back to article Comp Sci becomes 'fourth science' in English Baccalaureate

Education Minister Michael Gove has added computer science into the new English Baccalaureate as a "fourth science", putting it on a par with Physics, Biology and Chemistry, the Department of Education announced today. Computer Science is the only extra subject to make it onto the list of core academic subjects that comprise …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. vagabondo
    Meh

    "Michael Gove is destroying our school system"

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/30/michael-gove-destroying-school-system

    My sympathies to English schoolchildren. Sold to Google, et al as a job lot.

    This is on par with asking the tax-avoidance industry to advice on corporation tax.

    1. vagabondo
      Headmaster

      Re: "Michael Gove is destroying our school system"

      :% s/advice/advise/

      1. Dazed and Confused

        Re: "Michael Gove is destroying our school system"

        Not sure what any of that polemic has to do with whether its a good idea teach real IT skills to kids.

        1. Piro Silver badge

          Re: "Michael Gove is destroying our school system"

          Nothing, that's the point.

          I don't care who's saying it - we used to be world class innovators in the IT sector - but I can't imagine many kids spewed out of the state system being able to understand anything that goes on behind their latest iDevice or website in the current state.

    2. P_0

      Re: "Michael Gove is destroying our school system"

      My sympathies to English schoolchildren.

      My sympathies go to English schoolchildren who entered the system during the past 20 years, as the quality and quantity of their education has been eroded. School should absolutely focus on STEM subjects. Adding Comp Sci is a great idea (in theory - don't know whether this government can pull it off, especially since the over unionized teachers will probably be dead set against it: "More drama lessons! More Mickey Mouse qualifications!"). The UK doesn't produce enough talented STEM graduates. And yet why when I was at uni were about a quarter of the students studying psychology or sociology? These subjects a pretty poor excuses for "science". UK kids need to be weaned off the easy subjects.

      The first part to solving a problem is to admit that there is a problem. Gove has gone this far.

      Now it's up to him and the teachers to fix the problem. My prediction: Not optimistic.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "Michael Gove is destroying our school system"

        especially since the over unionized teachers will probably be dead set against it: "More drama lessons! More Mickey Mouse qualifications!"

        Unlikely, really. British teachers are not over unionised so you might have confused the country here (just a guess based on spelling, sorry if I was wrong).

        Computer Science is generally taught like crap in both schools and universities. The additional problem is about focus - producing huge numbers of people with only a narrow focus of understanding is not a good indicator for national progress.

        The most successful innovators, inventors and drivers of progress come with a spread of knowledge and experience - it is arguably the ability to transfer knowledge between domains that is more important than having an A level in Computer Science. In the UK we seem to have become obsessed with narrow fields of knowledge while the world is requiring a greater, broader, understanding to function - look at how many people have an opinion on what should be in the UK citizenship test, while not fully understanding the social and historical background (but I am sure they have a great deal of knowledge in their own areas).

        Also, there is a frequently stated misunderstanding about how "easy" subjects are. Psychology and sociology are not easy subjects - a degree requires the same level of academic rigour as a degree in physics.

        I personally found a BSc in Physics trivially easy (but then I love maths and find myself obsessed about the drive for calculable answers) but when (following a redundancy payout) I went back to university to do a BA I really, really struggled.

        1. P_0

          Re: "Michael Gove is destroying our school system"

          The most successful innovators, inventors and drivers of progress come with a spread of knowledge and experience - it is arguably the ability to transfer knowledge between domains that is more important than having an A level in Computer Science.

          You're mistaking Steve Jobs for "most innovators". Do you think the guys who invented horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing were generalists? Or were they specialists in physics, hydraulics, geology? What about the paper thin phones coming out soon? Were they invented by a team of sociologists? Didn't think so. Your claim is so absurd, bordering on unbelievable. The world is shifting ever more into specialization. This is patently true, and observable. Even mathematicians studying different branches of maths don't understand each others' notation.

          Telling kids that they can be great innovators by not studying anything in depth and just learning bits of this and bits of that is doing them a disservice. They're going to grow up with a false sense of their own knowledge and wonder why they can't find good jobs. The kids that find a specialist STEM subject and keep at it are far more likely to innovate.

          In the UK we seem to have become obsessed with narrow fields of knowledge while the world is requiring a greater, broader, understanding to function

          I disagree entirely. I don't live in the UK, you are right. I live in a country going through a similar issue, but one that is frankly starting off with a higher level of STEM education, but is slipping behind other countries. Nowhere in the debate is anyone trying to get kids to be generalists.

