Hacker News Reader

Comment by rubicon33 | Hacker News Reader

I've got to ask -

What is the drive behind this "get everyone everywhere to code!" initiative?

I just don't get it. You don't see this kind of thing in other industries, do you? Why are so many programmers intent on getting everyone from every demographic, rich poor, black white, interested not interested, into coding?

Forgive me, but it just seems like there's this misconception that everyone should know coding like they know algebra. I understand you people like it, so do I - that doesn't mean it's for everyone.

This comment may get down voted but I assure you it comes from a place of genuine intrigue.

View on HN

You do see it in other industries.

There's a similar push for basic financial literacy in schools - most people are not going to grow up to manage a hedge fund, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't learn about compound interest, debt, inflation, supply & demand, budgeting, equities, and business fundamentals. Managing your personal finances is a basic skill, and people who don't have it are severely hobbled today.

Many lawyers and civil rights organizations create "Here's the basics of the law" pamphlets, websites, and HN comments. Things ranging from who owns your IP when you moonlight, to what are your rights when the police pull you over, to what your responsibilities as a homeowner are, to what you should consider before getting married. These are not a substitute for trained legal advice, but they are hopefully enough to keep you from doing things that will cause legal problems later. And of course, 7th grade social studies in most American public schools teaches the foundations of the legal system and how laws are made and ratified.

Basic mental health is increasingly taught in public schools, along with what a healthy relationship looks like. A 16-year-old kid is obviously not going to be as good at regulating their emotions and perceiving those of others as a trained therapist, but particularly given the epidemic of domestic violence, it's been deemed important enough that we train our kids in basic psychology.

Everyone is expected to be able to write and communicate well, whether they're a journalist or not. We get decades of schooling on this, many colleges make "You will be able to write when you come out of here" a key selling point, and illiterate people tend not to do so well in modern developed nations. Journalists get more practice with this, but it's still considered to be a basic skill.

The progression for all of these is that the skill is initially associated with only a small number of practitioners, but eventually touches enough of people's day-to-day actions that the population requires a common base of knowledge to function. There was a time, a couple hundred years ago, when knowing how to read & write was not common knowledge, and largely restricted to lawyers and clergy. There was a time, barely 50 years ago, where common financial skills were pretty much restricted to business owners (you could argue that among people below about the 80th percentile in education, financial literacy is still uncommon). Emotional intelligence is currently a very scarce commodity. But the pattern is that as a skill becomes more fundamental to daily lives, the basics of that skill start getting taught to a broad base of people.

I'm in my 30s and relatively new to choosing programming as a career. I didn't learn it because someone told me I needed to. I saw (and see) real social and business problems that I wanted (and want) to work on.

The problem I see with the push for everyone to learn code is that it doesn't just expect people to have basic literacy with computers, but wants large numbers of them to choose programming as careers, if only they could be convinced how rewarding it is (financially or otherwise).

To use your examples, everyone should have basic literacy in finance, the law, mental health, and writing. But not everyone should become a lawyer, a finance professional, a psychiatrist, or a novelist. In fact, for many of the aforementioned professions, you could argue we have too many people practicing them already.

Similarly, you could argue we don't need more coders who only want to do it because someone told them it's financially rewarding or is the right thing to do.

I take it more like an update of the educational system. I recall a lot of stuff I learned back in high that was plain obsolete in our postindustrial society. It made perfect sense for my dad to learn basic metalworking since a lot of people used to work at factories back then, but now it does not.

You see it even more with the sciences. Anyone else find it interesting that the classes taught in a traditional U.S. high-school curriculum - algebra, trig, calculus, mechanics, combustion, fundamentals of life support - are precisely those needed to send rockets into space? And the curriculum itself dates from the 50s and early 60s, when our primary national priority was beating the Soviets and putting a man on the moon?

Meanwhile, the STEM skills that are utterly necessary in today's world - statistics, linear algebra, logic, computer programming, electrical engineering, chaos theory, ecology, molecular biology - are largely absent from the traditional curriculum.

