The Null Professor (2014)

I posted this because I strongly agree with Crista on the notion that some people can inherently program, and some cannot. I think that's as ridiculous as she does. However, I see the sentiment repeated here, often. I posted this to present the arguments of a CS professor on the topic, one who has even more experiencing in it than I do.

For me, this article was thought-provoking throughout, but there was a very deeply-buried lede as well: in the linked interview with Maria Klawe[1], all the way at the bottom, where she mentions separating the 101-level CS class by previous programming experience. I think that an exceedingly large portion of the barriers to entry faced by students trying to enter the field is due to the disparity in experience, which masquerades as a disparity in aptitude. That disparity turns into a large barrier to entry, due to both self-selection on the part of the students (feeling intimidated and outclassed), and also the issues being discussed in this article about being written-off as no good by the professor.

There may, perhaps, also be an inherent aptitude component as well. I still sort of think that there probably is. But we still shouldn't confuse that with what's really going on in the intro classes. Some kids that have the aptitude, and still have the potential to become exceedingly competent, should not be weeded out just because they didn't have the good fortune to be exposed to CS before college.

[1] Full disclosure: HMC alumn

No, of course it's good to have people of vastly differing experience and aptitude learning from each other!

You just need to separate the assholes and subhumans from the inexperienced newbies and human being who like the subject for what it is (and not as a way to look down on others).

That's right on with "too shy".

The issues of pedagogy whether it is music or programming are largely sociological.

So why not make being a manic musician attractive and marketable like they do in movies about music?

I guarantee you that the core inspiration that starts (and to a large extent sustains) any involvement in any activity is aesthetic. This makes aesthetics the beginning and end of activities.

But in programming, we just use the manic people as Golden Children to somehow whip the other students into shape. This utterly fails of course, aesthetically and practically and in every other way imaginable. It's an ugly way of doing things and it doesn't actually produce good programmers.

If by "post" you are referring to the pile of shit that is linked, then yes. My negativity here is NOTHING compared to the negativity and resentment by the professor in the article, who cloaks it in positive language.

I'm only saying that people should be more aware of what drives others, and look past the surface.

On the other hand, he is advocating for a Cult of Computer Science with specially designed courses for different races of people. Whites get one sort of programming class, women another, blacks yet another, asians yet another, etc.

He's also completely submitted and subjugated himself to the concept of education as preparation for being a laborer drone to make the few richer, rather than education as a way to educate the student. You can tell by his blind devotion to Paul Graham and business students (only business students are as self driven as CS people, obvioulsy they must be because everyone's in it for the money and BIM students are closer to the source)

And as a professor, one can do a lot more damage to society being like this than in other positions. So either this whole article is gratuitous negativity, or it's not and what I'm saying is actually gratuitious positivity; the world is going to be so much better once people like him aren't around!