[net.cse] Computer Science in High School

colonel@gloria.UUCP (George Sicherman) (12/28/84)

> > English majors would best be served learning word processing and things like
> > the Writer's Work Bench.  But they need more.
> 
> No more than they previously needed courses in typing and bookbinding.
> This notion of universal computer literacy is receiving rather more
> support than it deserves.

I agree.  If computers are going to replace books, we should be teaching not
prose style but computer graphics.
-- 
Col. G. L. Sicherman
...seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel

macrakis@harvard.ARPA (Stavros Macrakis) (12/29/84)

> I agree.  If computers are going to replace books, we should be teaching not
> prose style but computer graphics.	--	 Col. G. L. Sicherman

Yes, and we should speak in (bitmap) pictures not words, and we should
burn Shakespeare and digitize Picasso.

scooper@brl-tgr.ARPA (Stephan Cooper ) (12/30/84)

Computer science is not an essential at the high school level.  True, it is
an aid for those wishing to pursue into a field in which computer literacy
is essential, however, the basis behind computer science is what needs to be
stressed more.  Programming (not the actual coding, but the thought process
behind it) requires a sense of logical progression and organized thinking,
does it not?  The act of learning a specific language is irrelevent at the
high school level, or anywhere else.  That's the EASY part.  The importance
of programming comes in the efficient thought processes in problem solving.  
Aren't these the very essentials supposedly stressed in high school English
(a good course, anyway) and ALL Mathematics?  The course of programming in
high school is a waste unless the concepts behind EFFICIENT progamming are
stressed.  I have seen many high school students too worried about getting
their programs in on time, or what the syntax for a FOR-NEXT loop is, rather
than understanding how these things work, and WHY they are used, and how they
make the process efficient.  Overall, this whole arguement is rather bogus.
I think we all agree that it is the logic and organized thought processes that
are important, not how to print "My name is Johnny" in 19 different computer
languages.  

-Steve

mroddy@enmasse.UUCP (Mark Roddy) (12/31/84)

> > I agree.  If computers are going to replace books, we should be teaching not
> > prose style but computer graphics.	--	 Col. G. L. Sicherman
> 
> Yes, and we should speak in (bitmap) pictures not words, and we should
> burn Shakespeare and digitize Picasso.

Well seriously, we are at the start of a transition in communications
technology.

It wasn't very long ago that European culture was transformed by the 
printing press, there were undoubtedly people who argued against
the introduction of that machine.

In fact, we seem to have entirely lost our oral literary tradition, except
perhaps for jokes. Perhaps our ancestors should have struggled against the
introduction of writting altogether.

Give the kids computers. 

kevin@lasspvax.UUCP (Kevin Saunders) (01/03/85)

>> Yes, and we should speak in (bitmap) pictures not words, and we should
>> burn Shakespeare and digitize Picasso.
>
>Well seriously, we are at the start of a transition in communications
>technology.
>
>It wasn't very long ago that European culture was transformed by the 
>printing press, there were undoubtedly people who argued against
>the introduction of that machine.

Just in case anyone wants to read the classic argument for this
position, try _The Gutenberg Galaxy_ by Marshall McLuhan.  The thread
of the argument is difficult to follow--hell, it's not a thread, it's a
*fabric*--but you can certainly draw some interesting conclusions about
probable future events by extending McLuhan's logic.

The basic point of the book is one that everyone should agree with:  in 
order to rationally chart our future course, we have to understand the 
effects of commmunications technology on the way individuals think and 
interact in society.

Kevin Eric Saunders
lasspvax.kevin@cornell.arpa

jona@clyde.UUCP (Jon Allingham) (01/04/85)

> Yes, and we should speak in (bitmap) pictures not words, and we should
> burn Shakespeare and digitize Picasso.

We're well on our way. I have several digitized pictures by Picasso
and they are actually quite good.

Jon A.
-- 
Jon M. Allingham	(201)386-3466	AT&T Bell Laboratories-WH

"Beam me up Scotty, no intelligent life down here!"