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

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

"Peter Schuller" <peter.schuller@infidyne.com> wrote:
> [age 14]
> >> You mean the age? That's not a problem.
> >
> >Specialized education at that age, to be honest, seems militaristic.
>
> Sorry to but this late, but I have to re-act to this. One doesn't have to be
> an idiot because one is young. There is nothing wrong with persuing one's
> interests while still young.

One can be uninformed and misled because one is young.
There's a good reason why kids are not always responsible
for their own decisions. And there's nothing wrong with
pursuing one's interests while still young. There's
something wrong with creating a system that a kid and his
parents can use to keep him away from other possible
interests.


> I began programming when I was 8. I knew exactly what type of job I wanted
> eventuellay, and I *wanted* to pursue my interestes.

I'm somehow skeptical as to what degree this could be true.
You mean the job that you envisioned as a 8 year old turned
out to be the same job that you wanted later on? And you
knew exactly what people did in other jobs that you didn't
want? I don't know how anyone who hasn't retired could say
he knows *exactly* what type of job he wants, let alone an
8-year old.


> The biggest problem was the stupid educational system which acts a huge bump
> on the road (this is Sweden by the way; pretty much comparable to US
> education except slightly "faster").

I'm not sure if I comprehend this. The US doesn't have
anything close to single education system. Every state has
its own standards, every district has its own standards,
and every private school has its own standards. And in each
school, kids get to choose their own courses, within
certain limits.


> In order to get good grades, everyone
> has to send a *significant* part of their lives working on subjects in
> school they do now *want* to be studying. Why? Because some suit at the
> governemntal level thinks that X, Y and Z should be required subjects for
> all students (nevermind that if you're not interested in it you don't
> remember it anyway).

Nevermind that interests change quickly and there are a lot
of things that kids should learn, whether they happen to
recognize the necessity or not.

Also, specialization is a lot more tolerable when it doesn't
take place in separate places.


> >Why not start admitting 8-year olds? They are surely capable.
>
> Heh; I hadn't read the entire message. Glad you suggested it :)
>
> Militaristic would be *forcing* students to specialize; just as militaristic
> as it is to force students to get a "broad" education defined by someone else.

You can always go from broad to narrow, the other way around
is much harder. The law also recognizes, here in the US
anyway, that it's much harder to go from a non-virgin to a
virgin than the other way around. And you overestimate the
degree of choice kids usually have in such matters.

There's almost a point where some form of broad education is
necessary for one to be considered a citizen.


> If a person wanted to get a Ph.D. in whatever subject, he/she should be
> allowed to do so regardless of age.

That's a strawman. One should have received a broad, extensive
education before becoming a Ph.D. candidate.


Dan.