designed, and the basics of how they work, as this allows a more intuitive understanding of unfamiliar applications.

You wouldn't use a car or an oven without understanding the basic principles behind how it works, so why on earth would you use a computer without knowing this?

 

[dyre]

Computer sciences (VB and Java) were electives in my high school, and I thought that was a pretty good thing. A lot of people who otherwise wouldn't have gone out of their way to learn programming, but were somewhat interested and had a spare elective space, took the class, including myself. It helped a lot when I had to learn some html as a prereq to my college's business school.

I wouldn't say it needs to be a requirement though. Maybe have it as an optional replacement to the foreign language requirement? Like, you can learn French, or you can learn Java

Commuter literacy is good. Programming will never be needed by most people.

To re-iterate post #4: neither will geometry. Yet, that does not seem to stop schools being required to teach kids the basics of geometry, since geometry is still required to graduate.

well, geometry is required in some part to learn calculus, and calculus is important for a number of fields, from business to many of the sciences.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Commuter literacy is good. Programming will never be needed by most people.

To re-iterate post #4: neither will geometry. Yet, that does not seem to stop schools being required to teach kids the basics of geometry, since geometry is still required to graduate.

well, geometry is required in some part to learn calculus, and calculus is important for a number of fields, from business to many of the sciences.

I understand that. But, how often will most people need that knowledge of geometry? Remember, most of the population are not scientists or engineers. They have no need for geometry. Yet, it is still a requirement to graduate highschool.

 

[Logiclul]

*clip*

Okay. I'm just going to halt this convoluted line as it will end in an ambiguous source or two.

Let me put it this way:
Computer Programming is a skill

Mathematics is a study
English is a study
History is a study
Biology is a study

This isn't the only reason the OPs' proposition is faulty, but this (hopefully) is clear and conclusive.

 

[BreakfastMan]

*clip*

Okay. I'm just going to halt this convoluted line as it will end in an ambiguous source or two.

Let me put it this way:
Computer Programming is a skill

Okay, this has convinced me: you obviously know very little to nothing about programming. Programming (and to a larger extent, computer science) is a field of study, complete with it's own theories, algorithms, best practices, fields of research, schools of thought, and more. It is about as much a skill as architecture, engineering, astronomy, or chemistry is.

 

[dyre]

Commuter literacy is good. Programming will never be needed by most people.

To re-iterate post #4: neither will geometry. Yet, that does not seem to stop schools being required to teach kids the basics of geometry, since geometry is still required to graduate.

well, geometry is required in some part to learn calculus, and calculus is important for a number of fields, from business to many of the sciences.

I understand that. But, how often will most people need that knowledge of geometry? Remember, most of the population are not scientists or engineers. They have no need for geometry. Yet, it is still a requirement to graduate highschool.

Yeah, but then, aren't all subjects sort of specialized then? Even English, since in high school it's more about literature and composition rather than grammar and spelling. I mean, you make a decent case against geometry being a requirement, but how is a specialized thing like programming more requirement-worthy than a specialized thing like geometry?

Maybe there could be some sort of system in which high school classes with the largest number of university majors dependent on them become requirements, dunno. I'm sure there's some criteria that someone in charge uses to determine what should be a requirement and what shouldn't. Though, I suppose it's also possible that whoever decides this stuff is just mindlessly following tradition

 

[BreakfastMan]

Commuter literacy is good. Programming will never be needed by most people.

To re-iterate post #4: neither will geometry. Yet, that does not seem to stop schools being required to teach kids the basics of geometry, since geometry is still required to graduate.

well, geometry is required in some part to learn calculus, and calculus is important for a number of fields, from business to many of the sciences.

I understand that. But, how often will most people need that knowledge of geometry? Remember, most of the population are not scientists or engineers. They have no need for geometry. Yet, it is still a requirement to graduate highschool.

Yeah, but then, aren't all subjects sort of specialized then? Even English, since in high school it's more about literature and composition rather than grammar and spelling. I mean, you make a decent case against geometry being a requirement, but how is a specialized thing like programming more requirement-worthy than a specialized thing like geometry?

I actually was not trying to argue that. I was trying to argue that since geometry is a requirement, some basic programming should be a requirement too.

 

[Logiclul]

*clip*

Okay. I'm just going to halt this convoluted line as it will end in an ambiguous source or two.

Let me put it this way:
Computer Programming is a skill

Okay, this has convinced me: you obviously know very little to nothing about programming. Programming (and to a larger extent, computer science) is a field of study, complete with it's own theories, algorithms, best practices, fields of research, schools of thought, and more. It is about as much a skill as architecture, engineering, astronomy, or chemistry is.

Every programming class (advanced, rudimentary, AP) I have seen in high schools teaches strictly talent. There is no philosophy, research, or debate involved. You are mistaking a field of work with a class.

