[k0k0r0]

As a mostly private teacher of mathematics with 7 to 10 years experience for both, children at schools and adults at university, and both, individuals and groups, and both, those who struggle and those who do not, I'd like to share my narrow experience and disagree.

Most people I worked with struggled with something entirely different than the actual content they are trying or forced to learn. I am certain the biggest obsticles are stress, fear and and hopelessnes. And often not towards the methematics, but rather something entirely different. E.g. issues in the family, fear of the consequences of bad grades, and no hope regarding their own future, regardless of whether they learn or not.

I expierienced some challenges as ADHD and expierienced them as somewhat orthogonal. And definitely additionally challenging for me as a teacher. I also expierienced people who did struggle a lot, independent of anything I mentioned so far. So I am sure, there is differences among people (you may measure that in IQ or whatever, I prefer not to). But for most people I met they are not the problem.

[notch656a]

Appreciate your insight. I believe you're speaking accurately from your own experiences, but I do have another anecdotal countering viewpoint.

Like many on HN I went to a top engineering school. there I saw about 2/3 of my colleagues drop out within the first two years. At least half of them worked tirelessly and efficiently to pursue their goal, and still failed. This was a large public school that will admit basically everyone with a pulse into engineering, with the expectation most will fail out as unfit and filter into some of the programs my college was less known for.

I did not have a particularly exceptional upbringing, and went to a middle of the road country school without any special preparations that would advantage myself over these other middle-class white people I saw. I'm not saying this to brag, because no doubt many of these people are far more successful than me in other fields (one I know went on to become a doctor for instance) but there is definitely something at play that different people are 'wired' for different tasks. I could almost sleep through much of the engineering curriculum and remain near the top while I saw many smarter people than me struggle tirelessly with engineering; something else was going on in our minds.

[deltaonefour]

Engineering programs especially in top schools are way too hard for what's required to learn programming. And by top school I mean a top school that admits less than 10% of applicants. These programs are way more challenging than normal. Failing one of these programs does not mean you can program.

Also when I say anyone can do it, I mean anyone with around an average IQ or above. Obviously if you're mentally challenged it's a different story. Obviously new born babies don't have the IQ to learn programming.

I've went to schools where they admit anyone with a pulse and I've also been to actual top schools that are highly selective. I can tell you these programs that admit anyone feel significantly easier because they are. Doing well in one of these schools is not an achievement. I remember coming out top of the class at these schools simply studying for a test the night before.

But the reasoning as to why people fail in these "easy" schools is not what you think. It's exactly what the other replier said but more. Learning programming is not easy, and many people don't have the discipline or the study habits necessary to achieve it in a class room environment as well. They may look like they're studying hard... but a good number them aren't doing the necessary studying to succeed. They may not even be interested in programming. But make no mistake, if you make the curriculum longer and easier or if these people spend the time to grind, most people will succeed in learning programming.

[MockObject]

> Learning programming is not easy...discipline or the study habits...necessary studying to succeed... spend the time to grind...

Programming is what I did obsessively as a teenager. I didn't need any discipline or study habits. It was and still is exciting and creative. This is aptitude and interest, which obviously, few have.

[deltaonefour]

Many have it.

Much less people have the aptitude for quantum physics which is way harder. Programming is so easy that even as a teenager you have sufficient background to learn it.

I assure you that as a teenager, it's very unlikely you had any aptitude for quantum physics or any of the hard mathematics required to understand general relativity.

[MockObject]

That's funny, because I loved quantum physics and general relativity so much that I majored in physics, not computer science. I didn't find QM very hard, either. Having done both, I wouldn't say one is harder, only that QM requires more prerequisite knowledge, and I didn't have that as a teen.

I find doing advanced math relaxing and meditative during commutes. That's aptitude. It's probably much the same aptitude as finding programming enjoyable, but software is a much better career, so most of us end up there than in physics anymore.

Not many people have this aptitude, though. Most people would name hundreds of activities they'd rather do than either of them.

[deltaonefour]

Ok. then you're an exception.

But let me put it this way. Much much much much much More people have done programming since they were teens but much less have done QM. You will find tons of examples of programmers and relatively few people who know QM or advanced mathematics.

That's the dichotomy I'm talking about. Programming is easy. QM requiring pre-requisite knowledge is part of what makes it so much harder.

[Scea91]

Pointless debate when you do not define the level. Anyone can be surgeon, if you define 'surgery' as being able to 'remove mole'. Many programmers just remove moles. Some do coronary bypass surgeries.

