From the article:

> Students were asked to demonstrate through simulated computer-based real-world scenarios the knowledge, judgment, and skills needed to access, process, and communicate information with technology.

I don't think this is about knowing how computer works, but rather about the knowledge and skills needed to work with the information provided by the internet. It is fine without knowing how computer works, but growing up in a generation with a lot more information/disinformation without knowing how to handle them is worrying to me. Also, I wonder if it would be better called 'information literacy' than 'computer literacy' here...

That's a fair point but to extend your analogy facile stick shift drivers have plenty of skills that automatic-only drivers do not. Similarly those of us who grew up with computers that required more interaction and skill to use have skills that the iPad and Android users do not. They weren't forced to learn how to key in games or run them from cassette because apps stores are now ubiquitous. But being challenged to code (as a single example) launched careers for many.

The computer illiterate are lamentable but a natural product of making them easier to use. People who are still interested will find many more resources and free ones to boot on today's internet than early adopters could have dreamed of.

Hmm, I would say that cars and computers are pretty different in that a computer is a programmable machine. A car can only do one thing; a computer can do many things. If you don't know how to program, you are confined to using only those programs that others have written for you. In some sense you cannot realize the potential of the machine without this ability.

This metaphor can be extended the opposite direction. Most people could get much better performance out of their car by training regularly. Isn't a racecar driver a much better driver than your average commuter? Yet you'll notice that while some people take the occasional racing car class for funsies, the actual number of racecar drivers (hobby or professional) is very small.

The issue is opportunity cost. Most people have other things they'd rather be doing, so they learn the minimum they need to accomplish their tasks and get on with it. Fundamentally, most of us who know how computers work deeply didn't learn how to do all this stuff to use computers better, we did it because we enjoyed it. Not everyone enjoys learning how computers work, and that's ok.

Okay, so a car can do two things not one thing: race and commute. A computer is obviously still a much more flexible machine.

Furthermore, as the description of the assessment mentions, "The reasoning strategies that underlie computational thinking can help make sense of complex ideas and solve problems."[0]

Learning about computers isn't just learning an extremely flexible tool; it's learning how to think in a rigorous, abstract manner. It's not the only way to learn critical thinking skills, but it's not possible to learn about computers without them.

[0] https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/icils/about.asp

Cars can do many things these days. I hear you can play videogames on a Tesla.

Yeah... because they have computers inside them.

I’d guess the worry leading to this kind of write up, and the difference with the cars-mechanics story is that over time, working within the computer is expected to be more and more important/larger fraction of the workforce/higher paying etc., whereas the demand for mechanics is more or less proportional to number of cars on the road.