But then, that's the problem with top-down planning. You end up with systems adapted to the prevailing conditions at their birth, and nobody willing to stick their neck out to change them.

That's a very bizarre interpretation of the state of affairs.

I'd have killed to get a basic metalworking course in high school. Or anything practical at all.

I think with programs that are trying to encourage kids to get into any profession you're going to highlight the benefits. There can be some good perks to being a developer, whether its good salaries or flexible work environments. I don't think there is anything wrong with stating that, and I don't think the ultimate message is suppose to be "hey, you guys have to become software engineers now because it's so great". At least that is definitely not the message I try to give to kids and I don't know anyone who does. In the end its about empowering kids to make their own informed decisions.

Obama told people they shouldn't just use an app, they should build one. I've taken plenty of web dev and programming courses (including a couple of university courses), but still have doubts about my ability to build something production-ready on my own.

Encouraging people to play with code and telling them they're going to help fulfill a shortage of software developers are two different things.

If people were held back by not being able to build production ready web apps, we'd have much fewer apps. We'd probably had much fewer SQL-injection and other silly vulnerabilities as well -- but on average broken tools are better than no tools. Broken tools can be improved.

See eg: Dropbox: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863

For what it's worth, I still think BrandonM's comments are spot on. But I think it was also obvious that easily "dropping" files "in the cloud" was a great service to those that weren't inclined/could set it up for themselves.

You don't have to build something production ready. Part of learning about programming is learning how it helps you with smaller things.

You don't have to write a web server in Perl, you can write a script that saves people from editing some horrible text file in Word to remove extra lines.

Similarly, some apps are complex 3D games, and others are timers that let you know when your egg is cooked, or your break is over.

Start small.

The point is that software literacy is becoming more relevant to everyday life. The point of a mathematics class is not to create professional mathematicians, it's to provide the concepts of mathematics to students. I'm not a mathematician, but I use at least trigonometry(mostly through polar coordinates) every couple days to solve something a lot of other people would just let get out of hand.

I see software literacy as a tool which will become increasingly relevant as the world starts wanting more diverse software. You will start seeing florists, dentists, architects, and foremen writing programs to solve issues which are not complex enough to warrant a professional software engineer, or which require so much domain knowledge that they couldn't be written by most software engineers.

That's really what this is about, in my opinion; at least personally I wouldn't be so misguided to think that the point of software literacy is to churn out a country full of specialist software professionals.

The point is that basic understanding of programming is basic computer literacy. The gist is that if you can't automate with a computer, you aren't really able to use the computer as a tool.

One could argue that if you're able to use the computer to catalogue and enhance data, turn data into information (like visualizations) -- then you're able to use a computer. A lot of this can be done in Excel (or another powerful spreadsheet program). But then most will also tell you that spreadsheets are visual programming tools. And that you might need to do (and automate) transforms on data that still need some form of "actual" programming -- be that VisualBasic, PowerShell, Awk/Sh -- or "proper" programming in a "proper" language.

Another side to "everyone should know how to program" (a side I find less interesting) is the growing need for software engineers, as we move to computerize more and more both public and private sector "systems". I think the lack of engineering talent is real, but that's not my main motivation for showing kids how to code -- just as I don't teach kids how to do math because I hope they'll work as mathematicians.

Math helps you think, helps you invent, and so can computers. If we want the next generation to be impatient for the kind of programs that we had, like Sketchpad. Or even an environment like Smalltalk -- I think teaching them to program is a good start. It's also a great way to educate them how crappy (and simplistic as opposed to simple) many of the "apps" and games are.

For more, see eg: "Doing with Images Makes Symbols" by Alan Kay

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oonXT-gYjU

> You don't see this kind of thing in other industries, do you? Why are so many programmers intent on getting everyone from every demographic, rich poor, black white,

You see diversity pushes in many industries - nursing, construction, education, and many many more. You don't see those programmes because you don't hang out in places where they're discussed.