          Of course kids need a general knowledge of a wide variety of disciplines. They need to be able to write polite, business English (or other language) , but since kids study English constantly form age 5 to age 16 you'd think teachers would find some time to squeeze that in.

          But the general trend is towards specialization.

          Also, there is a frequently stated misunderstanding about how "easy" subjects are. Psychology and sociology are not easy subjects - a degree requires the same level of academic rigour as a degree in physics.

          Psychology and sociology are obviously easier then STEM subjects, in that the subject matter isn't rigorous, definitions are vague, the conclusions from various "experiments" are absurd and offensive to anyone who thinks science is a rigorous discipline.

          In the modern world I find it disappointing that people are still pretending that all subjects were created equal, and knowledge of one subject is more or less as important as any other.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "Michael Gove is destroying our school system"

            You're mistaking Steve Jobs for "most innovators".

            Nope. Far from it. You are mistaking Steve Jobs for an innovator. I was talking about the spread of human history which has consistently shown that people given access to a broader range of knowledge find better ways to improve on specialist topics.

            Specialists rarely (although, importantly, this is not the same as never) drive significant innovative change.

            Do you think the guys who invented horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing were generalists? Or were they specialists in physics, hydraulics, geology?

            You might want to re-read that. Specialists in three areas are not "narrow focussed specialists."

            These developments came by having people who understood physics and geology (for example), as well as having detailed specialists in physics and separate ones in geology. Without the underlying cross-over of knowledge in at least some of the group, the conjoined ideas will never find fertile ground.

            What about the paper thin phones coming out soon? Were they invented by a team of sociologists? Didn't think so.

            Its good that you can answer your own questions here, because this agrees with what I have said. A team of sociologists is the specialist I am saying we should avoid. Having people who under stand technology and art for example helps create breakthroughs in form and function.

            Your claim is so absurd, bordering on unbelievable.

            Yet you seem to prove it with each point you make. Thanks for that.

            The world is shifting ever more into specialization. This is patently true, and observable. Even mathematicians studying different branches of maths don't understand each others' notation.

            And the rate of innovative change decreases. In most areas now we drive evolutionary, "small step" changes until there are occasions where by a cross over appears and someone realises a way (for example) of tying mathematics into music to invent something new and unusual.

            I disagree entirely. I don't live in the UK, you are right. I live in a country going through a similar issue, but one that is frankly starting off with a higher level of STEM education, but is slipping behind other countries. Nowhere in the debate is anyone trying to get kids to be generalists.

            I dont think we have a common understanding of what a generalist is.

            It is not someone with a below average understanding of everything. It is someone who has enough of an understanding of a variety of topics that they understand how things interconnect and can see the links between disciplines.

            All education drives kids towards a general knowledge - we need this to function in society. We need to understand how society works so we can learn our place in it, we need to understand how our laws and history drive the behaviour of people today. None of this is less important than understanding how to code or how to wire up a motherboard, or even what use a Bose-Einstein Condensate is.

            But the general trend is towards specialization.

            But this does not mean it is the right thing to do. I agreed that this trend existed in education, but there is a greater need for people to have more general knowledge. We are provided with greater sources of information and expected to make informed decisions on a variety of things - all without understanding why it is important or what the long term impacts might be.

            Psychology and sociology are obviously easier then STEM subjects, in that the subject matter isn't rigorous, definitions are vague, the conclusions from various "experiments" are absurd and offensive to anyone who thinks science is a rigorous discipline.

            That is quite entertaining. Incorrect, but entertaining. You might want to look over your own cognitive bias over this - maybe a better understanding of the "soft" science would help you out.

            In the modern world I find it disappointing that people are still pretending that all subjects were created equal, and knowledge of one subject is more or less as important as any other.

            I agree to an extent. Any subject that isnt physics is simply a hobby and should never receive any funding. However, historians, chemists, biologists, artists and many, many others may disagree.

            It is a trusim that the subject you enjoy and think is important should be viewed across the whole world as important because obviously nothing else is as good.

            Sociologists and psychologists can explain why this happens, how to measure it, how to detect it in claims & assumptions and how to guard against it in your own activities.

            Tell that to the Chemists.

    3. Elmer Phud

      Re: "Michael Gove is destroying our school system"

      Gove + education = big laugh

      I doubt if he could ever understand there is a huge difference between 'computer science' and 'IT studies' and 'programming skills'.

      Next from Gove the Destroyer -- any school without a cupboard full of unused Pi' s will be automatically failed in OFSTED?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "Michael Gove is destroying our school system"

        @ Elmer.

