Computer science is a field that (generally) doesn't require much writing. Are you sure that's a good example?

In case you have missed it, there seems to be an undercurrent in this thread that implies that one has to give up cursive in order to teach computer science... Thus my comment that you quoted.

I wasn't saying anything of the sort. I'm just pointing out that the complexity and writing speed of one's longhand writing system is less important in computer science than, say, art history, or psychology.

I also think there's an aspect to this "undercurrent" that you're missing. One doesn't have to give up cursive to learn keyboarding (in fact, experience tells me that schools do both), but if one were to give up the time spent learning cursive and leave time for keyboarding, there might be extra time to learn other things, or to get very good at typing. There's only so much time in a school day.

I also think there's an aspect to this "undercurrent" that you're missing. One doesn't have to give up cursive to learn keyboarding (in fact, experience tells me that schools do both), but if one were to give up the time spent learning cursive and leave time for keyboarding, there might be extra time to learn other things, or to get very good at typing. There's only so much time in a school day.

Sure, but that's a finer line than you might realise.

Why not get rid of art, music, literature and sports as well? They don't directly contribute to a career in the sciences either.

Teaching computer programming to every child in school is the stuff of delusions. As it is, we can't even teach every kid how to use Microsoft Word. Not every child is smart, and it has nothing to do with their genetics (there is another massive Lounge post about that) but mostly with work ethic and motivation. Some kids aren't necessarily in a bad environmental situation, but turn themselves into stupid fools because of peers and what is viewed as the normal adult today (usually a false assumption). But, if you are to teach programming, I strongly believe you should teach it in a class using GCC on a Linux-based computer with X Window System disabled (no GUI whatsoever for anything, for all of you non-NIX-ers). That way you won't have a bunch of graduates from high school going into computer science expecting a drag-drop high level interface like in Alice or Scratch.

I think its good to have programming available to students, especially where Maths is concerned.

There are many people who simply hate maths and don't want anything to do with it. Many will flunk at maths because its not the easiest of subjects to teach. If it were to be mixed with programming, it would allow a student to see Maths in action. The biggest hurdle for a student learning maths is understanding the need to learn it and the possibilities it brings. Programming will most likely make students more interested in Maths and vice-verca. And of course Maths is a vital skill for science, so it has a benefit to that field as well.

I don't think children or young adults need to learn stuff like writing drivers and assembly, but I do remember some schools in the 80s - here in England - using the BASIC language via 8-Bit machines like the ZX Spectrum and C64. If the language used is simple enough and easy for graphics then it would be a powerful teaching companion for Maths.

Why not get rid of art, music, literature and sports as well? They don't directly contribute to a career in the sciences either.

Because no one said cursive should be eliminated (anyone who did doesn’t count).
Its priority within schools should be swapped with keyboarding, making it elective instead of mandatory, just like art, music, literature, and sports.

Cursive was mandatory teaching in my younger years. As a result of it being forced upon me when I was around 7, I can read and write cursive without having ever used it since. I have not written in cursive in 24 years nor even seen it in 10 years since I left America, but I just drew out the whole alphabet in my head.

That is how kids learn. If that were swapped with keyboarding mandatory at 7 and cursive as an elective at around 12 (when I got my first chance at a computer in school), all the slow typers, finger peckers, etc. who you meet today would instead be moderately decent with much less time spent to get there (since I started so late I was a pecker for years rather than months, as it would have been if I had started keyboarding between 5 and 7) and would have a much more useful skillset.


L. Spiro

Teaching computer programming to every child in school is the stuff of delusions. As it is, we can't even teach every kid how to use Microsoft Word. Not every child is smart, and it has nothing to do with their genetics (there is another massive Lounge post about that) but mostly with work ethic and motivation. Some kids aren't necessarily in a bad environmental situation, but turn themselves into stupid fools because of peers and what is viewed as the normal adult today (usually a false assumption). But, if you are to teach programming, I strongly believe you should teach it in a class using GCC on a Linux-based computer with X Window System disabled (no GUI whatsoever for anything, for all of you non-NIX-ers). That way you won't have a bunch of graduates from high school going into computer science expecting a drag-drop high level interface like in Alice or Scratch.