> interested not interested, into coding?

People can't know if they're interested until they've tried it. If you're going to let people try coding it seems like a good idea to let them have a good, realistic, example.

> You don't see this kind of thing in other industries, do you? Why are so many programmers intent on getting everyone from every demographic, rich poor, black white

Can't say I completely buy this argument. When's the last time President Obama addressed the nation, urging more people to learn to do nursing, or construction? Maybe 'diversity pushes' happen in other industries, but they don't seem to hold a candle to the intensity behind this one. Why, is my question. What's the 'greater good' that everyone sees behind an entire planet of coders? Why not push everyone to be doctors? Push everyone to learn virology? Surely, there's more utility there? Why code?

> People can't know if they're interested until they've tried it. If you're going to let people try coding it seems like a good idea to let them have a good, realistic, example.

I think your comment here is a generic statement, but I still have to mention - it's not completely true. For example, I knew very positively that I was interested in coding, well before I ever wrote a single line of code. I think it's very possible to have genuine interest in an industry, before you've ever worked in it. That said, I suppose I understand the benefit of exposing young people to another career possibility... But again, why coding is being pressured so much as opposed to other industries, I don't understand.

Why, is my question. What's the 'greater good' that everyone sees behind an entire planet of coders? Why not push everyone to be doctors? Push everyone to learn virology? Surely, there's more utility there? Why code?

This is a good question.

As microcolonel states elsewhere in this thread,

I don't think anyone would disagree. So clearly one reason is that software literacy, computer fluency -- it's all part of life in the 21st century. But why coding, specifically? The cynic in me raises his hand to posit that some of it may simply be a result of an unfortunately wide sense that "computer stuff" all lives in one big bag. And in that big bag we have pervasive entities like Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and Apple. We also have venture capital, flashy IPOs, Bill Gates, your mom telling her friend that you're "good with the computer", the aloof and touchy priesthood of IT guys at the office, the technician who fixed your FiOS, someone who made a million dollars selling an app, your cousin's addiction to Candy Crush, Jesse Eisenberg sparring in his bathrobe over hundreds of millions of dollars, and the cryptic, cinematic, powerful -- albeit unrealistic -- representations of programming everywhere from "24" to "The Matrix".

So there's mystery and money and young people and bootstrapping and sudden shocking success. There's little about the trades, factories, apprenticeship, slogging through an expensive education, missed opportunities, irrevocable career paths, layoffs, or two percent raises.

I think most people know it's not all really that way. But it's a powerful undercurrent. And when the manufacturing jobs evaporate, or the giant bank lays off 10,000 workers, one's gaze can't help but be pulled over to that big bag. Even the President's gaze. Most people don't understand the bag, but part of it -- this coding thing -- well, we've heard that's something a determined person could even pick up on their own. Maybe even at home. And hey, maybe some of those people will be mysteriously, fortuitously successful. Join the information economy. It's a convenient place to lay some hope. It's a pleasing, if specific, answer to the complicated question of what to do with obviated workforce cohorts. We used to have "retraining" and "job counseling". Now we have "learn to code" as well.

I can't say it's a bad thing. Some will find a passion or predilection, and a new direction. It's good, but part of me believes the reasoning behind it is reductive, convenient, and wishful thinking at best.

Edit: clarity, words.

Beautifully put. I do think "learn to code" is society's attempt to bottle up the magic of the tech boom. Maybe in the 60s it was "learn polymer chemistry".

No, I don't think the push towards greater coding literacy is about people becoming professional programmers. It's easy for programmers to forget something that is very special about what we do - we automate our work. Every programmer spends at least some time writing scripts to analyse trace outputs, unit tests to automate testing, preparing macros for their editor of choice etc. As this activity is very similar to our main activity, which is actually writing the code for a real product, we often just consider this to be part of the process. But the thing is that just about every office worker has activities that could be automated. Even if it's just learning how to automate MS Office by using VB scripts, or learning how to shift files around your filesystem based on rules using Automator on a Mac, you can greatly improve the efficiency of workers. Just think of the sort of analysis that knowledge workers could run if they just knew enough to write a webscraper!

