Apparently the new Computer Science qualification that 15-16 y/o's are taking in the UK is bad because it now focuses on programming which puts of girls!

scorched_throwaway · 2016-12-19T10:52:02+00:00

..then maybe they should add "clown makeup tips" to the curriculum.

DWShimoda · 2016-12-19T11:02:34+00:00

The old qualification wasn't worth the paper it was printed on as it didn't include any programming - just how to use the basic functions of word processors, spreadsheets etc.

I would have loved to have had this new Computer Science course available when I was at school in the 80's (even though - according to the article - I wouldn't be interested as I'm an ethnic minority!) as it focuses on programming but girls aren't into programming so it looks like it's going to have to go.

When I was at school they were in the process of replacing exam based qualifications with exam/coursework based qualifications - again because girls found exams too hard. We have seen the gradual feminization of education in the UK and it's only going to get worse.

Unsurprisingly girls now outnumber boys at University 57-43 and according to the government it's only going to get worse. What with Universities automatically assuming all male students are potential rapists that need to attend lectures in consent and all the other feminist bullshit that goes on it's no wonder men are turning away from formal education at the first opportunity they get.

Once men can get degree's online our Universities are just going to become Gender Studies degrees factories churning out idiot women who are up to their eyeballs in debt with nothing to show for 3-4 years of "studying".

They'll probably end up with government jobs and their debts paid off once student debt becomes a "feminist issue". Fuck our society!

HookahArtillery · 2016-12-19T10:56:28+00:00

The good news is when we're set back twenty years cause kids aren't learning programming, we can eliminate crooked moderators and maybe have another 90s golden age.

Eyes_Of_The_Dragon · 2016-12-19T13:40:36+00:00

Code doesn't care what is between your legs. Only what is between your ears.

DWShimoda · 2016-12-19T12:44:55+00:00

Several thoughts as I read that:

Four years ago, amid general disquiet that ICT was teaching children little more than how Microsoft Office worked, the government took the subject off the national curriculum. The idea was that instead schools should move to offering more rigorous courses in computer science - children would learn to code rather than how to do PowerPoint.

First of all, though I get what they are trying to say, that the teaching was superficial and only about "how to USE prepackaged software" -- and btw that is what most "computer" classes have been about for, well nearly 4 decades now, basically since they began (or at least since "packaged software" became commercially available).

But they have NEVER actually taught "HOW the programs [MS Office or whatever] WORK" -- teaching "how to use X" is an entirely different thing. (To illustrate that distinction more clearly, there is a SUBSTANTIAL difference between teaching someone how to "operate/drive" a vehicle {i.e. gas pedal brake pedal, steering wheel} -- versus teaching then how the "machinery" works {i.e. how IC engines function, how transmissions operate, how brakes actually function down at the wheel level, etc}.)

And I have never yet seen any schools or class that tries to teach "how software WORKS" (i.e. the machinery under the proverbial hood/bonnet).

My next thought was to LAUGH about this bit:

schools should move to offering more rigorous courses in computer science - children would learn to code

Because it presumes that all that is needed is to hand some (generic) teacher a "textbook" and say here, start teaching this.

Sorry, but that is LAUGHABLE. Computer Science is a fairly deep & dense PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE -- one that quite frankly is beyond the abilities of pretty much ALL of the general "faculty" of the public schooling system. They not only do NOT have the knowledge/understanding themselves, but the vast majority of them are lacking the kind of abstract/conceptual skills that would even lead to the capability of teaching "computer science" much less anything beyond rote "copypasta" coding (i.e. here's an example program, type it {or more likely copy & paste it} into the computer and see if it runs).

And that last -- that that kind of "rote" instruction will be all that is accomplished is what leads to THIS:

It looks as though the few [girls] that did take the exams were very focused - girls got higher grades than boys in both the GCSE and the A-level.

That result -- higher grades by girls on "exams" -- tells me that the "instruction" was horrendously poor... again superficial "rote" stuff: learn & regurgitate "jargon" and very facile "coding" skills. (Basically they had TEACHERS and/or TEXTBOOK people {who themselves have little understanding of coding or C/S} develop both textbooks AND exams that reinforce a very superficial form of instruction -- quite frankly {and not surprisingly} much the same as with virtually every other subject -- focusing on trivia rather than actual skill development.)

Next came this:

Then there's the evidence that girls just aren't being persuaded to take an interest - 16% of GCSE computing entrants in 2015 were female and the figure for the A-level was just 8.5% . The qualification is relatively new and more schools - and more girls, took it in 2016 - but female participation was still only 20% for the GCSE and 10% for the A-level.

Ah, the egalitarian/equality bullshit. Why should girls need to be persuaded (especially in any DIFFERENT manner than boys) to take something that they categorically have LITTLE motivation for or interest in?

Seriously the idiocy & cognitive dissonance of all of that -- because at the same time that they will focus on doing DIFFERENT things to "persuade" girls to take these classes -- they are also in utter DENIAL that there is any "difference" between girls and boys in terms of abilities or interests.