"Alice", yep, saw that one... in college... a class for using it was part of the required curriculum for a CS major.

general response of people being "how is this programming?...", and yet you still had people in class who can't figure out the whole "drag and drop to make 3D characters do stuff" thing...

indirectly though, it did have a minor influence on something I called the "sequenced event" system for my 3D engine, so much as events can happen sequentially or in parallel and operate with delay-timers (partly as it is a little more usable for various tasks than building stuff via the more traditional Quake style "trigger_whatever" and "target_whatever" systems, but these also exist...). and, also, the sequenced-event system at least has the dignity of being text-based and being able to execute globs of script-code as well...

although, yes, it probably was still kind of a waste to have a whole semester about it...
(I think I got bored and mostly just did other stuff...).

yet, all this was paired up with *actually difficult* classes, mostly stuff like math and similar (then getting repeatedly owned due to not really being very good at math...). (fun time with derivatives, conic sections, limits, integrals, and a good helping of set-notation as gravy to put on everything... and generally at the mid point of a semester being like "I have no idea what is going on at this point"...).

In primary school, block printing and cursive writing styles were taught, and in high-school touch-typing was also mandatory.
Did other's with mid-90's onwards schooling not get taught to touch type?

What planet do you live on? Quite a number of my classmates didn't own their own computers, and that was at a fairly expensive private university.

When you factor in all the poor/rural/disadvantaged school systems, there is a very large body of students (~30%) who don't have a computer, even in the US.

These days in Australia, every single high school student is given a standard cheap laptop for use in classes, and teachers are encouraged to integrate these laptops into their lesson plans. Teachers also have access to projectors, electronic white boards etc, which are networked with the laptops.


The most fascinating thing that I've got out of this thread is all the discussion about cursive... For me, it's just a part of "learning to read and write", which has to be taught at a young age. It's the same as printing, but easier. It's not some completely different alphabet that has to be learnt!! Is it?! It's a completely foreign idea to me that people could baulk at not being able to read or write text where the letters have flowed together into a continuous line per word... It seems the same as being illiterate, to my culture-shocked mind..?

Teaching computer programming to every child in school is the stuff of delusions. As it is, we can't even teach every kid how to use Microsoft Word. Not every child is smart, and it has nothing to do with their genetics (there is another massive Lounge post about that) but mostly with work ethic and motivation. Some kids aren't necessarily in a bad environmental situation, but turn themselves into stupid fools because of peers and what is viewed as the normal adult today (usually a false assumption). But, if you are to teach programming, I strongly believe you should teach it in a class using GCC on a Linux-based computer with X Window System disabled (no GUI whatsoever for anything, for all of you non-NIX-ers). That way you won't have a bunch of graduates from high school going into computer science expecting a drag-drop high level interface like in Alice or Scratch.

I think you're missing the point. You can teach programming to every student the same way you can teach music or creative writing to every student. What it does is give every student the opportunity to experience these things. If they find that it clicks for them and they enjoy it, they can pursue it further.

I'm also annoyed by your smarts comment. There is nothing special about being a programmer. It doesn't require special intelligence, and it definitely doesn't make you better than non-programmers. I encounter just as many programmers with lousy work ethic, motivation and below average intelligence as I do people in other fields.

It's a completely foreign idea to me that people could baulk at not being able to read or write text where the letters have flowed together into a continuous line per word... It seems the same as being illiterate, to my culture-shocked mind..?

I think you may have not had as much experience with the average American's cursive.

I can't read my own handwriting half the time. ;)

I'm also annoyed by your smarts comment. There is nothing special about being a programmer. It doesn't require special intelligence, and it definitely doesn't make you better than non-programmers. I encounter just as many programmers with lousy work ethic, motivation and below average intelligence as I do people in other fields.

I think you misunderstood my point, and I'm sorry about that. My point was that some students who don't want to learn a subject and are in a class just because it is required by curricula are going to ruin the class and the learning experience for the people who do actually want to learn something and be there. If you look at an average high school calculus class, every student in there either wants to be in there themselves or their guardians pressured them into it, usually both (at least in America). It is not state required, and there are different levels of math for the different desire of depth. Everyone in American schools has to take at least Algebra to graduate (in my state), and there are Algebra classes for the older children who don't want to be there and for the younger who do. There are also subjects that students who are interested in can pursue at any depth. Computer programming should be (and already is to an extent) one of them. In converse, there are state-required non-leveled "Business Technology" classes where every student must take a class with everyone else regardless of interest or academic prowess and learn Microsoft Office. Some may want to learn, yes, but it is the smaller portion of the class that will not want to learn that creates distractions, slows progress, damages school equipment, and makes the classroom not a place of learning, but a place where different types of people are constantly clashing that destroy the purpose of the class. The reason I know these things is because I know several people who are teachers at these schools. Turning computer programming into a Business Technology class would be a poor choice. Everybody can learn to program, and learn to do almost anything else, but not everyone will. I think the schools should provide all of the required resources for the people who will, and that is only a minor adjustment from where it is now (at least in my state, which is statistically ranked 49th in overall progress).