        Pretty much spot on. Yes, it's excellent that Computer Science has been recognised as a proper science, but it doesn't change the fact that Gove is basically a tool. For an excellent case, just look at this very article. Great, yeah, CS is now officially no longer a soft subject, but, and this is the important bit, <i>there is no computer science syllabus</i>. It's all still in a state of flux and probably won't be pinned down before 2015, as it involves retraining thousands of teachers, stuffing the mouths of CS graduates with gold so they enter teaching, rather than banking, and, you know, software and equipping schools with the hardware and knowledge they need to actually support a computing curriculum, all at a time when most schools are struggling with major budget cuts. (Unless they become an Academy, of course...)

        The same goes across the rest of the EBacc subjects. Yes, they've been recognised as core subjects, which is nice, but in terms of the rigour of the syllabuses, they're all still identical to the impossible-to-fail-if-you-did-an-hour's-work nonsense I did at the turn of the century. The only major difference is that modular teaching and coursework have been all-but eliminated, something people with any experience with the business end of teaching are universally opposed to as a counterproductive throwback to learning by rote and the Victorian era.

        And then there's the EBacc itself. As I mentioned above, I took my GCSEs at the turn of the century and took home 10 A*s and 3 As. An excellent raft of results by any measure. Would I have got an EBacc? Would I bollocks. I'd got the requisite 3 sciences, mathematics, and a foreign language, but because I elected to study economics and religious studies rather than history and geography, I'm apparently a less valuable student than someone who didn't.

        tl;dr: Typical Gove. All fur coat.

  2. Dazed and Confused

    and just who

    is going to be teaching this lot?

    Its hard enough to find teachers that can show the kids the rudiments of Word/Excel/PowerPuke, the modern equivalent of how to hold your pencil properly.

    Finding people who can actually program and then pass those skills on to kids is going to be more challenging. I hope we don't just end up with classrooms full of kids bored by being asked to copy down bit of source code from the smart board.

    1. Piro Silver badge

      Re: and just who

      You're more than right - basically any "ICT" teachers currently working in schools will need to be fired, which seems like a thing schools in the main are reluctant to do - teachers are precious in their eyes - even though really, you should have the right people for the job, and cull those who can't (so, a lot of teachers, then).

      But yes, we do not want to end up in a situation where people are copying code from a board. That would be counter to the whole point of learning yourself.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: and just who

        Computer Science is not about coding!

        That's as bad a mistake as teaching the ICT curriculum

      2. Elmer Phud

        Re: and just who

        At a local school I programme the simple lighting controller while the lead on ICT looks on in amazement.

        I explain how it's just bunging stuff in to a fixed memory location , copying it to a final destination and then combining links to various memory slots in order to produce sequences.

        The kids seem too understand the relative simplicity but . . .

      3. keithpeter Silver badge
        Boffin

        Re: and just who

        "You're more than right - basically any "ICT" teachers currently working in schools will need to be fired, which seems like a thing schools in the main are reluctant to do - teachers are precious in their eyes - even though really, you should have the right people for the job, and cull those who can't (so, a lot of teachers, then)."

        Basic arithmetic: 500,000 teachers in England and Wales. 9% churn. Just shy of 45,000 new ones needed each year. Start sacking another 8 to 9% of the secondary teaching force because $current_govt has changed the syllabus will send a cerain message to likely candidates...

        .... what you need is a standard platform, some lesson plans written centrally and in service training. Can be done.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: and just who

        I guess CEng, MBCS, CITP and experience from 1982 including a PhD not enough then. I suppose writing a GCSE/16+ exam scheme in Digital Electronics and computer control in the mid 1980s is irrelevant. Unix / Linux sysadmin for 1000+ user system, no value. Good job I moved into social care aspects of school management then since my ICT/comp sci background is inadequate and clearly not needed.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: and just who

      "and just who is going to be teaching this lot?"

      Calling Lee Dowling! Lee Dowling to checkouts please!

  3. P_0

    A great idea, in principle. UK science teaching is pretty poor. I think Gove has good intentions here, but the system is so bad it won't change a thing.

  4. Stuart Ball

    But that's what we used to do with computer magazines, the included the text to copy and run, because it was cheaper than including cassettes with the magazine.

    I cannot create code from scratch, yet, but I can read VBA, some PHP, some ASP and Javascript to understand whats happening, and why.

    Copying code is a good place to start learning good habits, for when you DO start to write your own fart apps..:)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Stop

      Well, Have You Thunken Of

      ..solving math and physcis problems using Computas ? You could actually do some amazaing things that way, such as simulating trajectories while teaching Newton's laws ? Or maybe numerical integration while teaching the ideas of Gauss ?

