SICP should be taught in HS

>liberal arts
>elite schools

i think this is just the way liberal arts majors try to say "i am a failure" and "elite" in the same sentence

theres got to be at least 3 million people that are either software developers or work directly with programmers in the united states
that puts your number at close to 99% right there
then you have all the hard science and math people who pretty much have to know some programming these days

>your curriculum is for a stem dork

it includes ENGLISH/HISTORY/LITERATURE a FOREIGN LANGUAGE(which can also be history in a foreign language or literature)

Why is this book meme'd so hard? Is the content good? What should I expect if I were to read it?

>What should I expect if I were to read it?
Nothing, except having fun with LISP.
It is a good book for people who have never programmed.

>Why is this book meme'd so hard?
it's the perfect book for memeing
>uses a language that is not used nor useful in practice
>likens programming to magic and programmers to magicians
>ideal for academic circlejerking wankery

Here's what needs to be taught in high school:

Mnemonic systems/Cognitive Science as it pertains to learning
Cooking and Nutrition
Personal Finance and basic Economics
English (writing, reading and speaking/presenting)

Foreign Language with computer assistance (e.g Anki, Duolingo), class time used mostly for conversation practice

Mathematics (Proofs/Geometry/Algebra/Trig)
Calculus based Physics (Electricity and Magnetism optional/honors)
Chemistry w/ Lab (may be replaced with a humanities class, if that's where interest lies)
Biology (Lab not necessary imo, and optional as Chemistry)
Programming "Lab" with end-of-year-project related to anything above. Language should be something syntax-light with many libraries (e.g Python)

Reading comprehension and critical thinking should really be reinforced in primary and middle school, mathematics like algebra and geometry and arithmetic algorithms (e.g long division) should be omitted in primary school in favor of more reading, writing and discussion during classtime. All of this material can then be covered in one year of middle school.

The above should once again ensure that a high school graduate has adequate means to make a living and live comfortably in a modern society and understand much of the world he inhabits, as well as prepare him for higher education in liberal arts or the science should he chose to pursue them.

We (in the US) should also get rid of government teachers unions (NEA) and replace them with private ones. Institute periodic testing of teachers of the subject they are supposed to know and on the latest teaching principles/science.

If possible, we should also abolish grades, but since this will never happen, we should replace them with a system less based on numbers

This is awesome.

The book is what CS was supposed to be. The dream...

Problems:

Cooking and nutrition gets real sticky when you get into allergies and people's diet choices (vegan/vegetarian/gluten free severely limits what you can teach about cooking).

With your curriculum students wouldn't even be able to pass a citizenship test, there must be some history and basic governmental information class.

Physics shouldn't be calculus based unless you opt in (different "tracks" for math should exist that would have someone learning calculus during their junior or senior year)

As an almost-graduated neuroscience major I'd argue there isn't enough information to teach a full fledged course in mnemonic systems or cognitive science at the high school level.

There must be an art component. Learning music or a creative art is critical to expanding a person's mental capabilities.

Grades are necessary because we live in a world where there is a competition for resources such as getting into college.

>Cooking and nutrition gets real sticky when you get into allergies and people's diet choices
You don't have to eat what you cook in the class and techniques (searing, frying, boiling, braising etc.) are universally applicable. This point is moot; worst-case, you can make the class optional.
>With your curriculum students wouldn't even be able to pass a citizenship test, there must be some history and basic governmental information class.
Yes, these things can be taught in middle and elementary school where they belong. Or they can be covered in depth for those students who have an interest in them.
>Physics shouldn't be calculus based unless you opt in
Physics should absolutely be calculus based, because that is only way it makes any sense. Algebra based physics is a hodge-podge of disparate concepts which lead no understanding. All you need for heat and mechanics is basic differential and integral calculus, things which can be easily be taught in the context of physics (which is how they were historically developed to begin with). Again, E/M is optional, since it requires higher level math.
>As an almost-graduated neuroscience major I'd argue there isn't enough information to teach a full fledged course in mnemonic systems or cognitive science
I disagree. There are only a handful of concepts that are pertinent to learning in particular. The class would focus on practice not theory. A basic curriculum would teach the following:
1. Method of Loci
2. Spaced Repetition
3. Chunking
4. Mastery Learning
5. Repeated Testing/Recall
>There must be an art component.
No. This is an extracurricular to be done on ones own time or as a club activity.
>Grades are necessary.
No. Grades have categorically been disproven as a metric for any kind of proficiency except for how well a person can obey an authority.

