Durr, crappy old computers come with bootdisks not bootstraps.

Did they expect kids to scan their homework... Do the work on the computer and print it out before it gets eaten by their dog?

Gwendolyn:
I was just happy a high school kid took 20 minutes out of their day to write a letter and mail it in. Anything written by the parents went straight into the circular file. It was supposed to be from the kids.

This probably more than the computers was an indicator of their future success.

Still sounds very cool though. I got my gift of the internets from those brief halcyon days of freenets. :)

Don't be hatin' on Blizzard. They make some of the finest videogames around.

/addicted to Diablo II for the better part of 9 years

I've worked on the educational side of a program like this.

In the vast majority of cases, the students did not listen to us regarding avoiding viruses and other maintenance suggestions. Before the school year was out every kid in the program I asked had a non-functional computer.

Including a modem and internet access is probably the LAST thing that should be included in these... although if you didn't include them, 90+% of kids would literally throw them out.

Catch 22, I guess.

something something something, leading a horse to water...

An interesting point was made in Freakonomics that IQ test scores were highly correlated to income levels. The higher you scored on an IQ test, the more likely you were to have a high-paying job. The unfortunate corollary is that those who scored low on such tests typically found themselves at the bottom rungs of the socio-economic ladder.

Giving someone a computer isn't going to raise their IQ. Expecting low income individuals to suddenly perform better with computers is pretty much folly from the get go.

Empowering everyone is certainly something that we should strive for, as a nation. However, thrusting someone ill-equipped to perform at a certain level into a competitive environment with others who are much more well adapted for such rigors is not fair to the individual, the competing group, and the customers of that group. Efforts should be made to find appropriate outlets for energy and talents, not simply assuming that everyone should have a certain set of skills, especially when many of those skills will never subsequently be used by some.

So if we give kids hammers, they'd all be expert carpenters with no direction and supervision.

Got it..

BadAnalogyGuy: An interesting point was made in Freakonomics that IQ test scores were highly correlated to income levels. The higher you scored on an IQ test, the more likely you were to have a high-paying job. The unfortunate corollary is that those who scored low on such tests typically found themselves at the bottom rungs of the socio-economic ladder.

Which chapter was that? I remember the voucher chapter, where they more or less pointed out that children who are ambitious do well regardless of their circumstances. I don't remember a direct IQ -> income correlation.

Information /= "education", these kids might well be learning a lot of things (some of more dubious value than others) but the way in which we gauge "education" is pretty much grades which are based primarily on standardized testing, not the leading headline from TMZ or even CNN.

Aidan: BadAnalogyGuy: An interesting point was made in Freakonomics that IQ test scores were highly correlated to income levels. The higher you scored on an IQ test, the more likely you were to have a high-paying job. The unfortunate corollary is that those who scored low on such tests typically found themselves at the bottom rungs of the socio-economic ladder.

Which chapter was that? I remember the voucher chapter, where they more or less pointed out that children who are ambitious do well regardless of their circumstances. I don't remember a direct IQ -> income correlation.

I may be thinking of a different book. Maybe something by Dinesh D'Souza. I could have sworn it was Freakonomics, though...

Drakuun: So if we give kids hammers, they'd all be expert carpenters with no direction and supervision.

Got it..

We'd probably be better off giving them erector sets or chemistry sets. Or a shiat-ton of lego.

austin_millbarge: Don't be hatin' on Blizzard. They make some of the finest videogames around.

/addicted to Diablo II for the better part of 9 years

Eh, more like "most addictive". Nothing fine about any of their games.

Fano: Drakuun: So if we give kids hammers, they'd all be expert carpenters with no direction and supervision.

Got it..

We'd probably be better off giving them erector sets or chemistry sets. Or a shiat-ton of lego.

And no sex ed?

You don't need fancy computers in order to learn mathematics, physics, chemistry, foreign languages and the like. You see, there are these things called books. They are a self-contained device that hold huge sums of information. They were damn good enough for Einstein. They're damn good enough for YOU.

The problem with computers is that they come with so many distractions. Way back in the day, I used to play Ultima III on my Apple IIc in typing class at school when I was done with my lesson. I could have studied some more, but I had dungeons to crawl. I can only imagine how hard it is for teachers to keep games, especially online Flash games, off of school PCs.

And with the Internet as it is today, I'm amazed that half the population hasn't developed ADD yet. It is hard to study when you have so many games, news sites, games, porn, and the like. One of the reasons I don't have a TotalFark account is because it would be very tempting to waste a farkton of time on it.

But yeah, if you want to help impoverished families, get them a single purpose device like the Kindle where you can't play games and do other distracting crap.


/thinks that PCs in schools, other than in comp-sci labs, is a huge waste of money
//the students know how to use them [to get into trouble] better than the teachers
///did I mention yet that Einstein didn't have a computer at home?

Should get them some older boxes. I found that it really helped my comp eng classes that we had a bunch of old boxes we could fark around with.

Sure, a few of 'em got bricked. But the whole class learned the ins and outs of everything you need to do even with modern PCs.

Came in here to say "correlation != causation"

Was really surprised Freakanomics was mentioned but not the "give every poor kid a book" story...

