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

[peter.schuller@infidyne.com (Peter Schuller)]

>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.

Kids and parents can *always* abuse the system. That's not anything new.
The same thing applies today.

>> 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?

Probably not, but I stopped having doubts a loooong time ago. When most
people were discussing what direction of eductaion to choose at the
Gymnasium level (and later at the university level) I was amazed how 90%
didn't know. I've never had problems choosing that, because I knew my
current interests and I knew where I wanted to end up.

>And you
>knew exactly what people did in other jobs that you didn't
>want?

That argument can be taken as far as you like. One can never know exactly
what it's like to be in every single possible profession. I've always been
leaning towards science, mathematics and computers. And no, I wasn't bullied
into it by my parents or anything. That's the way my brain works.

The first computer I ever tried was a Mac running MacOS. I later tried DOS.
Guess what? I preferred DOS. And this was when I was a super-newbie.

>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.

When I said "exactly" I didn't really mean it literally, but I knew what my
interetets were, and I know I wanted to be a programmer.

>> 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.

It's those "limits" I'm talking about. In this regard, the US is actually
worse than Sweden - if I had gone to a university in Sweden I could have
concentrated on what I'm interested in (computers, math, physics,
philosophy, and some other stufF). I'm currently attending a US unversity
where 50% of the curriculum is CORE - and it's more or less the same all
over the place (believe me, I've checked this stuff for at least 100
universities around the country).

That's one reason why I'm dropping out. I don't want to waste even more time
of my life. Instead I'll concentrate on running my company.

>Nevermind that interests change quickly and there are 

Of course they do. But always saying "nope, I could change my mind, I'm not
going to decide" is useless.

> a lot
>of things that kids should learn, whether they happen to
>recognize the necessity or not.

... and once again, the "it's important to learn" argument, which is
completely without merit in this context. I have forgotten the vast majority
of what I "learned" in school. I remember the math, physics etc well because
I *want* to know it. As for history and similar subjects - I've forgotten
most of it. And I don't need it. I don't need to know exactly which year
some king died because I'm not interested.

Then there are subjects that were useless from the beginning that I had to
take anyway. English for example. I have learned all my English from
watching TV/movies. English in Sweden was a complete waste of time.

Swedish - another useless subject for me. Ok - did learn (and like learning)
grammer. But sadly that topic was mostly ignored (apparantly everything
thought it was boring and difficult). Instead we droned on about history of
a bunch of mentally challened alcoholics who wrote a bunch of books I
haven't read. I remember nothing of that except a few names in the back of
my mind. We also did variuos excercies with regards to writing properly
(punctuation, dividing text into paragraphs, etc). While I'm no shiny
example of corrct writing, I learned it all myself from reading and writing
on FidoNet and the Internet. Everything we did in school on the topic was
useless.

I could go on. I *literally* wasted years of my life, and that's not
counting free time and sleeping.

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

In the sense that everyone should go to the same school? Sure, fine by me!
Just don't force me to read about where Ingmar Bergman was born. I couldn't
care less, and I won't remember it anyway.

>You can always go from broad to narrow, the other way around
>is much harder.

Yes, but one should be able to make decisions - even if it requires the
concent of the parents. But it should be possible to deviate from the
standard path that everyone's supposed to take. If nothing else, that would
increase diversity in the society as a whole.

> 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.

Hmm? How is sex among young children relevant? It's *impossible* to go from
non-virgin to virgin.

>And you overestimate the
>degree of choice kids usually have in such matters.

No I don't; I state that I think they should have more choice.

I fully realize that not everyone should be presented with all these choices
early in life. But the possibility should exist if the child takes the
initiative. <insert super natural being here> knows that I would have done so.

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

Yes, but once again, teaching a bunch of stuff the subject doesn't remember
is useless.

>> 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.

I'm not debating that. But age in and of itself should not be an issue.

-- 
/ Peter Schuller, InfiDyne Technologies HB

PGP userID: 0xE9758B7D or 'Peter Schuller <peter.schuller@infidyne.com>'
Key retrival: Send an E-Mail to getpgpkey@scode.org
E-Mail: peter.schuller@infidyne.com Web: http://www.scode.org