>cook

As an optional class it is fine, however it teaches nothing that is really necessary to life unless you have an interest in cooking. And it raises additional problems when you consider the nutrition side, as there isn't one "healthiest diet" and you can't get into the real metabolic pros and cons of something like a low-carb diet, especially when the merits of, say, a ketogenic diet and the health ramifications of such are still in debate. Beyond that, you'd have to create a national standard of nutrition which doesn't exist and shouldn't really exist yet since there is no consensus on what diets are the most effective. Plus what culture of foods are you going to teach them? Are you going to sample from all cultures (not practical), just use western european cooking styles (which is unfair to the majority of the people who live in america as even white people aren't of european heritage), pick some and not other cultures (which effectively tells those not included that their culture isn't as important as others'), etc.

>civics

While civics isn't a complex field, you cannot teach 13-year-olds or younger all the civics they'd need to know to be a politically aware voting member of society. They do not have the life experience or understanding. This should be taught at least after they have gained a modicum of independence by being able to drive.
>Physics
Your own math program doesn't even teach calculus. Algebra based physics allows people to understand the concepts without fooling with the math. Pre-E&M physics can easily be taught without it, and it actively is. I should know, I took it in high school before later taking calculus based physics.
>Cog sci
That's my whole point. You can't flesh that out into a real class. That can be a bi-monthly or less seminar on study skills.
cont'd

>No.
You're objectively hurting students academic performance and cognitive abilities by not including music or other arts. You may hate art majors but it's critical to development. A quotation from two seconds of googling >Researchers found that after two years, children who not only regularly attended music classes, but also actively participated in the class, showed larger improvements in how the brain processes speech and reading scores than their less-involved peers.

>grades
Standardized tests show colleges some indication that you're intelligent. Grades show colleges that you're willing to follow the program. Colleges don't want someone who doesn't obey authority, so yes, they are a necessary metric that makes you competitive, even if they are only measuring obedience.

Holy shit this anti-cooking tirade is retarded.

>health
It's not a "how to get ripped quick" class. Its learning how to prepare foods that everyone should be able to prepare like vegetables and meats. We know enough about nutrition to teach 18 weeks on it.

>culture
Who gives a fuck, just teach them the basics of different types of cooking. 18 weeks in a semester is 18 different types of cooking. I get that it may seem hard to summarize all culinary knowledge in 18 weeks, but that's not the goddamn point. Look, you do the basics, then some mexican, then some indian, I don't know. Cater the class to the students for all I care. The point is that the learn the basics. Get your SJW bulshit out of here.

I'm not some "we gotta teach 50% white history and 50% black history" kind of person, but it's fucked up if you're going to teach one of the biggest aspects of culture and you only teach one culture across the nation because lol i made the program and I'm white. It'd be like teaching a music appreciation program and just teaching rock and country because "that's white people music". The problem is you can't teach every culture of food so what do you do? Pick the most represented groups? You're just saying fuck you to all other cultures "Hey you should all know about white culture, mexican culture, and chinese culture but it isn't really important to know about indian culture."

This is why we don't teach modern culture classes as anything but small electives. We teach history instead.

Beyond that those techniques don't matter worth a shit. Can you put food in an oven? Can you put food in a pot for the amount of time the directions say? Can you put food in a microwave? Congrats you've learned all the skills you need to be an adult in terms of cooking.

>nutrition

Alright, what are you going to teach them about nutrition? It's bad to eat a lot of carbs? That's not necessarily true. It's bad to eat a lot of fats? That's not necessarily true. It's bad to eat a lot of protein? That's obviously false. Don't eat a lot of shit and exercise also fat has 9 calories protein 4 carbs 4? Gee what a class, done already, thanks prof.