This is the sort of literacy that the masses need. They need to learn algorithmic thinking, and the basics about how to get to an environment on their computer where they can actually get started. They need to know enough programming vocabulary so that they can Google for more information.

As someone else already stated - beautifully put.

I've been reading through all the comments from yesterday. This one makes a lot of sense to me.

I think there is a reasonable sense that coding is becoming an important skill for large sections of the general public, well beyond IT professionals. It's essentially an ability to turn the machines that make the world work to your own hand, and to your own purpose. That's something that is enormously powerful in all sorts of fields, and widespread knowledge is probably good for society.

Programming (especially open source programming) is also relatively unique amongst professional careers in its low financial barrier to entry - in theory, you just need time, shelter, and access to a cheap computer to become genuinely prosperous, so it does seem reasonable to be a bit evangelical to marginalized groups. Although this works alongside the slightly embarrassing knowledge that the actual demographics of programming are to one degree or another wealthy and white.

It's also important because knowledge of programming gives the citizenry, and even the political class themselves, the knowledge they need to make informed political decisions about how computers and digital technology should be deployed. It's difficult to know where the line should be drawn if you don't understand the potential of the technology, and it's very difficult to stand up and object if you do not understand exactly the nature of what is being suggested, because of the risk of being made to look a fool. It seems likely that the lack of discussion about digital issues is partly down to many politicians hardly being able to manage their own email.

> in theory, you just need time, shelter, and access to a cheap computer to become genuinely prosperous

AND the desire...i think that's what a lot of evangelists seem to leave out of the equation.

personally, I think learning code is almost identical to learning to play a musical instrument. It is a very solitary development and THAT'S what is the biggest barrier to entry.

a lot of people just don't like working alone on things...imo

Well, that is changing because technology now allows us to communicate with each other from distant locations. There are websites like HackHands where you can code with a mentor simultaneously. So even the "loneliness" barrier to coding is also dissolving.

I disagree. Although that technology is wonderful, you will still always need the kind the drive and determination to do figure things out for yourself.

It's one thing being shown how to do something, it's another thing to work it out for yourself, in much the same way as studying maths or physic etc.

No doubt, but that is then true about nearly anything - art, music, film, photography. At the end of the day, we are all alone, but that isn't an excuse to dissuade you from doing anything, especially not coding.

amen...exactly...i just never hear this point brought up.

"Because computer talent has to become cheaper for the tech industries to have even better margins"

Anyway the larger percentage of tech companies are now at a post-innovation stage going to small incremental updates and profit maximization. Star programmers that could build everything will start becoming legends.

The same way they pushed people to STEM to have a wider selection of cheap candidates from their top 5-10%. They only need the cream but to have enough of the cream they need to waste a lot of milk. The milk is all these people that go into an area without loving what they do or without having a lot of talent and determination. They are the ones that lose in the end, becoming the worker bees of the hives. Simple supply and demand. It also gets a lot worse for the good ones too.

I think you completely missed this part of the comment:

> The thing that bothered me, though, was that he didn't even think that he could do that, purely based on where he was from and what he saw around him.

There are many many kids at the primary and secondary school level, and especially minorities and kids from poorer backgrounds, who don't know they could possibly even get into this line of work. It's not like saying you want to become a doctor or a lawyer, which requires a ton of money and time for a post graduate education. They could get started coding now and relatively cheaply, they just don't have the right people directing them and showing them the tools to do it.

Having volunteered at the high school levels teaching kids html/css/js it's very clear there is a total disconnect between what these students could be doing with technology and the ability of our school system to provide it. What really upsets me about these sorts of comments is it really comes from a background of ignorance.