[deltaonefour]

Then let's define the level. Whatever the level is for an Average programmer, my claim is anyone Normal can achieve that level.

[notch656a]

>I've went to schools where they admit anyone with a pulse and I've also been to actual top schools that are highly selective. I can tell you these programs that admit anyone feel significantly easier because they are. Doing well in one of these schools is not an achievement. I remember coming out top of the class at these schools simply studying for a test the night before.

Lol K bro, I didn't say this to brag, I said it because of what I witnessed. I don't think being good at engineering school is an 'achievement' or a sign of superiority, I just think it means you may be wired differently than some other people -- that's it. The school in question I'm referring to is ranked in the top 10 of US engineering programs, with much lower grade inflation than many of the private schools, and no one takes you seriously when you say this school is 'easier.' I lived with several of these people who were trying, and they were doing everything right and taking the necessary steps, with full family support, and working tirelessly and still just couldn't cut it. One of them I spent time with daily ended up becoming a doctor instead; these were not dumb or undisciplined people.

Many of the more 'highly selective' private programs are actually easier because they milk you dry in tuition and they want to keep the dollars flowing, so they will coddle you along.

Believe it or not there are public schools that will take essentially anyone with a pulse into engineering, and a handful of the more challenging and highly ranked engineering programs are included. These are not 'easy' programs, and attrition rates far exceed other programs at the same university. Personally I approve of this approach because it allows anyone to try their hand rather than depending on BS criteria like standardized testing or high school performance, or other dumb factors like whether your parents had the strings to pull in a non-profit to make you look like mother teresa. The kind of person who succeeds at engineering is often not the kind who has an impressive background coming out of highschool.

>I remember coming out top of the class at these schools simply studying for a test the night before

The number of people who received, or would be able to receive, an ABET accredited engineering degree at the top of their class from any of say the top dozen engineering schools while simply 'studying for a test the night before' is a much rarer trait than you think. Either you're unaware of your exceptional aptitude or you were blind to your surroundings.

[deltaonefour]

>I don't think being good at engineering school is an 'achievement' or a sign of superiority, I just think it means you may be wired differently than some other people -- that's it. The school in question I'm referring to is ranked in the top 10 of US engineering programs

Bro, I went to a top 10 as well, and it's also not a private school. I'm telling you that it doesn't matter. Doing well in a school that has zero selectivity is not an achievement because you're competing with many people who don't even have the drive to succeed. Of course a huge number will be fodder for you to step on. Sure you're school is hard.. but that's a different kind of hard.

At a selective school, every student you're with has drive and has consistently placed number 1 at every previous school they've been at. The classes and challenge are normalized so that just being number one is now average or even below average. This is hard on another level.

>Many of the more 'highly selective' private programs are actually easier because they milk you dry in tuition and they want to keep the dollars flowing, so they will coddle you along.

Not true at all. Again, Selective programs normalize what is easy among top students. The curve becomes insanely steeper. Schools allow you to change majors to keep milking the dollars but they still fail you out of the class.

>Believe it or not there are public schools that will take essentially anyone with a pulse into engineering, and a handful of the more challenging and highly ranked engineering programs are included. These are not 'easy' programs, and attrition rates far exceed other programs at the same university. Personally I approve of this approach because it allows anyone to try their hand rather than depending on BS criteria like standardized testing or high school performance, or other dumb factors like whether your parents had the strings to pull in a non-profit to make you look like mother teresa. The kind of person who succeeds at engineering is often not the kind who has an impressive background coming out of highschool.

I never said it's easy. But it certainly is easier. Let's do a quantitative analysis then. Anyone with a pulse and let's say they fail out 75%. That's equivalent to a 25% pass rate. Then take a look at a selective school with a (in my case 20% failure rate and 10% acceptance). That's about 8% pass rate assuming anyone with a pulse applies (of course this is not the case, better performing students tend to apply).

By that number alone you know how much harder it is in a selective school. And the 20% failure rate is just a random guess, could be much higher than that as tons of kids switch majors after their first weeder class. Realistically I give it 50% failure rate if you count people who switch.

>The number of people who received, or would be able to receive, an ABET accredited engineering degree at the top of their class from any of say the top dozen engineering schools while simply 'studying for a test the night before' is a much rarer trait than you think. Either you're unaware of your exceptional aptitude or you were blind to your surroundings.