>basic Economics
You could use some of that yourself, so that you wouldn't be making suggestions such as

>If possible, we should also abolish grades, but since this will never happen, we should replace them with a system less based on numbers

Grades and academic rankings are the prices of the education system (and, in a broader sense, the labour market). Without their signals educators would be unable to identify the students most in need of help, and employers would be unable to rank prospective employees / candidates for promotion in an unbiased manner.

I could even understand wanting to be against all that if you prefer communism to capitalism, but when you also include pro-market statements like

>We (in the US) should also get rid of government teachers unions (NEA) and replace them with private ones

that only serves to prove that you don't understand what you're talking about.

Why the hell did they stop using this book?

Is it just too damn theoretical for most people?

Explains why most CS students these days end up as fucking retards, no joke.

Maybe its discontinuation was the day that CS started going downhill and just becoming flat out SE cancer.

"Too theoretical" in the sense that very few real-world applications of CS require its level of rigor.

Which is bullshit since the long-term costs of codemonkeys building flawed systems accumulate exponentially over time, but good luck convincing the non-specialist employers and end users of that.

Most CS people want to do web programming and that does not require theory. The digital circuits courses and theory course are the only ones that are never full because the future web app developers do not really need that stuff; lets us be honest assembler seems like a class that needs to die in most CS departments.

If you want theory and to be a computer scientist all that stuff is in the curriculum for those seeking it, but those people are becoming a minority.

The course using Sisper Theory of Computation is beyond lame if you want to write iOS apps.

>Most CS people want to do web programming
not the ones who graduate
why would people waste their time on a CS degree just to do web development? once they realize what it is they've signed up for, they switch majors

Most CS students aren't very bright.

Grades are not "prices" of the education system, because grades are not determined by any kind of supply or demand. (With the exception of standardized testing with percentile distributions, which is not what I'm talking about. I'm taking about high school class grades)

Furthermore if the system by which rankings are made does not correspond to competence, the rankings are invalid. I agree, grades are the best system we have, but I think we should move toward a less numeric approach. MIT's approach to hw for example.

Most of the "diets" you mentioned are non-sense. There is really only one kind of healthy diet, which is a balanced diet of vegetables, grains and lean protein. This is well supported by modern research.

>civics
Middle school is up to 14-15 years of age. The amount of information you need on civics to "pass a citizenship test" as you qualified, can be met. Anything more than this is a specialized interest which should be explored in high school in lieu of classes like chemistry or biology (and even physics, though I think physics is something everyone should know).

>physics
Algebra based physics is total and complete waste of time. Physics does not make sense without calculus. That is why I omit calculus in the math section, because calculus itself makes more sense in the context of physics.

Arts and music are extracurriculars, they should not be mandatory classes. By making them extracurricular, motivated students can actually progress decently in the class and those without an interest don't have to waste time in them.

That's not cooking. Cooking is control over three things (really the first one): heat, salt and water. Following a recipe is not the same thing as cooking. Learning a technique like searing or frying or grilling is not as trivial as you make it out to be. Food "culture" is irrelevant, because techniques are more or less universal for all foods, all that changes are the ingredients/spices. I would say cooking is one of the most essential things necessary to life, it is control over what you are putting in your body. There is nothing more important than this.

>nutrition
You are taking a reductionist approach to a very complex field. If you really doubt the efficacy or necessity of a nutrition class, I'd urge you to look at obesity statistics in U.S. If exercise and diet is really as trivial as you claim, all the better, it can be covered quickly and then applied through cooking meals complementary to it.

And regarding the cognitive science:
It can be taught in a single class, e.g look at the "Learning to Learn" class in coursera. I myself have taught classes like this (it was actually in less time ~3 weeks, 5 hours a week seminars).

I think you are biased a bit because it is the object of your study. But when it comes to actual practice, with theory largely omitted, it can be taught very quickly. (And you don't need theory to convince or motivate anyone, because the results speak for themselves)

>Physics does not make sense without calculus.
I took a year of physics in college with no calculus
it works just fine

It's not popular because functional programming is not as popular and easy to learn as imperative programming which is the main paradigm in the industry. Scheme is a dead language theses days. The book itself is pretentious and you can do the same tasks easier than how the book describes them. I read only a chapter and few fragments, but it wasn't all that convincing for me and I'd rather stick to imperative programming and K&R as intro to programming book. I used to teach programming in my Uni a bit as a PhD student.

