I think about 98% of the population are what I'd call statistically and economically illiterate. Basic economics should be a mandatory lesson at school, but unless you picked the class you can leave without even understanding the law of supply and demand. And then politicians, whose job is mainly to interfere with economic activity, blast these people with statistics (the significance of which they barely understand) about the economy, in order to secure their votes and Run the Fucking Country.
Meanwhile, people leave school and, regardless of profession, find themselves doing largely the same thing: sitting in front of a computer in an office. The productivity of virtually every job in the country depends in part on the employee's ability to use a computer. But unless they picked computing as a class (and, hell, even then), they'll have absolutely no clue how to really use a computer to your advantage, ie. to program it.
My suggestion: teach maths (which is already a mandatory subject) using computers and scripting languages. Let students practice abstraction to make computation/calculation easier; and then get them to model tougher problems and tackle them. Pick these problems from the realm of economics and finance, thereby building knowledge of another domain simultaneously (the only reason I understand what 'hire purchase' is is because my textbooks used it for exercises).
By the time they leave school, these kids will be no strangers to writing macros. In their further education and in their desk jobs, this will prove enormously convenient. Single handedly it could boost the GDP by a % or two (ok, I just made that figure up, but having worked in offices you all must have seen how inefficient the workflows are, and how one whizkid can make a big difference). It would even be useful in totally different disciplines. For instance in the study of literature, textual analysis by computer can prove very useful - finding all the references to a certain thing or instances of a certain word often shows deep patterns in the text. On my literature course only one professor/lecturer was doing this (he said it was particularly useful for Dickens), but he was definitely one of best in the department.
Basic economics should be a mandatory lesson at school
But if it were, and voters and taxpayers actually entered adult life with a sound knowledge of economics, they would demand that the school system be radically restructured, which is why I don't think that this will happen.
"The education system is a formalised, bureaucratic organisational structure and, like any bureaucratic organisational structure, it strives for maximum autonomy from external pressures as its cardinal principle of survival. While ostensibly devoted to the education of children, teachers, school administrators and local education officers must nevertheless regard parents acting on behalf of children as a force to be kept at bay because parental pressures in effect threaten the autonomy of the educational system. . . . I would hold that the stupefying conservatism of the educational system and its utter disdain of non-professional opinion is such that nothing less than a radical shake-up of the financing mechanism will do much to promote parental power." -- Mark Blaug, "Education Vouchers--It All Depends on What You Mean," in Economics of Privatization, J. Le Grand & R. Robinson, ed. (1985)
After edit: Mark Blaug is quoted here in large part because years ago a public schoolteacher suggested that I read his writings on the economics of education. I discovered the quotation above back then. Blaug is one of the leading economists of education in the world, one of the founders of human capital theory, and an interesting example of an economist who has changed his ideological position over time as he gained more life experience and did more research.
Hmmm, interesting. I suppose even if that were true, the 'achilles heel' of such a system would be that they cannot openly admit their true intents. Thus they would be susceptible to innovative ideas (that weaken their position) when brought up in public debate.
I also thought it's somewhat of an overstatement, but having worked on software for the construction industry (for the operators of paving machines and the like), I think we will eventually end up in a situation where most jobs involve computer use.
I work for a company that grinds railroads. While 100% of the office employees spend more than half their time in front of a computer, none of the people in the shop do.
So, I'd say it's most certainly an overstatement. I'm not willing to exclude the large sections of the American workforce who still work in industrial production.
Comments
I think about 98% of the population are what I'd call statistically and economically illiterate. Basic economics should be a mandatory lesson at school, but unless you picked the class you can leave without even understanding the law of supply and demand. And then politicians, whose job is mainly to interfere with economic activity, blast these people with statistics (the significance of which they barely understand) about the economy, in order to secure their votes and Run the Fucking Country.
Meanwhile, people leave school and, regardless of profession, find themselves doing largely the same thing: sitting in front of a computer in an office. The productivity of virtually every job in the country depends in part on the employee's ability to use a computer. But unless they picked computing as a class (and, hell, even then), they'll have absolutely no clue how to really use a computer to your advantage, ie. to program it.
My suggestion: teach maths (which is already a mandatory subject) using computers and scripting languages. Let students practice abstraction to make computation/calculation easier; and then get them to model tougher problems and tackle them. Pick these problems from the realm of economics and finance, thereby building knowledge of another domain simultaneously (the only reason I understand what 'hire purchase' is is because my textbooks used it for exercises).
By the time they leave school, these kids will be no strangers to writing macros. In their further education and in their desk jobs, this will prove enormously convenient. Single handedly it could boost the GDP by a % or two (ok, I just made that figure up, but having worked in offices you all must have seen how inefficient the workflows are, and how one whizkid can make a big difference). It would even be useful in totally different disciplines. For instance in the study of literature, textual analysis by computer can prove very useful - finding all the references to a certain thing or instances of a certain word often shows deep patterns in the text. On my literature course only one professor/lecturer was doing this (he said it was particularly useful for Dickens), but he was definitely one of best in the department.
Basic economics should be a mandatory lesson at school
But if it were, and voters and taxpayers actually entered adult life with a sound knowledge of economics, they would demand that the school system be radically restructured, which is why I don't think that this will happen.
"The education system is a formalised, bureaucratic organisational structure and, like any bureaucratic organisational structure, it strives for maximum autonomy from external pressures as its cardinal principle of survival. While ostensibly devoted to the education of children, teachers, school administrators and local education officers must nevertheless regard parents acting on behalf of children as a force to be kept at bay because parental pressures in effect threaten the autonomy of the educational system. . . . I would hold that the stupefying conservatism of the educational system and its utter disdain of non-professional opinion is such that nothing less than a radical shake-up of the financing mechanism will do much to promote parental power." -- Mark Blaug, "Education Vouchers--It All Depends on What You Mean," in Economics of Privatization, J. Le Grand & R. Robinson, ed. (1985)
After edit: Mark Blaug is quoted here in large part because years ago a public schoolteacher suggested that I read his writings on the economics of education. I discovered the quotation above back then. Blaug is one of the leading economists of education in the world, one of the founders of human capital theory, and an interesting example of an economist who has changed his ideological position over time as he gained more life experience and did more research.
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2009/05/07/the-remarkable-career-of...
http://www.neaydinonat.com/blog/?p=712
http://www.bookrags.com/tandf/blaug-mark-1927-tf/
Hmmm, interesting. I suppose even if that were true, the 'achilles heel' of such a system would be that they cannot openly admit their true intents. Thus they would be susceptible to innovative ideas (that weaken their position) when brought up in public debate.
It's weird, seeing a link to a blog I administer (Club Troppo), on HN, that wasn't by me.
>The productivity of virtually every job in the country depends in part on the employee's ability to use a computer.
Don't you think that's somewhat of an overstatement?
I also thought it's somewhat of an overstatement, but having worked on software for the construction industry (for the operators of paving machines and the like), I think we will eventually end up in a situation where most jobs involve computer use.
I work for a company that grinds railroads. While 100% of the office employees spend more than half their time in front of a computer, none of the people in the shop do.
So, I'd say it's most certainly an overstatement. I'm not willing to exclude the large sections of the American workforce who still work in industrial production.
Well, they could always be going on the internet to learn new tips/practices ;)