      1. Elmer Phud

        Re: Well, Have You Thunken Of

        There are the 'educational' software out there -- they are used to make games and stuff - great starts for playing with gravity. And it might teach some coding basics as well.

      2. keithpeter Silver badge

        Re: Well, Have You Thunken Of

        Hence Gove's reference to Scratch. Easy to start, can do animations and simulations, can 'drop' into Squeak (basically Scheme) for the really clever ones.

        You can do a fair bit with MS Excel: e.g. a Euler method simulation of two-body orbit, simple sequences/series leading to chaotic systems &c.

        Gove has got one point right: fixation on exam results/pass rates does actually collapse curriculum down into 'topics' that you have to be able to answer exam questions in. Most of my old teachers would get the sack today.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Well, Have You Thunken Of

          My 12 year old son has no interest in scratch because it is too simplistic and childish. Scratch might be good for getting the average 7 year old into computer programming but for the above average 12 year old it's more of a disincentive.

  5. Neil Barnes Silver badge
    Headmaster

    A significant difference...

    Between my schooldays in the late seventies and now is that if you had an interest in anything computerish, there was *no-one* to teach it to you before you got to university, if indeed you went. Anything you did you did yourself, and if you didn't build the processor card you almost certainly built any peripherals you needed: video, serial comms, tape store, extra memory.

    And you wrote the code to make things work, on the fly, reading magazines and copying code... badly, unstructured, buggy, but on the whole working.

    These days, the hardware for a machine even as simple as the Pi is just too complex in manufacturing terms for someone to even think of making, so it's a black box you have to live with. And while it will run sensible compilers, the days of bare metal 'hello world' programs have gone.

    I'm not sure at what level you start teaching kids CS. They're almost certain to be familiar with certain interfaces , OSes, and applications, but there's a huge gap from 'hello world' to a fully functioning and integrated application. I'd love to see a syllabus.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Flame

      Nobody

      ..would stop competent teachers to buy Z80 CPUs, SRAM memory, ADCs, DACs, prototype bards, soldering irons and so on to build School Computers. Except for their own laziness and silliness, of course. "But it will never run Android !!!" and so on.

      Now, I can hear all the arguments about badly educated teachers, no money left and so on. I still don't buy them, because schools and parents are more than willing to spend serious money on pointless trips to Paris or even California.

      1. Neil Barnes Silver badge

        Re: Nobody - @Joanne

        The problem is cost. I have on my desk here a eurocard computer that I recently built to amuse myself as a deliberate homage to the single board computers of my youth.

        It contains a 65C02 processor, 32kB RAM, 16kB EEPROM, a UART, a 6522 ACIA, eight seven-segment LEDs (and a driver chip) and twenty cheap push-button switches. It cost around fifty quid in parts, not including the PCB. Ok, that's a one-off, but it's hard to argue against the thirty quid that a Pi costs.

        So much that was possible then, also, is no longer valid now... video display? You have to *start* with VGA - at twice the data rate of PAL - because PAL/625 displays are vanishing. Store and retrieve your program to tape? Nah... and folks, MP3 really doesn't like FSK data. Serial works, if you have a USB adaptor somewhere lying around so you can see what you're sending... everything these days is characterised by fast and complex data protocols. Hell, I built a video display from first principles for my MK14, and it worked, too... but with thirty-odd years experience I'd hate to build an HDMI interface from glue logic.

        Going from 8-bit 1 MHz machines that we could build and understand to today's gigahertz machines has been an interesting journey, but I'm not sure it's one you can take in one step.

    2. Tom 7

      Re: A significant difference...

      While the hardware for a Pi may be too complex you can still sit down and make an educational computer which will cover everything you need to know, and at a whole collection of educational levels all from more or less the same source (code).

      Want to know how a cpu chip works on a 'physical' level and do some machine coding as well:http://www.visual6502.org/JSSim/

      Want to analyse a computer from every aspect:http: //www.geda-project.org/

      In fact I believe all the Pi design data is available for public consumption to you could actually simulate the Pi on a Pi and you would have probably the most amazing educational tool ever**10 and all the tools would be free and if the educators shared their contributions freely in 5 years we could be looking at something big.

    3. Chemist

      Re: A significant difference...

      "Between my schooldays in the late seventies ....."

      Ditto - only the sixties

      1. Canecutter
        Thumb Up

        Re: A significant difference...

        Same for me, except my school days was in the eighties.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Mushroom

    Oh Yeah, DUMB IT DOWN !

    "Scratch". Yeah, as in "scratch ass".