Supply and demand are determined by prices, not the other way around (granted that this may not be obvious to a noneconomist). The decision procedure of an agent to buy or sell takes price as the input and returns quantity traded as the output, and in this regard both models (educators selling teaching resources to students, who in turn sell their labor to employers) are appropriate.

As for rankings, I can concede that good teachers with in-depth knowledge of their subject matter will be effective even in the absence of numeric grades (like a doctoral candidate/supervisor model?), but that's not going to work for employers, who need to make the same ranking decision but with the constraint of limited knowledge.
They (and parents, I guess) are the biggest beneficiaries of the grading system, moreso than the student or the teacher.

no but you could make a programming course around the idea of designing by wishful thinking.

You and I are almost agreeing on cog sci, I think you're just misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm saying you learn it so quickly and there is so little to teach at that level that it doesn't need to be a class. A few seminars I would agree with, a class I would not.

>diet
That is your non-scientific and largely incorrect opinion. People can function just fine as vegetarians or even vegans (with a few supplements). Ketogenic diets (even atkins is almost one) are not non-sense and have some benefits. Low fat diets were preached for years but now research suggests otherwise. Your second comment about cooking is non-sense. Healthier people than you use cooking techniques no more sophisticated than reading the back of a box.

>Physics
It absolutely is not. You can learn a massive amount of mechanics without knowing the calculus behind it.

>Arts
Again, you are literally making kids stupider by not teaching them a form of art. I don't care if they suck or never use it again after learning it, it literally augments your mental facilities. You are saying making yourself a better critical thinker is a waste of time.

>civics
I do not want someone whose understanding of united states politics and politics in general comes from what their 13 year old brains were able to comprehend to be a voting citizen. You should not either.

>last nutrition
No, I'm saying its an extremely complex field that you CANNOT reduce to a nationalized standard. Physical education is already mandatory and nutrition "facts" are taught irregularly in schools, shit has done nothing to make us less obese because the reason behind obesity is self-deception combined with a lack of willpower. Yeah I only ate 1000 calories yesterday, why am I gaining weight? Because you ate 4000 calories yesterday.

More on civics:

The focus of pre-high school should never be on content. Little johny is more focused on the boners he's getting from big tits sarah than what he's learning. You're aiming to teach skills and ways of thinking, the individual information should not matter. This is why I think you're right about english being taught in middle school. Who cares about if you remember the great books you read, I care about your ability to read and extract ideas from books. Same with history and baby-middle school science.

It seems I misread you on the cog-sci bit, my mistake. I think we agree. A whole year isn't necessary, a 1 semester course would be enough and is what I am proposing.

>diet
As you yourself stated, vegans and vegetarians require supplements. This fact alone suggests their diet is inadequate. Ketogenic diets and the others are just dangerous, dangerous enough that people are hospitalized following them. There is nothing complex about following a simple, balanced diet like the one I suggested. People who make other lifestyle choices are free to do so, yet I believe knowledge in cooking makes it easier to support these choices rather than detract.

Cooking is a skill which can greatly increase quality of life beyond mere health. It is a fundamental activity (eating and drinking) that we all participate in, having some control over it is in no way a waste of time. It is not only about health.

>Physics
We'll have to agree to disagree. Again I cite historical precedent, physics was developed with calculus and vice versa. The two taught together does much more than the either one taught alone.

>Arts
The point is the student should have a choice, it should not be forced upon them.

>civics
We can agree to disagree here. I think middle schoolers can understand civics just fine so long as more time is spent. If interest lingers they are free to explore it in high school.

>nutrition
Please take a look at this: nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/causes

Consumption of high calorie-low nutrient foods such as sugary drinks and sweets are, especially in children, a serious problem. Exercise as well.

Physical education is also something that needs reform. For example, weight-lifting is sometimes part of phys ed or track, yet I believe a far better use of time would be to entrain a body-weight calisthenics program based on HIIT, which requires no equipment, no gym, little time and can be maintained for life.

>physics was developed with calculus and vice versa
yeah, beacuse those who developed both had full understanding and intuition of physical concepts and therefore could "translate" those concepts into math. They first understood the concept, then they did the math.