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

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

>> 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.
>
>Human brains are fairly similar to one another. I once thought
>when I was really young that I was leaning towards science, only
>to discover later that I didn't know what science really meant.
>I think the reason why our inclinations tend not to change has
>more to do with positive feedback than them being right.

Yes, but so far it's turned out to be right. One can only make decisions
based on current facts, even if there is a possibility that the situation
will change.

>> 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 had the opposite reaction, so it must be that I'm not fit to be
>a programmer. <g>

:) That's not quite what I was implying...

>> 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).
>
>Brown University?

Me? No, Univ. of Maryland, College Park.

>In any case, what colleges decide to require for their degrees is
>a completely distinct issue. That's a point where there are enough
>plausible choices that it's hard to characterize them as a single
>system of any kind.

They're different, but the concept of CORE is a general one. And some states
(if not all, I don't know) have laws regarding CORE (at least that's the
response I got from MIT when I asked about the CS degree requirements; and
IIRC also from RIT).

>Do you believe you learn only *facts* (or whatever it is that you can
>remember or forget) in history classes? That might be all they teach,
>but that's not all you were supposed to learn, IMHO.

Supposed to yes, but in reality, no. I assume you're referring to things
like being able to conduct research, or analytical thinking as applied to
history etc. Sure, it sounds good on paper, but in practice? It's about
remembering facts for some exam. Except of course if you're *interested* and
take initiative; which isn't the case in the situation in question.

>Of course everyone needs to deviate from the standard path at some
>point. That doesn't mean that specialization is the only way 

I am definitely not implying it's the only way.

> or that
>it's a good idea for a 14 year old.

It might be. Also, the standard system as it is to day might not be good for
a 14 year old either. All I want is 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.
>
>What possibility?

To choose your own education. Requirements for being admitted to an
educational program should be based on:

(1) Knowledge, as opposed to a piece of paper that states you've passed
course X and Y.
(2) *Relvent* knowledge only. Requiring home economics or sports in order to
get into a CS program is absurd. Just as absurd as requiring computer
programming for a home economics program.

> Learning by yourself is a possibility for most
>circumstances, though not always (i.e. I didn't have access to
>any CS literature and/or a programmable computer when I was very
>young. I'm not too sure if it was a bad thing).

No - and that's the problem. Getting into a university for example (or
whatever) requires certain artificial requirements to be met (one must have
such and such requirements satisfied on a high school transcript etc).
Without a standard education, I'd have a really hard time getting into a CS
program at a university for example.

Even if I were an expert at everything, I would have a hard time being
admitted because of artificial requirements.

>> Yes, but once again, teaching a bunch of stuff the subject doesn't remember
>> is useless.
>
>But that some people don't remember what they are taught doesn't
>mean that teaching in general is useless. Whether you will need
>or remember something is not clear to anyone when the decision to
>teach it is made.

Correct - but I am trying to highlight that not everyone necessarily fits
into the "mold" created by whoever makes the decision regarding standard
education. And the student in question (possible in conjuncing with parents)
is more likely to make a proper decision individually than the "system" is
likely to do when throwing everyone in the same basket.

-- 
/ 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