    Real computer science is taught using PASCAL. If the little fuckers don't want to spend the time learning the syntax of a real, capable language I suggest they simply line up at McDonald's for a Great Opportunity.

    Only hard work is the real source of any real achievement and wealth (even if the wealth does not end up with the people doing the hard work). So, bite the bullet, spend long hours in front of the PC if you really want to do "Computer Science".

    This nuke was simulated in Fortran code.

    1. P_0

      Re: Oh Yeah, DUMB IT DOWN !

      I I were going to make a comp sci curriculum, I would start the first term opening up some old acorn computers that I bet most schools have lying around. The the kids a screw driver, let them open it up and make them disassemble, reassemble it. Explain all the bits to the kids. Open up a HD drive and watch it spin around, explaining what is happening.

      Second term, start actually programming in Pascal and Python.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Oh Yeah, DUMB IT DOWN !

      My 11 year old learned Scratch - wrote a few (good for 11) shoot-em-up games and got bored. Now he's 13 and just got an Arduino controlled robot. His understanding of fundamental programming ideas (variables, loops, conditions, etc.) gained from Scratch allowed him to control the 'bot using Arduino's C in hours - he just had to remember to put a ; on the end of a line and use {} to enclose more than one statement etc. - hardly rocket science.

      I'm not sure he would have even entertained the idea of programming C on the Arduino without the Scratch start.

      [For the pedants - I know Arduino C is not 'proper' C]

    3. Captain TickTock
      Stop

      Re: Oh Yeah, DUMB IT DOWN !

      Scratch was suggested for 11 year olds, and as such it's a great start, just as turtle logo was once upon a time.

      Those interested in going further can move onto coding in text once they've exhausted the possibilities of Scratch. They'll have had a great head start.

    4. Evan Essence
      Thumb Down

      Re: Oh Yeah, DUMB IT DOWN !

      Computer science is more than just coding, so let's not fall into that trap. It's data structures, algorithms, operating systems... you know, the kind of stuff Linus Torvalds did at university.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Oh Yeah, DUMB IT DOWN !

        Indeed Data Structures and Algorithms are the basics. That is why you need a proper language to specify those.

        1. Evan Essence

          Re: Oh Yeah, DUMB IT DOWN !

          A "proper language" for data structures is rather different from a "proper language" for algorithms, I suggest. Diagrams and pseudocode respectively are quite good, and a "proper" programming language alone would tend to obscure these subjects.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Oh Yeah, DUMB IT DOWN !

        "Computer science is more than just coding, so let's not fall into that trap. It's data structures, algorithms, operating systems... you know, the kind of stuff Linus Torvalds did at university."

        Yes it is, but a university level education is generally considered to be too advanced for a 11 year old (except for <insert-your-mickey-mouse-degree-courses-here>).

        1. Evan Essence

          Re: Oh Yeah, DUMB IT DOWN !

          a university level education is generally considered to be too advanced for a 11 year old

          I kind of hoped you'd get that I wasn't suggesting teaching the subject at university level, any more than I'd suggest raising the standard of maths or biology to university level. There, I've spelled it out for you.

    5. Canecutter
      Coat

      Re: Oh Yeah, DUMB IT DOWN !

      "Real computer science is taught using PASCAL."

      Nah!

      Real computer science is taught using Dijkstra's Guarded Command Language.

      (There, I've done my name dropping for the current quarter).

      1. Swarthy
        Thumb Up

        Re: Oh Yeah, DUMB IT DOWN !

        Nah, start 'em off right: Malbolge

  7. aahjnnot

    Lucky England

    Unfortunately, we don't have Gove on my side of the Severn estuary, so my GCSE-age kids are stuck with the cumpulsory but absurdly misnamed Skills Wales programme. Can you copy a file onto a USB stick using Windows Explorer? Tick. Can you open a Word document? Tick? And so on - I kid you not.

    If you're planning to set up a tech business, go to England, not Wales. Our government is more interested in egalitarianism than education.

    1. Spoonsinger

      Re: Lucky England

      "If you're planning to set up a tech business, go to England, not Wales. Our government is more interested in egalitarianism than education."

      How's your Polish?

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
        Joke

        Re: Lucky England

        "How's your Polish?"

        I'm still a bit backward in that subject.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Does this mean

    That I've finally won the argument with my flatmate that I 'am a proper scientist'?

    (and can start other arguments with him starting with 'as a scientist' without fear of reprisal?)

    1. Captain TickTock
      Boffin

      Re: Does this mean

      You can also say:

      "Back off, man. I'm a scientist"

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Does this mean

        And "In what the Scientific community is calling 'fucking shite', I can't find my keys."

