Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site harvard.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxj!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!macrakis From: macrakis@harvard.ARPA (Stavros Macrakis) Newsgroups: net.college Subject: Re: Computer Science in high school Message-ID: <232@harvard.ARPA> Date: Sat, 29-Dec-84 15:44:48 EST Article-I.D.: harvard.232 Posted: Sat Dec 29 15:44:48 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 30-Dec-84 05:19:32 EST References: <241@mss.UUCP> <14700006@uiucdcsb.UUCP> <753@gloria.UUCP> Organization: Aiken Computation Laboratory, Harvard Lines: 41 > > [Computers in education are useful for illuminatiing] math, science, > > literature, philosophy, history.... These are the essentials.... > > Computers are tools to aid in the solution of problems... > This is a shallow [!!??] view of education. Do computer programmers > care about the "beauty and import[ance] [incorrect correction by Sicherman] > of math, science, literature ..."? Not more than other people. Then we are to evaluate the sciences and humanities by how much they help in training programmers? Who cares whether programmers care more about the humanities and sciences than do others? The question is the place of computers in secondary education, not the place of secondary schools in training programmers. > Computer programming is a _basic_ skill -- it does not require a > knowledge of calculus, .... Surely "basic" means more than "not having advanced prerequisites"? It has something to do with its general importance. > It has nothing to do with literature and philosophy, except for making > their existing forms obsolete. The insights provided through computers have made little obsolete, although of course they contribute to other fields. The computational model is one useful model among many, and surely at some level of education deserves to be presented to at least some students. But I would be reticent to encourage high-schoolers to base their philosophy on their Basic programming assignments. > And it's condescending to speak of a tool as "unlocking the mind." > Every tool _alters_ the mind. Machines made men slow, specialized, and > repetitive; computers are making men quick, versatile, and intuitive. > In a word, computers are programming people. -- Col. G. L. Sicherman Perhaps this is an example of the depth of philosophical discourse we can expect from the post-computer man: vast utopian generalizations with no coherent arguments and no suggestive evidence. Thanks, but I'll try to keep my mind from being altered by computers (Sicherman's, at least). - Stavros Macrakis