scarecrw

I think there's a misplaced focus on "first" experiences being optimal in some way.

Whether a kid is going to take to programming or not is pretty unlikely to change based on whether they're introduced to a block-based or text-based language, or whether it's object oriented or functional (the push for objects-first has mostly died off, but I still see remnants of it in various curricula).

If it's got a few basics like conditionals, iteration, structured grammar, etc. it will be plenty to give students the flavor of what programming is about.

The better criteria, in my mind, are "does it allow you to make/do something interesting?" and "how easily does it lead into the next level of learning?".

Very cool!

I'd love to have some sort of normalization option to separate more subtle positive trends from the general increase in number of posts.

I'm surprised to see "Approved for Exams" featured so prominently, as handheld calculators for lots of standardized exams are being phased out.

All of the exams listed are either already offered in a computerized format or in a transition phase, with the PSAT, SAT, APs, and ACT all already offering Desmos in their testing apps.

I love handheld calculators, but, especially in a time-sensitive environment, it's hard to beat a large screen and full keyboard.

I learned using plastic bags. Probably not as uniform in their motion as handkerchiefs, but worked to get the pattern down before moving to balls.

I'm not sure what features people consider important, as I've never used Spotify or other common podcast apps, but I've had a good experience getting podcasts through Patreon and then adding them to AntennaPod through their rss feed.

"Dumbing down" is an imprecise and inaccurate description of the most recent changes to the SAT.

The Collegeboard did indeed adjust the test to better appeal to students, but this was primarily done by shortening the length of the exam from ~ 3 hours to ~2 hours. To compensate for this, the test was updated to an adaptive format to present students with more questions of appropriate difficulty levels based on their performance.

The other main change, which the article highlights, was to shorten the reading passages. Yes, there are skills no longer being tested because of this change, but it's also allowed for a broader array of passages to be included. The new version of the test introduced poetry and novel question types involving logical reasoning and use of data. Which of these skills are more important for success in college and future careers is a worthwhile question to ask, but not one with an obvious answer.

This looks fantastic! I work in test preparation myself (though not for the LSAT) and this ticks all the boxes for the best approaches. I also really appreciate it being direct and opinionated without the obnoxious tendency of a lot of guides to denigrate alternatives.

Yes, you do need to press white keys further back sometimes. Imagine trying to play on black keys with your thumb and pinky finger while playing a white key with your middle finger. You won't be pressing all the way at the back, but your finger will have to press between the black keys.

I'll have to go through this with my family; we have a number of terms we use that we're never sure if they're Canadian, non-regional uncommon words, or just things our family say.

My grandpa called toonies "bearbucks", which isn't listed, but is in one of the quotes on the toonie entry. No listing for "reef" as in yanking on something, though I don't know if that's a Canadianism or not.

I've been increasingly concerned by packaged CS curricula that includes an overabundance of guidance and tooling. I've seen too many students complete a course (successfully!) and leave without any ability to start building projects of their own.

I don't want to end up as a curmudgeon griping about how "back in my day we didn't have an IDE!", as I'm in favor of giving students real world tools early, but I'm worried that we're filtering out some level of independence by sandboxing their learning so strictly.

I work teaching CS to a variety of age levels (admittedly mostly teenagers and older), and one thing I would recommend is broadening your consideration about what CS fundamentals might include. Picking up language syntax or new tools is easy enough at whatever age, but problem solving and planning skills are very tough to rebuild as they grow into adolescence.

One of my personal favorite resources is CS Unplugged. [1] It sidesteps any particular language or toolset in favor of pen-and-paper interaction.

[1] https://www.csunplugged.org/

Going further, it seems like Language Aptitude was primarily significant in explaining variance in learning rate, measured by how many Codecademy lessons they completed in the allotted time, but wasn't explanatory for learning outcomes based on writing code or answering multiple-choice questions.

Seeing as Codecademy lessons are written in English, I would think this may just be a result of participants with higher Language Aptitude being faster readers.

I do think that language skills are undervalued for programming, if only for their impact on your ability to read and write documentations or specifications, but I'm not sure this study is demonstrating that link in a meaningful way.

I can't say I've looked too far, but after making an account, two of the first three things I see are:

> Do people post online because they care about the cause, or just want to look woke? Respond -Hot topic

and

> The guy might be on the spectrum, but he has a good sense of humor. [Link to Elon Musk post about Nazi salute]

I suppose it's possible I just got unlucky, but this doesn't seem to be avoiding the standard pitfalls of social media.

I work with students learning to code, some of whom use AI in various ways. I can definitely see AI becoming a valuable tool for them in the future, but most students are currently ill-equipped to take advantage of it.

The most common error I observe from students is not providing sufficient information to get useful results. They'll omit what language or libraries they're intending to use, or restrictions on the set of language features they are or are not familiar with. Because of this, they'll get confident, often correct, responses, which are entirely unhelpful for the work they're doing.

The other issue they'll run into is over- or underestimating the capabilities of tools like ChatGPT. The first time they run into a problem which it isn't immediately able to solve they often give up on using AI as a tool entirely.