    2. Chris Miller

      No

      Computer science is to science as plumbing is to hydraulics.

      The Devil's DP Dictionary (1981) Stan Kelly-Bootle

      1. Anonymous Coward
        FAIL

        "Plumbing"

        Certainly I am biased being a CS graduate. Nevertheless, I will forcefully argue that it IS a science if you can make cold-hard-provable statements like "you can't be faster than O(n*log2(n)), if you sort a random number of elements by means of comparison.

        Of course, the real implementations of CS include "plumbing" such as popular OS designs (Unix, various languages, etc). But that does not invalidate CS as a science.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "Plumbing"

          The theoretical stuff is really applied maths isn't it?

          1. TheOtherHobbes

            Re: "Plumbing"

            The theoretical stuff is really pure maths and the more logical and less hand-wavey parts of philosophy.

            Inventive types create original algorithms out of pure maths. Everyone else copies them, at which point the maths becomes applied.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Stop

              NOT

              As a computer scientist and software engineer I do have to be able to analyze the complexity of algorithms to know where I should focus my optimization efforts.

              And the argument "that's just math and logic" is very silly indeed. All the core stuff of physics is also "just math and logic".

              I have a software engineer collegue who has a math degree and I can attest he lacks some very important knowledge regarding algorithms, because mathematics apparently has a much different focus than CS. I could certainly educate him about that, and that would effectively be "math guy who added CS to his skills". CS is NOT a subset of a normal mathematics curriculum.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Stop

                Re: NOT

                More precisely my colleague knew "those MSFT hashtables are really slow". I debugged into them and found they are simply not proper hashtables, which automatically grow. That implies O(n) runtime if the number of buckets is lower than the number of elements to be stored.

                I am not saying math people can't acquire that knowledge, it is jus that they were never really told about things like automatically growing hashtables and the assorted challenges. Neither does he know cryptology and how that can be leveraged for hash functions (yes, it matter tremendously at my current job to have the best possible hash functions).

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  FAIL

                  Plus

                  Regular Expressions

                  Context-Free Grammars and LL(1) and LR(1) Parsers, EBNF

                  Relational Theory

                  Balanced Trees

                  Are very much hard science and they are normally NOT part of mathematics curriculums. So how is CS a subset of mathematics again ??

                  1. Canecutter

                    Re: Plus

                    "So how is CS a subset of mathematics again ??"

                    Perhaps you should ask the likes of Dijkstra, Gries and Wirth. They have all made the argument (at least once) that computer science is indeed a subset of mathematics.

        2. Displacement Activity

          @JD: Re: "Plumbing"

          I will forcefully argue that it IS a science if you can make cold-hard-provable statements like "you can't be faster than O(n*log2(n))

          That doesn't make it any more "Science" than, for example, Economics is. It's logic and the occasional application of mathematics. Perhaps someone should point this out to that nice Mr. Gove.

  9. Evan Essence

    Baby/bathwater

    From the article: Tech companies aside, other employees have pressed for more general digital literacy too, saying that employees needed better computer skills.

    Great though it'll be, we hope, to introduce proper academic computer science, let's not forget the above point. For instance, I hope computer/network/information security will be discussed, starting at the level of how it's not a great idea to put sensitive data onto an unencrypted USB stick and then lose it on the train, and moving on to questioning why people think they need USB sticks at all, even encrypted ones. That kind of thing. And, presumably, employers will still need people who know how to drive a word processor or a spreadsheet application (not necessarily or automatically Microsoft products).

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    and another thing.

    I am a parent of a child who is current going through their option decisions, and I have a couple (or maybe 3) comments - these are my opinions, so I expect disagreement to some, if not all, points.

    1. Why is Geography or History on the list of ebac subjects - Business studies would be more useful in my opinion.

    2. When will the government drop the currently policies on science subject selection - which is mad. Currently you can choose to do core 'double' science (Phy, Chem, Bio) which counts as a double exam OR do individual sciences (i.e. study each properly) - BUT if you you separate sciences you have to do all 3. You cannot do physics and chemistry without doing biology. What makes the gov't think that just because somebody likes chem/phys (or is good at them) it means they should also do biology - and vice-versa?

    I asked this question at a recent parents evening as my child is going through their options, and the answer is that the gov't sees science as 1 subject ("it's like maths - you wouldn't let somebody do algebra without doing other maths subjects would you") - this was the quote from the teacher. If our own gov't (and it would seem some teachers) can't see the major difference between the sciences (and the subsequent careers) then what hope do we have. For the record, the question was asked to the science teachers themselves - they didn't see the irony that they had separate teachers for the different subjects.