The mental "contortions" that they go through with this shit are just rather amusing to watch (also pathetic, but still amusing -- especially since I know that EVERYTHING they try will nevertheless be destined to FAIL -- they may as well stand around saying "Wingardium Leviosa" and try to defy the laws of gravity).

Finally, THIS bit...

Carrie-Ann Philbin, a former computing teacher who works to engage children in coding at the Raspberry Pi Foundation, describes these figures as "disappointing but not surprising". She points out that we are at an early stage in developing computing education and things should improve.

Had me ROTFLMAO.

We're in the early stage of developing "computing education"??? Bwahahahahahahahahahaha

Oh that is just TOO damned funny. I mean I'm an OLD FART (50+) and the "early stages" of "developing computing education" were already in the past back BEFORE the days when *I* was in high school.

The educational system was ALREADY not only (at least ostensibly) "developing" but in fact ALREADY offering courses and teaching various "computer science" classes -- how computer functioned, how to "code," and well as various things like "data entry" and "word processing" -- and they were dong so with a dedicated "computer lab" (using remote time-sharing systems) BEFORE stand-alone "personal computers" were readily available.

And they continued to do so -- more and more -- over the ensuing several DECADES since (the 1980's with PC's, the 1990's with "networked" PC's, the 2000's with "internet connected PC's" etc).

So the idea that they are in the "early stages" of "developing" a curriculum... is just such a woefully IGNORANT, and indeed DISHONEST (and/or "incompetent") statement that it is beyond risible.

The only thing MORE risible is this:

But she also thinks that the way computing is often sold as if its only purpose is to turn out a generation of programmers is a problem. "This only alienates teenage girls who already have a negative idea of what it is to be a 'computer geek'."

Yeah, because what should REALLY be done is "selling computer instruction" as a means to say: learn how to "apply makeup better"'; riiiight.

Talk about insanity -- this is like saying that one of the problems with "wood shop" is that it seems to only be selling the idea that it's about "making things out of wood" -- or that some "auto repair" course is (can you believe it) being pitches as about "repairing automobiles and other machinery."

And then you have to LOVE how "the Agenda" -- the real agenda -- is laid bare:

His colleague Peter Kemp says diversity in the kind of children getting computing education is important. "We need to make sure that computer science becomes a subject at least as inclusive as the old ICT qualification. If the current disparities in access go unaddressed we risk wasting the opportunity to transform the tech industry into a more equal profession."

Riiight. So this whole thing isn't about actually TEACHING the SUBJECT matter... it's about an SJW/feminist-agenda-driven desire to engage in "social engineering" to ALTER an entire profession.

NOT to improve the profession, NOT to improve the prospects of "poor kids" to have relevant & useful skillsets -- NOPE -- it's about inclusiveness (and FORCED "diversity").

That (fucked up, even perverse) kind of PRIORITY is why the whole thing will end up (is DOOMED to be) a horrible failure.

strudel- · 2016-12-19T14:10:49+00:00

Good, I don't need these dumb broads in my industry.

LeanneLoughman · 2016-12-19T13:50:04+00:00

LOLlll, the whole education system is set up to suit the female way of learning over the best way for men to learn - yet no BBC article??

hackableyou · 2016-12-19T12:36:39+00:00

The percentage of girls decrease with this program. But does that mean that the number of girls decrease? We could have a situation where this program increases the number of girls very little and increases the number of boys a lot. So both genders could be helped by this program even though boys are helped more than girls. But we should definately consider cutting any program that helps boys. /s

As a computer programmer myself and one who is very familiar, I see very clearly how I have benefited from out schools poor ability to teach children to be engineers. There is a shortage of programmers here and I get calls, emails, and linkedin invites from recruiters looking to tell me that they have a job for me. Programmers in the u.s. make 3 times the amount that they do in Asia, where their schools do a great job teaching kids to be engineers.

I am not saying I don't want kids to learn to be engineers, I am actually saying the opposite. Schools have a huge problem and they don't want to address it because they are too concerned about helping more boys than girls in the process.

-I-Am- · 2016-12-19T15:43:52+00:00

Ethnic minorities wont get their foot in

I thought the problem was too many Pajeets in computer science?

J-ved · 2016-12-28T01:57:11+00:00

Lmao, I got an A in computing GCSE. From personal experience, most of the pupils in my school get put off from any kind of work. They are too much focused into popularity

Apparently the new Computer Science qualification that 15-16 y/o's are taking in the UK is bad because it now focuses on programming which puts of girls!

Comments

As a result our school actually HAD a "computer science/programming" course -- well technically it WASN'T a "programming" course, it was a set of two "Computer Math" classes (intro & advanced).

It was COOL stuff.

And so... within a few short years, the "computer math" courses that we had taken; had (of course) been CANCELED.

Had me ROTFLMAO.

That (fucked up, even perverse) kind of PRIORITY is why the whole thing will end up (is DOOMED to be) a horrible failure.