You don't need basic computer education early. You need basic math education early. You need people to learn the basics of arithmetic early enough that you can move on to other things later, but still before high school -- other things including Boolean logic and alternate number bases as well as algebra, geometry, trignometry, and the usual.
The point of an AP course, in particular, is to get college credit for work done earlier. What college is going to give credit for a course like this? Maybe towards some sort of "Sociology of Computing" degree?
Did they perhaps have OTHER illegal evidence that they couldn't bring to a judge to get a warrant, like a tip from the NSA perhaps?
Computer Science *already has* a massive gender divide. Taking the nerds who are making the topic hostile to women and forcing them into close proximity to the few remaining women is a recipe for a completely gender-based educational program.
If you're going to be anti-nerd, you're going to lose out on most of your best students. It's not mere accident that CS and nerds go together.
And of course as a nerd myself, if you're anti-nerd and consider nerds to be a problem, I'm against your programs; you're just another nerd-despising member of the mainstream, dressing your hatred up in progressive ideology.
I don't know, perhaps you should ask the GP poster, who posited that somehow, anybody showing enthusiasm is being "shut down by the professor" who is "cruelly rebuking them" by telling them "Let's talk about this item of common interest together after class, rather than distracting everybody in the class with topics that aren't relevant to the class."
Which actually seems like a pretty nice way of putting it, if you ask me.
Not "anybody showing enthusiasm" Specifically "guys" showing enthusiasm. Nobody but you (assuming you're the same AC) said anything about Hadoop or Erlang or any other irrelevant subject during a lecture about C; the language of the course was Python in any case.
And what the enthusiastic guys were told was "You're so passionate about the material and you're so well prepared. I'd love to continue our conversations but let's just do it one on one." This was a _stock_ answer, so obviously not a sincere invitation but rather merely a politely-phrased rebuke.
You are absolutely correct. African Americans are the ones who chose to separate from American culture. When the US Constitution was written, African Americans volunteered to be slaves and quite vociferously demanded that they were only as 2/3rds of a person.
Can always tell a knee-jerker on this issue, because they've heard of the 3/5ths compromise but they don't know which side was which. Bonus points for getting the number wrong though.
But people who follow your line of reasoning will be almost entirely those who would have acted that way anyway.
If one group is going to define things as "us vs. them" and make the categories immutable, members of the other group have to play along or be at a disadvantage.
Do I unreasonably stereotype you? Then perhaps you should consider whether you do that same thing to others.
Hmm... let me consider that...... considered. No, you're just an ass.
It seems to me that if we are truly one nation of Americans, we as a nation have a collective responsibility to ensure that nobody gets left behind.
Does not follow. There's always going to be winners and losers, even if there are no racial, ethnic, or gender schisms dividing them.
If we are one nation, then the onus is upon every one of us to do all we can to help undermine the barriers that keep a group of Americans, simply through accident of birth, from achieving social parity.
Unfortunately there's a prisoners dilemma here. If one subgroup chooses not to identify with the nation but only with themselves against another subgroup, they gain an advantage. The other subgroup can neutralize this disadvantage only by reacting in kind.
So, given that white men (or more specifically cis-white-hetero-males, though for the purposes of CS Asian males are included as well) are the target of various "social justice" initiatives, and in fact are now suffering for it (note the gender disparity in college admissions), it makes sense for white men to NOT be concerned with boosting the groups who have labeled them the enemy.
Then what's a better term for "people descended from people who were natives of North and South America in AD 1491, who had their land forcibly taken from them in European invasions from 1600 through 1900?"
Because that is all that matters right? 'Merica. And really only the East Coast of 'Merica.
Because that was the claim of various alarmist predictions about anthropogenic climate change made after Katrina. If they've made predictions about Asia, I hadn't heard them.
(For those keeping score, since 2005, the year of Katrina, the number of major hurricanes hitting the US mainland stands at zero. No doubt it will go up again at some point, and anthropogenic climate change will be blamed).
It's been a while since a cat 3 made landfall on a US shore, hasn't it?
As the old joke goes, "Shhh.... that's the climate census. They think they're alone here".
In other words, they're trying to remove White males and Asians for non-merit reasons, and making it look like it was a merit-based criteria.
Certainly seems to be the way to bet. It makes sense to separate students with some knowledge from those with none (otherwise the pace of the class will be wrong for one or the other group), but the rest of the RFP does make it look like code (ha, see I can use their terms too) for booting white and Asian males out.
The problem with the Harvey Mudd concept is, as reported, it relied more on discouraging men than encouraging women. Men who showed enthusiasm would be shut down by the instructor by by telling them âoeYouâ(TM)re so passionate about the material and youâ(TM)re so well prepared. Iâ(TM)d love to continue our conversations but letâ(TM)s just do it one on one.â Which is a pretty damned cruel rebuke.
Oh, that's beautiful
âoeThe West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds wonâ(TM)t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.â Then he said, âoeThere will be more police cars.â Why? âoeWell, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.â
The West Side Highway of course still carries traffic. Broadway through Midtown, where he said there'd be more traffic, does not. No tape across the windows. Birds not different. Trees still there. Crime is MUCH lower.
Crystal Skull was, by most accounts, indeed crap.
It was funny as hell. For all the wrong reasons, sure, but still funny as hell. Basically it was an unintentional self-parody.