Computer science is to programming as physics is to civil engineering.
That doesn't ring true for me. I'd say CompSci is to programming as CivEng is to construction.
Learning to Code vs Learning Computer Science
11–20 of 116 posts
Re: Learning to Code vs Learning Computer Science
#12Don't these guys realize that even out in the real world there are large numbers of programmers who aren't computer scientists. They have code running in production as we sit here and debate the merits of teaching children what will become an essential skill in the future. I work with people who will never need to recall from memory how to write a quicksort yet they've been collecting paychecks as developers for year…
There are large numbers of practicing (mechanical, electrical, etc.) engineers who aren't physicists. But you have to be up on your physics in order to work as an engineer.
Re: Learning to Code vs Learning Computer Science
#13I don't disagree that co!outer science is a more powerful perspective to learn, do a fun substitution exercise and replace computer science with building a car. We can lament that people just don't appreciate the beauty of the design process or that people who design cars really "get" cars better than everyone else and that the people who manufacture the cars really hold the power, but at the end of the day some peop…
Yay! A car analogy :-) I don't know where you're based, but in the UK learning to drive includes a moderately hard theory test. So, you do learn about stopping distances, why you should indicate, simple car maintenance etc. Anyone can learn the basic mechanics of driving (right pedal go fast, left pedal for changing gears, turny thing to change direction) - but we should teach so much more than that.
That theory test is still all about operations and basic maintenance. They don't cover fundamental engineering points like crumple zones, valve timing algorithms, or the metallurgy of the engine components.
Re: Learning to Code vs Learning Computer Science
#14I think this is related to the question about which programming language to use for teaching. For me the MIT switch from Scheme along with SICP to Python is a shift from teaching CS to teaching how to code, for the better and the worse.
Re: Learning to Code vs Learning Computer Science
#15This is simply a (somewhat inaccurate) attempt at re-interpreting semour papert's advice that learning to program should serve as a medium/conduit of ideas but doesn't have intrinsic value, in and of itself, outside of the ideas applied and diacovered. If he was aware of papert it would've helped to see an attribution.
Re: Learning to Code vs Learning Computer Science
#16Computer science is to programming as physics is to civil engineering.
That doesn't ring true for me. I'd say CompSci is to programming as CivEng is to construction .
Depends on what component of compsci you are talking about. I worked with several profs that have never worked on large software projects. They spent their lives constructing proofs and the closest thing to programming they would do with any frequency is update their webpage.
Software engineering is to programming as civil engineering is to construction. Software engineering is just a small slice of computer science.
Re: Learning to Code vs Learning Computer Science
#17Don't these guys realize that even out in the real world there are large numbers of programmers who aren't computer scientists. They have code running in production as we sit here and debate the merits of teaching children what will become an essential skill in the future. I work with people who will never need to recall from memory how to write a quicksort yet they've been collecting paychecks as developers for year…
There are large numbers of practicing (mechanical, electrical, etc.) engineers who aren't physicists. But you have to be up on your physics in order to work as an engineer.
In my observation, engineers tend to forget their math and physics pretty quickly after getting out of school. Many are proud of it. Most of the work of an entry level engineer is CAD, troubleshooting, and bureaucracy.
Re: Learning to Code vs Learning Computer Science
#18While I agree that it's important to stress the differences between code and CS, I still believe that, at an High School level, it's better to teach how to code instead of CS. Programming is a practical skill. It's easier to engage kids with it and it will probably be more useful to them in the future. It's hard enough to engage kids with practical stuff ("I'm never going to need X, I'm going to become a Y"). I just…
If you believe that the only role of schools is to teach useful skills, then you are correct.
But I believe that the role of an educator is more than that. School should teach our kids to see the world for its beauty and to understand how it works. Practicality of subject material should not be a factor in what we teach our kids.
There's a reason why we should teach Shakespeare, proofs in math, music history, kickball and beauty in algorithms.
Teaching our kids useful skills is important, but as a Teacher, I believe it's more important to instill in them the eyes and tools to see and appreciate the world around them.
Re: Learning to Code vs Learning Computer Science
#19While I agree that it's important to stress the differences between code and CS, I still believe that, at an High School level, it's better to teach how to code instead of CS. Programming is a practical skill. It's easier to engage kids with it and it will probably be more useful to them in the future. It's hard enough to engage kids with practical stuff ("I'm never going to need X, I'm going to become a Y"). I just…
Why should CS be treated differently than other sciences?
The physics courses in high school are not civil engineering courses, the chemistry courses are not cooking classes, etc.
Or do you think those should be changed too?
Re: Learning to Code vs Learning Computer Science
#20While I agree that it's important to stress the differences between code and CS, I still believe that, at an High School level, it's better to teach how to code instead of CS. Programming is a practical skill. It's easier to engage kids with it and it will probably be more useful to them in the future. It's hard enough to engage kids with practical stuff ("I'm never going to need X, I'm going to become a Y"). I just…
If you believe that the only role of schools is to teach useful skills, then you are correct. But I believe that the role of an educator is more than that. School should teach our kids to see the world for its beauty and to understand how it works. Practicality of subject material should not be a factor in what we teach our kids. There's a reason why we should teach Shakespeare, proofs in math, music history, kickbal…
> If you believe that the only role of schools is to teach useful skills, then you are correct.
I believe the role of schools, especially before and during high school (it's another matter for college/uni) is rather to teach basic skills (read, write, count, know a bit how the world works and how to think) and to teach how to learn, and also what exists that could interest you.
Teaching only useful skills is very simplistic and even seems to me like a bad idea, and I think you demonstrate why in the rest of your post.