Let's caveat something here. I passed top of my class and studied the night before in a non-selective school. The other school I transferred to, (a top school) I could not do this. Also ABET is garbage, let's be clear about that. Many top engineering schools have certain programs that are ABET accredited, and many schools with ABET accredited programs are easy.

[notch656a]

>I never said it's easy. But it certainly is easier. Let's do a quantitative analysis then. Anyone with a pulse and let's say they fail out 75%. That's equivalent to a 25% pass rate. Then take a look at a selective school with a (in my case 20% failure rate and 10% acceptance). That's about 8% pass rate assuming anyone with a pulse applies (of course this is not the case, better performing students tend to apply).

>By that number alone you know how much harder it is in a selective school.

You really don't. All you proved was that 80% (or whatever) of those who the school selected would pass. You know nothing of what percent of those who they didn't select would pass. You can't possibly make the assertion it would be lower than 25% example you gave for the "anyone with a pulse school."

I don't doubt you probably went to a more rigorous, challenging, and renowned school than me. I don't doubt you are more intelligent than myself or many who did well at my school. The fallacy comes when you conflate entrance selectivity with difficulty.

> I passed top of my class and studied the night before in a non-selective school.

Can you help explain to me why you went from a top non-selective public school to a different top selective school? In my experience after the first couple years everyone but the cream was filtered out, so by junior year it was effectively like I was in a 'selective' school. Or are you comparing a lower tier non-selective engineering school to a top selective school? My point of reference here is one of the handful of non-selective top-10 schools.

>Many top engineering schools have certain programs that are ABET accredited, and many schools with ABET accredited programs are easy.

Agreed. Was just providing some baseline for roughly the curriculum that was covered. You're right that ABET on its own doesn't speak thoroughly to the program, which is why I used a variety of other qualifiers beyond ABET.

[deltaonefour]

>Can you help explain to me why you went from a top non-selective public school to a different top selective school?

Transfer. And change of major. I would say I went to an top 50 school initially, with average selectivity and the same amount of weeder classes in every engineering program. Then went to a top 10 public school with an even more selective engineering program.

The weeder classes for your school filtered everyone out but the people remaining are still only 25% of anyone with a pulse. I'd wager this school has an extremely low amount of high achievers joining, so while you're dealing with smart competition, it's nowhere near the level of what you'd be facing at a selective school.

At a selective school, you have the top 10% of kids from the entire nation, who again get weeded out by about 50%. Yes that's effectively the smartest kids in the country getting cut in half. Nothing here is statistically rigorous but you can't deny that this back of the napkin estimate says something about how hard these schools are.

>You really don't. All you proved was that 80% (or whatever) of those who the school selected would pass. You know nothing of what percent of those who they didn't select would pass.

The kids who were selected overall have a higher chance success and higher work ethic and higher intelligence then those not selected. There are definitely scenarios of people who are great at programming but can't do well in school but these are generally in the minority. Google for example doesn't hire people based off of school, but the majority of their hires have degrees from top schools. It correlates with IQ and general programming ability, but I would say google sort of over selects. They don't need people that strong.

>I don't doubt you probably went to a more rigorous, challenging, and renowned school than me. I don't doubt you are more intelligent than myself or many who did well at my school. The fallacy comes when you conflate entrance selectivity with difficulty.

Never claimed any of these things and who knows? Maybe you went to the better school. I simply stated my credentials to show you that I have anecdotal experience from both types of schools. The difference in hardness is palpable and can only really be truly known by someone who went to both types of schools.

In the first school I attended my mindset was like you. I thought I had a talent and that most people were stupid. That changed when I got into a top 10 highly selective school.

But we did kind of get side tracked here. My main point is that my experience with schooling is more extensive then yours. And from that experience I derive that anyone can learn programming. It wasn't mentioned before, but programming is much easier than school.

I should also mention that this experience is from both extensive experience in school AND work. School experience provides sort of a bubble, a partial picture but not the full thing..

[Firmwarrior]

This was my experience as well. Another interesting point here is that a top programmer can singlehandedly do tasks that would take a dozen or a hundred regular programmers working together.

I'm confident that if you took a super-rare race condition in a web service and set me to figuring it out in parallel with a team of a few dozen random web coders off Reddit, I'd figure it out first

With factors like that at play you really can't commoditize software engineering. If all the local companies decided to put the squeeze on workers, new companies would spring up, poach the best workers, and crush the old companies. It's happened before, it's happening now, and it'll happen again.

[deltaonefour]

I'm saying anyone can become a "reddit web coder."