I don't mean any disrespect by saying that, but have you tried to talk to kids at this level and see what the situation might be like in public schools that don't offer any resources for learning how to code? And if you had that experience do you have the perception that we aren't failing students miserably by not getting them more comfortable with technology? If you have then great share your experience, but I find it troubling people can write it off as simply "oh, coding isn't for everyone" when you really don't have much experience to draw from other then how you learned your skills as a developer.

Clearly not every profession is for everyone, but we need to be giving more kids a chance and our schools have not been up to the challenge outside of teaching the standard subjects in their curriculum that we've been teaching for 100's of years. It's good to keep in mind cheap computing and widespread internet access didn't really occur until the mid 1990's. It's barely been 20 years and it's going to take some time for our schools to catch up, but you first have to admit there is a problem.

In this case, this is a person who wants to code, so I'm not sure your point applies.

In the event of a person who's not specifically interested, I'd argue that very basic programming is useful for learning logic, getting a more realistic idea of how computers work (and don't work), and it's useful because of how much work in almost every industry is done on a computer.

I'm an MD, and I'm not a developer. Knowing some basic programming has helped me analyze data and automate a few tasks in the past, but more importantly it helps me identify which problems can be solved with software even if I'm not the one that builds it.

I'm not sure that I interpret the fervor behind this world-wide code push, to be simply targeted at encouraging people to have develop a 'basic programming' knowledge. It seems like there's a far stronger drive to get people into this as a CAREER.

I hear what you're saying though, there's definitely benefit to knowing programming. My point is, it's no more beneficial than many other disciplines which AREN'T getting national attention.

Why the disparity, I wonder?

Fair point, but the net result has been a shift in basic computer education from "how to use Microsoft Office" to "learn a bit of coding" which seems like a huge step in the right direction.

A couple of reasons, I guess.

Firstly, since Google/Facebook/miscellaneous mega-startups, there have been people with enormous wealth and power who got there through the 'engineering track', and love developing software, even if they don't do much of it any more. There are nurses who find their jobs intensely rewarding, but CEOs of big medical companies are not typically drawn from their ranks. So there are evangelists for code with powerful public platforms for their statements.

Secondly, the smarter of the SJWs realise that - in terms of diversity and so on - there's a supply shortage further down the pipe. So a disproportionate number of do-gooder startups/tech non profits are focused on teaching more kids from different backgrounds the basics at an earlier age, since that is a sincere concern among the people who found such enterprises. (Throwing money at such things is a cheap, convenient PR move for the likes of Google, as well.)

Thirdly, as others have pointed out, teaching somebody to code requires a light capital investment up-front, relative to the value of the skill. There's no way to become a doctor without years of med school; you can start throwing code around as soon as somebody gives you a refitted chromebook and tells you to type "print 'hello world'".

Fourthly, hype around the Valley and the tech industry today.

I don't think of it as an industry. It's more like knowing how to read and write or how to cook or do first aid that we should endeavor to at least give kids a taste for what it's like. Computers are so ubiquitous now that it's the equivalent of Home Ec half a century ago. There's a lot of office jobs that we don't think of as traditional programming jobs, but would still benefit from having a basic skill in automating or scripting repetitive tasks.

One side effect from this is that the people who love it and have a knack for it could figure it out much earlier, and we'd probably end up with more, better full-time programmers.

I'm also intrigued by this. One of the responses below mentioned how other industries do similar things. Now let me give you my perspective. I have been semi-technical for many years but my background is rather bookish: translation and publishing. More recently I've been working as a technical translator at software company. Even though I had tried to learn php at some time, I didn't make much progress. But now, I finally understood programming and learnt python. Let me tell you something: it took my work to the next level. For a professional programmer, what I do might seem easy, but learning python has had a real impact in the way I work. I can now, for example, do things like extraction of common words, BUT filtered through a word stoplist and a spell-checking library. Proof-reading is super fast now. I can get all adjectives from a text. And each day I learn more. I want to become a computational linguist, so I can offer new, different services (I feel I MUST to this, specially facing advances in machine translation). But I don't think all people must have the same orientation, so I don't know if I should say "all translators should learn python". It works for me, but maybe not for other translators, for example, literary translators.

