I agree with Mark, but it's probably an unfortunate choice of wording. This story has been floating around for a while. Bloomberg's (somewhat better) version from September reads...
"Instead of Java, the class uses the Python language, which has simpler rules and is easier to deploy in Web applications. One of the overarching goals is to “demystify the inner workings of a computer,” according to the course website <https://www.cs.hmc.edu/twiki/bin/view/ModularCS1/>." I manage the information technology curriculum at an all-female high school. While we also offer operating system, security and networking courses, the Intro to Programming course is important a bellwether for our students' potential in college comp sci. I spent much time trying to decide among various languages for the introductory course: C, Java, Python and Scheme/Racket. Even though I wasn't experienced with it at the time, Python appeared to be the clear choice. Back in the day, my Introduction to Computer Science class was in C and our very full lecture hall looked to be 50% women. By the time I earned my degree, I was the only female in much smaller classes. So we were losing many people, not just the girls. I don't think it's intimidation. I think it's frustration and drudgery (at least at the start) with very little creative outlet. Python takes much of that away. I can focus on concepts more than syntax. My students picked it up so quickly I decided to add SQL. My girls are now solving real-world problems of their choosing with Python after six months of study. I wouldn't be there with Java or C, and there'd be many tears over variable type rules and semi colons. In my class I have girls who wanted to be vets, go into the music industry, be lawyers, ocean biologists... Only one had IT aspirations. I've convinced the majority now to explore computing. My future music major has decided to minor in comp sci, but that's ok, even though she appears to be a coding prodigy. I hope and am cautiously confident that the enthusiasm and momentum they've gained will get them through their future Java endeavors. They stay in touch with me so I'll find out. On Apr 5, 2012, at 1:28 AM, Mark Engelberg <mark.engelb...@gmail.com> wrote: On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 5:40 PM, David MacQuigg <macqu...@ece.arizona.edu> wrote: > When I read the headline "Giving Women the Access Code", I was worried > that it sounded like a watered-down course for women. It's not that at > all. It's the guys that need to change their attitude. > I'm not sure that's what comes across in the article. According to the article: "To *reduce the intimidation factor*, the course was divided into two sections — “gold,” for those with no prior experience, and “black” for everyone else. Java, a notoriously opaque programming language, was *replaced by a more accessible language* called Python. And the *focus of the course changed* to computational approaches to solving problems across science." I think it's pretty easy to interpret this article as saying that the women couldn't hack it until it was replaced with something light and fluffy with fewer sharp edges. Nowhere does it indicate that students are learning just as much, or that this change in approach benefits all students, not just the women. Are we elevating the quality of our computer science graduates, or just lowering the definition of what that means? Without addressing these questions, I fear this article does more harm than good. _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list Edu-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
_______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list Edu-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