    As an aside I also object to mandatory RE - especially when they try to disguise it as 'philosophy and ethics' - even though there is diddly squat philosophy in the curriculum. Somebody also needs to tell the gov't the difference between philosophy and theology it would appear.

    I welcome the addition of computer science, but would also like to give students the option of picking which sciences they want to do.

    Rant over (but I feel better for it).

    1. Ian 55

      Re: and another thing.

      What's the betting that private schools won't bother with this crap? It is clearly not going to survive the Tories in government.

      1. WatAWorld

        Re: and another thing.

        In Canada, where private schools are rare and very very pricy, sales, business and investing are core subjects.

        If the upper class wanted to keep the middle class down it would avoid having the middle class taught key business and investment skills.

        The more ignorant we are, the easier it is for them to rip us off.

    2. Wheaty73

      fsking computers.

      1. Because Business Studies is a made up course that is basically accounting which parents push their kids into because they think it will make them into Alan Sugar when it really prepares them for nothing. Geography and History are actual subjects that are important. You need history (at least, some knowledge of it) in order to understand what is happening in the world and how to use sources to fact-check (important for business) and geography teaches population dynamics and where stuff is (also fairly important for business)

      2. Combined science is a joke that teaches nothing useful in any of the subjects it claims to teach. It really does need to be split out. At GCSE level, physics has more in common with maths than chemistry and biology and someone interested in one may not necessarily be interested in the others. Completely agree students need to have the choice. As for the maths comment from that teacher, bollocks - I remember doing different bits of maths in different classes.

    3. moonface

      Re: and another thing.

      They should just add RE to History and give it a true baptism by fire. Philosophy and ethics could go to a new subject Economics, Politics and International Studies.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: and another thing.

      1. Because it is preferable to have studied History to avoid repeating past (and well known) mistakes in your future Businesses.

      1. WatAWorld

        Re: and another thing.

        1. So teach history of businesses, enterprise.

        2. "Business is accounting" in the same way that "computer science is keyboarding." Your local mouse business course was a mouse course because it was designed that way, not because business is trivial.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
          Pirate

          Re: and another thing.

          "1. So teach history of businesses, enterprise."

          Back in the old says, that was part of GCE (yep, no S in those days!) History. We learned about the South Sea Bubble. It's a shame the bankers and sub-prime mortgage industry didn't do history.

  11. Ian 55
    IT Angle

    Ignoring the IT aspect for a second

    This is going to be a disaster, if implemented as Gove wants.

    Seventy something years ago, my mother did her General Certificate. That consisted of about eight papers, including arithmetic ('The Atlantic Ocean is a miles, b furlongs, c poles, d feet and e links wide. The Queen Mary crosses it in m days, n hours, o minutes and p seconds. What is her average speed?'), English, French and several others, fixed by the exam board. If she had failed a single paper, she would have failed her Certificate. Fortunately, she didn't and ended up as a teacher.

    I did O-Levels, where the papers were more or less the same standard but I could fail French (so badly, it doesn't appear on my certificates) and still have an academic life thanks to A grade passes in everything else. I could choose, within the limits of the school's ability to find the teaching time, any subjects I wanted to do. Result: happiness... for everyone not stuck at a Secondary Modern doing CSEs.

    With the ending of the 11+ in most counties, a single age 16 exam was clearly necessary. I understand and applaud the basic principle behind GCSE: if you can prove you know something, you get the exam points for it. It is not, as O-Levels were, a 'find the top x% of children in this subject' exam. So given increasing years of experience, it is not surprising that results increasingly improved.

    It is also not surprising that Gove doesn't like them. But rather than - as he claims - going back to O-Levels (something he probably did not take himself, being educated in Scotland) he's actually going back to the General Certificate: fail one - because you thought Newton developed the laws of Thermodynamics, say - and you fail your Bacc.

    Suggested questions for a new multi-subject exam:

    Put the following into an ordered 'List of Death': Cameron, Hague, Osborne, May, Duncan Smith, Grayling, Gove, Pickles, Hunt, Warsi. Give reasons. (Two hours 59 minutes, extra paper is available.)

    Eric Pickles ensured that councils which want to raise Council Tax by 2% have to call a referendum, and was surprised that several chose to raise it by 1.99%. Just how stupid can you be and still be a Cabinet Minister? (1 minute.)

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Subjects

    Religious Studies and Music did not make the list.

    Oh noes, what will teh wrld doe nows?

  13. John Latham

    Must this be hard?