A few reasons to get specifically kids to code:

1. You can start programming early. You probably can't (or shouldn't) do metalworking at 12 but you can program. There are few hard prerequisites. You can safely learn by trial-and-error (I'd say the crucial lesson is how to trial-and-error).

2. The "official" education path to programming is unsatisfactory to non-existant. You're much better off tinkering on your own as a teenager than waiting for CS 101 in college (or Pascal in high school if you're lucky). I have a strong belief (but no hard data) this is worse than in other industries. The cheap excuse is "programming moves too fast for educators to keep up"; I also blame CS departments for denying that CS != programming and that most of their students came for the programming, not CS.

I have no doubt the above is heavily biased by my own experience. I'm factually aware some people start programming late, e.g. 30s, and quickly become very good at it; but I don't even understand how that works — it doesn't fit my model of the world. I wonder if people who start late regret it and/or feel getting kids to code is cool, or disagree completely and don't see the point...

I see it as "Let's make it easy for kids to learn programming", so that those who find it interesting are aware, inclined and develop further interst, if they choose to.

I see it less of "Kids to develop awesome Android app", and more of "you can do something simple and interesting with programming"... It's more similar to dacing or Taekwondo classes that kids can easily go and try out.

Where are you from where everyone knows algebra? I understand you people like it, so do I - that doesn't mean it's for everyone.

edit:

This is perhaps a bit too curt, but I don't understand how comments like this generate conversation - they would be better served by the poster googling "why learn how to code" or "why should children learn how to code" and responding to the specific arguments that other people have made rather than saying:

"Forgive me, but it just seems like there's this misconception that everyone should know coding like they know algebra. I understand you people like it, so do I - that doesn't mean it's for everyone."

in which you could easily substitute 'reading' for 'algebra' and and 'algebra' for 'coding':

"Forgive me, but it just seems like there's this misconception that everyone should know algebra like they know reading. I understand you people like it, so do I - that doesn't mean it's for everyone."

If the same argument can be used for not letting women drive as for not teaching kids to code, it's because what you've said is essentially a no-op.

One of the reasons I'm a programmer now is because before the cold war ended, it wasn't even a question whether children should be taught how to program, and they started me on Logo and Basic when I was a lot shorter than I am now.

>Why are so many programmers intent on getting everyone from every demographic, rich poor, black white, interested not interested, into coding?

The mention of class and race here are disturbing to me, as if these are your candidate filters to decide who to teach coding to. It would never occur to me to mention wealth and race during a question about what people should be taught.

The straw man that I'm projecting onto you here is: "Why teach classes of people who are destined from childhood to be low-paid service workers anything other than grill, fryer, and point-of-sale register skills?"

Hm, not sure I see where I said it was for everyone?

To answer the bigger question, though, I'd say it's a premonition of sorts in regard to where kids will find the most success in the future (compared to investment). It's not that EVERYONE MUST CODE, but rather, if they're interested, they shouldn't be discouraged/should have help getting access to the tools they need to do so.

Further, I can't really speak for other industries but I think it's really cool to be a part of an industry that cares enough to want to give as many people as possible access to it. That says a lot.

At this point it's almost a literacy thing. Basic knowledge and breaking that fear of computers would be enough. At that point people can decide if they're genuinely interested based on knowledge instead of (probably) irrational fear. For some people it really is a matter of just breaking that initial intimidation factor. There's more than enough time wasted in K-12 to not put at least an intro class in there for a year...

I remember getting scolded in my 7th grade (required) home education class because I had the pan's handle in a dangerous position while cooking eggs. The pillow I made was the shit though and I did learn how to make muffins so it wasn't a complete loss. But you've got to agree an Intro to Python/Java class would be a much better use of time.

