Re: [OT] Software Engineering at 14 (was: Re: Beginner's Language?)

["FM" <danfm@dartmouth.edu>]

"Andreas Krennmair" <a.krennmair@aon.at> wrote:
> FM <danfm@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> > > You mean the age? That's not a problem.
> >
> >  Specialized education at that age, to be honest, seems militaristic.
> Nobody is forced to go to that school.

That's a questionable assumption. Kids are forced into a lot of
things without explicit coercion.


> If somebody's not talented, he will
> leave school after one year anyway.

I love the logic there. Would the kid feel the same about himself
when he leaves the school for whatever reason? It's not as though
there's a clear line between the "talented" and the "untalented"
either.


> >  As much as it might be inevitable, this practice of limiting young
> >  people's options and permanently dividing them into different classes
> >  for the future before they are even close to being adult, frightens
> >  my humanistic side. I'm not sure if I see any tangible benefit either.

> The other side is that you get a great job already at an age of 19 to 20
> (depends on your sex: young men have to go to the Austrian army for 8 months)
> with a salary of at least ATS 30000 (EUR 2180).

Whether this is a good thing, for the society or the individual, is
arguable. It's easy to get carried away with the notion of doing
things earlier than others could, but it's much harder to justify
the benefit.


> And those who are in the
> higher classes are very motivated because everybody likes the stuff they're
> doing.

I would think they would be just as motivated if they were studying
the same stuff on their own.


> >  Why not start admitting 8-year olds? They are surely capable.
> You don't have a general comprehensive education at an age of 8, but you have
> one at an age of 14. That's what mostly left out on this school, only a little
> bit of geography, chemistry and history, no arts subject or something, and
> quite a lot of physics and maths.

I don't think you'd have "general comprehensive education" by age
14 either. I don't know about other people, but I had been hardly
taught anything in school by 14 beyond a few misrepresented facts.
Provided that you need to learn two kinds of subjects, one that you
are already good at and one that you aren't, it would probably be
better to learn the former by yourself and the latter in an
organized setting, than the other way around.


> > > The most interesting project of the last few year was
> > > e.g. an operating system (search for SkyOS on google).
> >
> >  I get some extremely annoying shockwave nonsense that says SkyOS is
> >  the most powerful OS on earth with no other content.
> Indeed, it isn't, but it's a proof a concept, and a really great achievement
> for that age, isn't it?

A shockwave page is a great achievement? <g>

Frankly, writing a primitive OS (that's what I would have to assume)
is a great exercise, not an achievement of any kind. Age is hardly a
factor.

I'm not sure what you're trying to show with these examples either.
If you put together a group of smart kids in a school, obviously
some of them will do interesting, even impressive, things. But that
happens regardless of the setting.

I happen to feel that the world needs more interdisciplinary types,
those who could cross the boundaries and challenge the establishment.


Dan.