Quotes are taken from a message written by Steve to Charles on 07/21/96...
CB> the operating commands are not so totally integrated with the 
CB> programming language, as in the early TRS machines, that one needs to 
CB> have some basic understanding of computer "programming", nor is software
CB> in short supply and difficult to come by.  We do not need to teach 
CB> programming in order to teach the basic operation of the machine, as we 
CB> once did - and programming makes up but a small percentage of computer 
CB> usage today.
SA>
SA>What total bunk.......
I understand that you disagree with me, and that is fair enough - there 
is room on this planet for more than one opinion on most issues.  There 
is NOT room, however, for you to come into this echo and disparage my 
remarks as "bunk."
But, just so we are clear, please note that I stand by what I said above 
- "We do not need to teach programming in order to teach the basic 
operation of the machine..." despite the fact that you disagree.
SA>Of course there are significant reasons to teach programming.
Taken out of the context of the complete series of messages I have 
written on this topic, what you have quoted seems, indeed, to indicate 
that I do not support teaching programming at all.  However, the thrust 
of this discussion has actually been about the inclusion of programming 
instruction in a 6th grade computer literacy course.  My position on the 
issue of programming instruction is that it should be taught as a high 
school elective, or to those middle school children who have a strong 
interest through an after-school club.
SA>Who writes the programs you are using?
Professional programmers who have elected to study computer programming, 
and who, most likely, opted to take the necessary courses in college.
SA>Your argument is the underlying reason computer science is lost 
SA>in the schools.
I don't understand this.  How so?
SA>I once had a discussion with a high school principal in the 
SA>teaching of computers and why the state does not have a 
SA>certification in computing.  His response was that "any one 
SA>can teach computers".
If that's the way he said it, then indeed that is an ignorant 
assumption, but you show your own bias in the following statement...
SA>Having a BS in Computer Science, I was totally floored.
The notion that states should have certification in computer sciences is 
intriguing.  New York does not have certification in that area either 
and I often wonder how it would fit in to the total picture.  Could only 
certified people teach computer literacy courses?  What about teachers 
who want to teach/use applications with the students?  Would an English 
teacher who wanted a report done in the computer lab using word 
processing software be required to have a certified computer instructor 
on site at all times?  How about the technology teachers who use CAD 
software - would they be required to have dual certification?
I'd guess, at a time when schools are anxious to get kids and teachers 
using computers as much as possible, that requiring a degree in computer 
science would scare off a lot of people and school districts.  I don't 
think anything as stringent as a BS in computer science would be 
necessary for teaching the most common applications of computing, but 
perhaps some sort of test that has teachers demonstrating a basic 
knowledge with a certificate awarded if they achieve a passing score?  
SA>His ignorance was strictly based on the idea that computers are only 
SA>to be used for the secretarial applications such as word processing, 
spread 
SA>sheets and to some small extent data base management.
I don't have any statistics in front of me, but I'd wager that that a 
significant portion (75% or more) of jobs done on computers across this 
nation on a daily basis are done at just that level.  Programming is not 
required in order for the average end-user to be proficient with a computer.
SA>Why is it that so many people fail to see the phenomenal benefits of 
SA>programming.
Perhaps it is because their interests lie elsewhere?  Do you knit?  A 
number of people in my family find that pursuit exceptionally rewarding 
and yet have virtually no use for computers at all.  It is all important 
to you because you enjoy it, and because you are good at it.  I 
personally spend a considerable amount of time with computers every day, 
but see no sense in forcing that interest on people who do not share my 
attitudes and skills.
SA>With such a simple set up, one can explore an 
SA>intense discipline of logic, orderly thinking, refined 
SA>argument and creativity.  All this is done without the need 
SA>for great expense in replaceable supplies, cleanup or 
SA>health hazard.  To waste time and thought thinking that the 
SA>only benefit to this would be to turn out programmers is to 
SA>use the age old logic studies in history only turn out 
SA>historians, math can only turn out mathemeticians, etc.
As I said, I've seen many students who are simply turned off by the 
"logic, orderly thinking, refined argument and creativity" that you 
enjoy.  I believe that the world will continue to function quite well by 
allowing those who enjoy computers to work with them at the level they 
are comfortable with and by allowing those who like to knit to pursue 
their interests instead.  I see no need to force everyone to study 
programming in school.
Chuck
Chuck Beams
Fidonet - 1:2608/70
cbeams@future.dreamscape.com
___
* UniQWK #5290* A mind is a terrible thing to lose.
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------