And then there was that one time I broke my arm playing flag football in one of my countless years of "physical education". Teach kids diet and exercise for that "subject" to be remotely beneficial in my opinion, with an emphasis on the diet. That's lifelong knowledge. I don't play flag football anymore, also still don't have full range of motion in my left arm (it's nothing bad al all, just kind of annoying on occasion).

Or those two years I spent in French. I remember my French name was Pascal. I can tell you my name and count to three but unfortunately can't remember how to tell you bye, or anything else. Everyone should at least be introduced to code like they are to algebra. I was introduced to woodworking, close to a decade of random ass activities in phys. ed., clay classes, jewelry classes, and more I can't even remember.

A semester or better yet full year is more relevant in today's society. And frankly, is a skill that will have a subjectively higher quality of life than whatever else they were considering. Breaking the initial intimidation faction, like I said, could be all it takes. Stupid to not do that when so many other almost-mind-boggling stupid things are required.

I know my 6th/7th grade cousins were amazed this year when I told them I was making an Android app. I told them they could too and there are plenty of sites to start, told them a few, but I know they didn't believe me. I think kids around that age would love making a simple HTML5 game or something. Accomplishing that at a young age would change how they think about tech for the rest of their lives. I know my cousins will never get exposure to that outside of school because their blue collar father (not saying anything bad, my dad is blue collar as well) has them playing sports year round - football, basketball, baseball, and soccer. Now that's awesome, but over the top. Those aren't lifelong skills the same way coding can be. I hate to even limit it to 'coding', it's knowledge that can help apply logic to all areas of life while potentially creating plenty of opportunities.

This.

It's not so much as I'm asking people to become a professional programmer more than a psychology teacher is telling her students to become psychologists or math teachers telling his students to become mathematicians.

Student's should at least be aware of it. Understand it's not MAGIC and doesn't require you to have little friends and knowledge of hacking traffic lights in order to build a useful tool for yourself or others.

> I had the pan's handle in a dangerous position while cooking eggs. ... But you've got to agree an Intro to Python/Java class would be a much better use of time.

Even as a programmer, you still eat 3 times a day, right? There you get your utility. I think cooking and personal finance classes should be much more prominent. The think that was useless for me was Chemistry. The subject I got the most out of - English (I am not a native speaker).

Pah, chemistry is just useless because you can't make fireworks any more without risk ending up on a no-fly list or worse ;-)

On a more serious note, I'd not remove anything from parent's list of classes -- I'd even defend the breaking of his arm (in the sense that, I'd rather have some kids break arms, than playtime/phys.ed. being too cuddled).

It's really sad that he didn't feel he got anything from learning French. I suppose that's the price one pays for having "won" the language lottery (it was a little like that with German 70 or so years ago, I'd imagine). Perhaps French should be dropped from American schools and be replaced by a language that actually is more of a gateway into an alternative culture and history, like Arabic or something...

It is seen in other industries, they are just more localized. For example, it used to be the case that in coal mining towns or automotive industry towns, there was great pressure to get everyone working for the local coal mine or auto plant.

The difference between the web/tech and older industries is that the web is literally everywhere. You can get to work in tech anywhere there is a computer connected to the internet.

Coding teaches logic as a discipline. Logical children tend to move toward STEM careers. The intent isn't so that every child becomes a career computer programmer; only that coding is the cheapest, easiest way to teach children the foundations of logic they will need later to succeed in analytical pursuits.

Thing is, for people who can understand its benefits (which are great) it is hard not to advocate. I remember the father of a friend in grade school giving advice to learn languages (spoken languages). He knew a few and obviously witnessed the benefit for life and business. 20 years later, that was good advice.

Thanks for posting this. These thoughts cross my mind every time I read about this.

I'm all for providing exposure, but there is almost something devious about this "how can we get kids to code" thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com