    I wonder whether CompSci might be easier to teach kids than software engineering or whatever, in the same way that F=ma is easier to teach than building a rocket.

    I'd really rather see a physical Turing machine in the classroom than a Raspberry Pi.

    This, for instance, is all kinds of cool....

    http://www.legoturingmachine.org/

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Stop

      Re: Must this be hard?

      If they did CS with the same diligence and thoroughness as math, a foreign language or physics (from bottom to top), they could do a lot over the course of six years. S

      For some strange reason, many assume that CS can be taught in a flimsy, improvised way. As in "just surf the spanish internet to learn spanish".

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Stop

        Re: Must this be hard?

        And pupils could do lots of things using TTL gates after being taught some elementary electro-physics. Over the course of two years, they could learn boolean algebra, build/design a seven-segment display system and finally design/build an adder circuit out of all that.

        Going further down that road they could build a Z80 computer and learn assembly language. It is all doable if the teachers were properly educated and enough time alloted.

        1. Dr_N

          Re: Must this be hard?

          "Going further down that road they could build a Z80 computer and learn assembly language."

          That was 1st year Beng level stuff back in my day.

          (They switched to 68000 no long after.)

          Wirewrap anyone?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Must this be hard?

          With the exception of building a computer and learning assembly (which is very definitely first year UG stuff), that's exactly the kind of content you already find in a decent computing GCSE syllabus - OCR's GCSE Computing, for example, requires students to be able to read a logic word problem and describe it in terms of logic functions. The problem is the syllabus is a bit schizophrenic. A Level Computing is no harder and no more rigorous than GCSE Computing, and neither of them are considered particularly rigorous subjects to begin with (put against GCSE or AS/A2 Physics, which is in some cases [OCR] excellent). More to the point, very few schools have the staff or resources to properly teach either course. Only a handful of CS grads become teachers each year (literally single figures), and while Gove is now offering a £20k golden hello for CS grads with a 2:1 or better, put against the wages offered by consultancy/banking graduate development programs that's still shit.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Must this be hard?

          You would be surprised to learn that all this stuff is taught at University but only theoretically. If a graduate is asked to wire up a adder circuit then they wouldn’t have a clue.

          Practical work such as wiring up a micro-controller that uses a voltage comparator to determine light levels and then turns on a led is not even taught. They would not know how to read the data-sheet for photo-diode. Most graduates would connect a led without a current limiting resistor damaging the components. The teaching must be complemented by practical lab work to be of any use in the real world.

          The only practical lab work taught at my university was wiring up bridge rectifiers and circuits to verify kirchoffs law. Extensive practical labs focused on simple basic historical circuits. Modern useful technology that would engage and inspire students was not implemented in the practical labs. Much is to be desired by the quality of teaching in the UK if we are to build up enterprises to compete with the rest of the world in the field of technology.

  14. Andy The Hat Silver badge

    All aboard the Comp Sci silli-bus!

    Here we go ... computer science as specified by a load of bureaucrats, publishers and Google.

    Contrary to what has already been said, at this level computer science should involve syntax, grammar, logical and methodical programming, problem solving, programming concepts, basic electronic circuits and logic and all of those basics. Once they are under the hood you can teach programmers or hardware engineers using the formal grounding.

    Teaching some little herbert how to write an app for an iPhone and you have someone who can write another nameless app for an iphone but teach them methodical and logical programming and they may learn enough to look at everything and find something they're both interested in and really good at ...

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: All aboard the Comp Sci silli-bus!

      "at this level computer science should involve syntax, grammar, logical and methodical programming, problem solving, programming concepts, basic electronic circuits and logic and all of those basics."

      That was all in the GCE O level Computer Studies syllabus back in 1980.

  15. Herby

    What do they churn out?

    From the looks of it, all we will ever see are some script kiddies.

    An engineering background (putting things in practical use) should be part of something.

    Oh, well.....

  16. WatAWorld
    Holmes

    Flashback to 1840 and the addition of writing to the ciriculumn

    Imagine the dramatic change which could be possible in just a few years... Instead of children bored out of their minds being taught how to use verbal communication by bored teachers, we could have 11-year-olds able to write plays like Shakespeare.

    By 16, they could have an understanding of formal logic previously covered only in in the seminars of Plato.

    In other words, you can teach kid oils painting at age 11 but that won't make give us a nation of 16 year-old Picassos.

    Basically we're back to outsiders (including IT industry executives) assuming what we do is trivial, that their neighbour's kid could do it, and that with more widespread training we could be paid little more than minimum wage.

This topic is closed for new posts.