I do think AI has value for learners, primarily in an "explainer" role. Allowing students to take a piece of code and ask "what does this do" to get a plain English explanation is extremely powerful. It also can act as a substitute for documentation, as new learners are often disinclined to parse through official documentation, which is rarely beginner-friendly.

This reminds me of an attempt made by RGMechEx to retrieve game code for an Atari game where the code itself was used to generate a visual effect similar to TV static on the screen [1].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HSjJU562e8

I think some people are talking past each other when referring to a "reddit replacement" by focusing on different aspects and even different eras of reddit.

Speaking for myself, I would love to see some of the features reddit popularized be brought to a replacement. However, I'm not at all interested in a one-to-one replacement of reddit in its current form, especially if we take "current form" to mean what a typical user would experience joining the site today.

I have the opportunity to introduce (or re-introduce) quadratics to students fairly regularly, and I'm eager to incorporate this understanding! I've often highlighted the symmetry of the quadratic formula, though usually we get there via completing the square, rather than this translation approach.

I desperately wish students got more practice with function transformations. It's a powerful tool that far too many students leave high school without understanding.

I've played around with this myself a fair bit, so I'll add two things:

* I'm not sure if I buy the "chain of thought" approach as being very significant here. I haven't recorded my results, but I've gotten ChatGPT to answer correctly a significant number of SAT questions with much more direct approaches (e.g. "The following is a multiple choice reading question, answer the question and explain why your answer is correct").

* This was likely significantly benefited by the new format of the reading/writing section of the SAT. Previously, a substantial number of questions relied on longer passages and connecting ideas between paragraphs. These questions are from the newest version of the test which is exclusively fill in the blank or short passage questions.

I was curious to try this myself. I asked it to encode provided sentences using rot13 and, while it rarely did so correctly, it did produce valid encoded words.

Asking it to encode "this is a test sentence" produced:

* guvf vf n grfg fvtangher ("this is a test signature")

* Guvf vf n grfg zrffntr. ("this is a test message.")

* Guvf vf n grfg fnl qrpbqr. ("This is a test say decode.")

* guvf vf n grfg fgevat ("this is a test string")

I work in CS education, and I've often wondered what this means for how we're preparing students. I don't teach frameworks or cloud services (and would be woefully under-qualified to do so), I teach the topics that have long been thought of as "foundational" for moving forward in computer science. The logic I've always clung to is that if students have a strong understanding of how to build things from scratch, they can apply that as they move towards more modern development tools. More and more I'm questioning the accuracy of that belief.

Perhaps we simply need to more clearly separate the goals of studying computer science from studying programming/development. For the time being, however, I'm left feeling like I may be doing students a disservice avoiding the reality of what "modern-day programming" has evolved into.

> They can afford to hold this position, because they already live in safe, often gated communities. And they can afford to hire private security.

I think this represents a fundamental difference in how people perceive "safety" and where it comes from. The author seems to suggest that wealthy individuals feel safe because they have access to additional security measures such as gates or private guards. I've seen this quite commonly in some parts of the world, but my experience in the US is quite the opposite: wealthy communities are so segregated from poverty and, subsequently, crime, that they don't feel the need to put up defenses.

As one of those private tutors that the ultra-rich hire, I can definitely support most of what you've said here.

The greatest service that private tutoring provides is structure, accountability, and guidance. A dedicated student working independently through quality practice materials (many of which are cheap or free) can absolutely attain most if not all of the beneficial outcomes of preparing with a tutor/service.

I think when people look at inequity in college admissions, standardized testing ends up being an easy, tangible target, but not a particularly important one. If you want to look at how wealth impacts standardized test scores, focusing on paid preparation programs is missing the larger picture.

Wealthy students have had literate parents who can afford books and have the time to read to them when they're toddlers. They've gone to safe schools where the teachers can focus on teaching rather than making sure the students are well fed. They are surrounded by adults who have gone to college and can serve as role models for positive academic behavior. They have friends who are all taking the same tests and applying to the same schools to provide emotional and thoughtful support.

The collegeboard markets the SAT as measuring preparedness for secondary education. These students have been preparing for college their entire lives; is it any wonder that they score higher?

> My understanding is that's what SAT/ACT were moving towards about 10 years ago, that it would be computerized and "everyone's test is personalized" by the elo system probing your exact knowledge level from a bank of questions with difficulty scores dynamically based on how "similar ranked" students performed on that question.

That is indeed where they're moving. They've recently announced that the SAT will be transitioning to a digital, adaptive test in the next 1-2 years. [1]

Notably, the upcoming iteration of the test will only be semi-adaptive, adjusting the version of the second half of the test based on your performance on the first half, rather than adapting to your performance on a question-by-question basis.

I suspect overall this will be an improvement in the accuracy of the results. As it stands, for students with a strong math background, a majority of the math questions on the current test are far too easy and cloud their results on the rest. With the recent removal of the CollegeBoard's math subject tests, high-level math students have very few opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge using a standardized metric.

[1]: https://newsroom.collegeboard.org/digital-sat-brings-student...