SA>Why is it that so many people fail to see the phenomenal benefits of
SA>programming.  With such a simple set up, one can explore an intense
SA>discipline of logic, orderly thinking, refined argument and creativity. 
RM> One could argue, however, that while students must certainly
RM> be functional in math and english, and have at least a
RM> nodding acquaintance with science, they could, in general, 
RM> survive quite nicely without being able to program.
SA>Uses of math and english require logic, the fundamental discipline of
SA>computer programming, what is your point?
We're not talking about teaching logic, we're talking about
teaching programming to 6th graders... My point was, and is,
that teaching programming to EVERYONE is unnecessary.  YOUR
point seems to be that programming involves logic, etc, so 
it SHOULD be taught to everyone - I disagree.  Physics 
involves logical thought processes also, and while it'd be 
nice to see everyone exposed to it, I really don't think it 
necessary.  Logic, etc, can be taught in other ways beside 
programming OR physics....
RM> Certainly SOMEONE has to know how, but it isn't needed by
RM> everyone or even MOST....  
SA>Same argument for any subject, some one will do it, why should I...
Hardly... SOMEONE cannot figure out YOUR budget, balance
YOUR checkbook, etc... Nor can "they" communicate for you,
vote for you (although there are some who would gladly DO
this), etc... Someone CAN, however, program for you, do 
research for you, etc..
RM> What's more, by dint of your
RM> argument, would not the teaching of assembler (not macro) or 
RM> straight binary coding then be the ULTIMATE way of teaching
RM> programming (they WOULD demand the most in logical progress
RM> and orderly thinking)?
SA>Do you always seek the most painful way to teach something?
Excuse me?  I thought the idea was to teach logic, orderly
thinking, etc?  Now we're worried about "painful"?  I found
assembler to be very enjoyable, personally; as was FORTH!
The logic of these low-level languages appealed to me, and
I thought this (the logic) was what you were espousing?
SA>... thinking that the only benefit to this would be to turn out 
SA>programmers is to use the age old logic studies in history only 
SA>turn out historians, math can only turn out mathemeticians, etc.
RM> Your points are well-taken, and yes, there are things to be
RM> gained by learning about programming, but math and history
RM> are, imo, more needful for most students than is programming.
SA>Knowing facts is more useful than using logic?  I take it you have not 
SA>done any searching for information on the 'net...
I see... Only programmers use LOGIC; everyone else just does
FACTS?  I don't consider searching the 'net to be an example
of programming, except in the very broadest sense....
RM>Even science has to take a backseat so far as "needfulness",
RM>as one could get along without it most of the time.....
SA>This is not science, it is thinking skills.
No, it's PROGRAMMING... Thinking skills are INVOLVED, but
they aren't the course... Thinking skills can be developed
in other ways.. Look, I have nothing against programming;
I have done some; I am at least capable in 4 computer
languages; it's a valuable discipline; despite all of that,
I STILL don't think it needs to be taught to everyone, and
especially not all 6th graders (which was the topic to 
begin with).... Your mileage may vary...
___
 * MR/2 2.26 * For a good time, call 1-800-3IBMOS2
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.4P1a
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 2 Beta
---------------