Someone a thousand years ago would have dictated to his scribe the following:
"Having everyone knowing how to read and write is the opposite of specialisation. It's inefficient and pointless. If a certain profession needs a document, it's much more efficient for specialist scribes to consult with domain experts, write that document, and sell it into the industry. Having every (for example) doctor being able to read and write adds negligible value, and I would argue the opportunity cost is awful. If my doctor has a choice to become a very mediocre writer or a better doctor, I would hope they choose the latter.
A society of part-time readers and writers would do nothing but produce a lot of badly-written texts. What's the point?"
The comparison with literacy is incredibly apt. Even though very few of us moderns are professional writers, we all benefit by knowing the basic abstractions of letters and words. In the future, everyone will benefit from knowing basics of computation. Probably in ways we can't imagine now, just as an ancient Egyptian scribe could not have conceived of "commoners" writing YouTube comments or texting "whatup u?" to a friend.
This is an alluring retort, but I have to agree with
kimdouglasmason that it has no actual weight.
kimdouglasmason explains and gives examples of why literacy has had such a huge impact on the world. You give no examples of how code literacy will have similar impacts. You just make an analogy and say it will affect the world "in ways we can't imagine".
Your argument could just as easily apply to electrical engineering. The whole world runs on electricity, how is it that no one knows Maxwell's equations! Everyone should obtain basic proficiency in applying electromagnetic theory: it will help the world in ways we can't imagine now.
The electrical equivalent of everyone knowing the basics of computation isn't 'understanding maxwells equations' it is being able to wire up a battery and a light bulb.
Many people who have successfully understood Maxwell's equations but were unable to grasp coding would beg to differ.
Over and over again on this board I see people underestimating how demonstrably difficult the concepts are for many people. As my evidence, I again cite the dropout rate of CS1 classes.
You misunderstand me. I don't mean that understanding coding is not as difficult as understanding electricity, I mean that most people should have an understanding of basic coding at about the same level as they understand basic electricity (ie. they know how to do some things like plug things together, can generally avoid starting fires, being electrocuted, blowing fuses, and so on). IOW, I am lowering the bar.
I think people also underestimate just how soul-crushingly dull coding might be for many people. It's easy to assume that everyone will enjoy what you enjoy, but for some people this stuff is just extremely difficult, extremely boring, or both.
Perhaps we shouldn't teach anything at all? Let's just cancel school. Does teaching everyone a foreign language have a huge impact on the world? How about English? Or history? Or Art? Or PE?
How many high school students change the world by studying the periodic table or learning trigonometry?
By your criteria, how can we justify teaching any subject?
I think there's a very strong case to be made for programming as a prominent elective. But the context of this sub-thread is the claim that knowing programming is akin to basic literacy, which is a much, much stronger claim.
That rhetorical device only works if there is a clear parallel. Simply replacing the words does not make for a convincing counter-point, in itself. For example, "If a certain profession needs a document, it's much more efficient for specialist scribes to consult with domain experts, write that document, and sell it into the industry", but most in this industry can't/don't need to read: how will 'the industry' benefit from documents if they can't read? That goes back to kim's point about dissemination of knowledge.
"Having everyone knowing how to read and write is the opposite of specialisation. It's inefficient and pointless. If a certain profession needs a document, it's much more efficient for specialist scribes to consult with domain experts, write that document, and sell it into the industry. Having every (for example) doctor being able to read and write adds negligible value, and I would argue the opportunity cost is awful. If my doctor has a choice to become a very mediocre writer or a better doctor, I would hope they choose the latter.
A society of part-time readers and writers would do nothing but produce a lot of badly-written texts. What's the point?"
The comparison with literacy is incredibly apt. Even though very few of us moderns are professional writers, we all benefit by knowing the basic abstractions of letters and words. In the future, everyone will benefit from knowing basics of computation. Probably in ways we can't imagine now, just as an ancient Egyptian scribe could not have conceived of "commoners" writing YouTube comments or texting "whatup u?" to a friend.