 

[dyre]

Commuter literacy is good. Programming will never be needed by most people.

To re-iterate post #4: neither will geometry. Yet, that does not seem to stop schools being required to teach kids the basics of geometry, since geometry is still required to graduate.

well, geometry is required in some part to learn calculus, and calculus is important for a number of fields, from business to many of the sciences.

I understand that. But, how often will most people need that knowledge of geometry? Remember, most of the population are not scientists or engineers. They have no need for geometry. Yet, it is still a requirement to graduate highschool.

Yeah, but then, aren't all subjects sort of specialized then? Even English, since in high school it's more about literature and composition rather than grammar and spelling. I mean, you make a decent case against geometry being a requirement, but how is a specialized thing like programming more requirement-worthy than a specialized thing like geometry?

I actually was not trying to argue that. I was trying to argue that since geometry is a requirement, some basic programming should be a requirement too.

Oh, hmm. I'm not sure...high schoolers already have lots of requirements as it is. What's wrong with keeping it as an elective?

 

[BreakfastMan]

*clip*

Okay. I'm just going to halt this convoluted line as it will end in an ambiguous source or two.

Let me put it this way:
Computer Programming is a skill

Okay, this has convinced me: you obviously know very little to nothing about programming. Programming (and to a larger extent, computer science) is a field of study, complete with it's own theories, algorithms, best practices, fields of research, schools of thought, and more. It is about as much a skill as architecture, engineering, astronomy, or chemistry is.

Every programming class (advanced, rudimentary, AP) I have seen in high schools teaches strictly talent. There is no philosophy, research, or debate involved. You are mistaking a field of work with a class.

I think you are mistaking your own limited experience with something in highschool for good knowledge on the subject. On the contrary, I have seen philosophy (Object Oriented design), research (modeling of neural networks), and debate (coupling, inheritance) in computer programming.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Commuter literacy is good. Programming will never be needed by most people.

To re-iterate post #4: neither will geometry. Yet, that does not seem to stop schools being required to teach kids the basics of geometry, since geometry is still required to graduate.

well, geometry is required in some part to learn calculus, and calculus is important for a number of fields, from business to many of the sciences.

I understand that. But, how often will most people need that knowledge of geometry? Remember, most of the population are not scientists or engineers. They have no need for geometry. Yet, it is still a requirement to graduate highschool.

Yeah, but then, aren't all subjects sort of specialized then? Even English, since in high school it's more about literature and composition rather than grammar and spelling. I mean, you make a decent case against geometry being a requirement, but how is a specialized thing like programming more requirement-worthy than a specialized thing like geometry?

I actually was not trying to argue that. I was trying to argue that since geometry is a requirement, some basic programming should be a requirement too.

Oh, hmm. I'm not sure...high schoolers already have lots of requirements as it is. What's wrong with keeping it as an elective?

Well, what is wrong with making geometry or history an elective?

 

[J4RD]

I think we should at the very least introduce children to programming.
After all, we introduce them to music, and teach them history. Both of those have far less practical applications in the real world. Why not programming?

 

[urahara75]

I think (@ minimum) cursory levels of device and network support/troubleshooting knowledge would be more aptly beneficial than software development at this point. It's not pertinent (yet) that the young know and master how to create software than how to maintain and troubleshoot it.

This is coming from a network support analyst.

 

[dyre]

Commuter literacy is good. Programming will never be needed by most people.

To re-iterate post #4: neither will geometry. Yet, that does not seem to stop schools being required to teach kids the basics of geometry, since geometry is still required to graduate.

well, geometry is required in some part to learn calculus, and calculus is important for a number of fields, from business to many of the sciences.

I understand that. But, how often will most people need that knowledge of geometry? Remember, most of the population are not scientists or engineers. They have no need for geometry. Yet, it is still a requirement to graduate highschool.

Yeah, but then, aren't all subjects sort of specialized then? Even English, since in high school it's more about literature and composition rather than grammar and spelling. I mean, you make a decent case against geometry being a requirement, but how is a specialized thing like programming more requirement-worthy than a specialized thing like geometry?

I actually was not trying to argue that. I was trying to argue that since geometry is a requirement, some basic programming should be a requirement too.

Oh, hmm. I'm not sure...high schoolers already have lots of requirements as it is. What's wrong with keeping it as an elective?

Well, what is wrong with making geometry or history an elective?

Hey, don't bash history! History may not be super-useful for a profession, but it's intrinsically important. People should know the sins of their forefathers and the far-reaching consequences those sins have had on other nations and cultures, so they aren't so quick to bash other groups of people for their "backwards" ways, or support rash government interventions for the same reasons.

As for geometry, well, to change the status quo, you'd have to convince people that programming is more valuable than geometry, not just that it's equally specialized and therefore interchangeable