Confabulat:
Then I got an AOL account in like 1993. I've read about 3 books since.

Most AOL users haven't read a book since 1993.

LavenderWolf: Should get them some older boxes. I found that it really helped my comp eng classes that we had a bunch of old boxes we could fark around with.

Sure, a few of 'em got bricked. But the whole class learned the ins and outs of everything you need to do even with modern PCs.

Comp eng? Certainly you meant Comp Lit, and why you would be mucking around with computers for a class on Shakespeare and the like, I don't know! This is how education gets sidetracked! English class indeed. Fah!

I don't believe there's ever been a correlation shown between computers in the home (or school) and academic success that held up once socio-economic factors were accounted for.
My ex fiancee grew up rather poor, and grew up to be brilliant. Farked over by her own health, but brilliant. Her parents took her to the library a lot and encouraged her to ask questions and find answers. She never had a computer of her own until I bought her one for grad school when she was like 27.

The low-power, crank-run laptops for impoverished places around the globe might work wonders, though, because there's a chance they'll end up with families that desperately want the chance for their children to receive an education and don't have the public support that those of us in the developed world generally have.

Because they can't use or maintain the damn things.

Confabulat: In the 80s and early 90s I was a voracious book reader. I loved books. My bookshelf was a place of great pride. I read pretty much anything, from the classics to weirdo trippy '60s nonsense.

Then I got an AOL account in like 1993. I've read about 3 books since.

And you've probably read about as much since. You've shifted your reading from reading books to reading forums, probably video games, and websites.

Zimmy: And you've probably read about as much since. You've shifted your reading from reading books to reading forums, probably video games, and websites.

Which is unfortunate, because you learn differently by using a library than you do by using websites. for example, my students are al3ways amazed that I know stuff google doesn't know. They call me a genius because of it. In reality, I just encounter all sorts of information in the unique ways that libraries allow users to interact with their technologies. My students are at the mercies of search algorithms and embedded links. It's really very sad that computers are replacing libraries. They do a totally different job. We should use both, not choose one or the other.

Don't be hating, Night Elf ho's dancing on mailboxes have to eat too.

Seriously though, learning how to play the auction house in WoW is a pretty decent simulation of the real market environment. Especially if you get some friends involved and get a system running with guys gathering, processing, and marketing the goods to the AH. It's actually quite fun to see the market in action... a few months later, however, it starts to feel like work...

Confabulat: Then I got an AOL account in like 1993. I've read about 3 books since.

You grew up.

I have a huge number of books on my shelves. About 3/4th are various novels, with the rest being technical and DIY manuals. One day, reading went from being a form of entertainment to a way to make (or save) money.

The ratio of technical manuals and such would be higher, but I once held a job that had me flying around the country a lot. That flying coincided with the time that Robert Jordan was pumping out books like mad. So, I picked up reading as a form of entertainment again. Were it not for that, I doubt that I would have picked up many novels after the time I turned 18, and all of those novels would have been from when I was still in grade school.

jso2897: BadAnalogyGuy: An interesting point was made in Freakonomics that IQ test scores were highly correlated to income levels. The higher you scored on an IQ test, the more likely you were to have a high-paying job. The unfortunate corollary is that those who scored low on such tests typically found themselves at the bottom rungs of the socio-economic ladder.

Giving someone a computer isn't going to raise their IQ. Expecting low income individuals to suddenly perform better with computers is pretty much folly from the get go.

Empowering everyone is certainly something that we should strive for, as a nation. However, thrusting someone ill-equipped to perform at a certain level into a competitive environment with others who are much more well adapted for such rigors is not fair to the individual, the competing group, and the customers of that group. Efforts should be made to find appropriate outlets for energy and talents, not simply assuming that everyone should have a certain set of skills, especially when many of those skills will never subsequently be used by some.

Great idea. Perhaps we could rank everyone according to intelligence (by which I mean, of course, what you and I THINK is intelligence) and issue them levels of social privilege on that basis. We could order them according to the letters of the Greek alphabet - Alpha, Beta, Epsilon, and so forth. That way, we wouldn't have inferiors getting in the way of us smart people - amirite?

Wouldn't be such a brave new world if we did that, eh?

Intelligence (or IQ tests) wouldn't show the whole picture. There are quite a few people that are extremely intelligent but highly unsuccessful. Either through lack of money, lack of opportunity, possible mental or social hangups, poor upbringing, problems with addiction, or even just pure laziness.

I think discipline and curiosity are a better indicator of success. That, or attractiveness and social ability.

Dinjiin: You don't need fancy computers in order to learn mathematics, physics, chemistry, foreign languages and the like. You see, there are these things called books. They are a self-contained device that hold huge sums of information. They were damn good enough for Einstein. They're damn good enough for YOU.


You sound old.

/getting off your lawn

Bennie Crabtree: Which is unfortunate, because you learn differently by using a library than you do by using websites. for example, my students are al3ways amazed that I know stuff google doesn't know.

And as you're a teacher, I'd hope experience has taught you things about your field they can't simply learn in a classroom.

You are right in they are both resources that should be used together, not exclusively one or the other. In my high school, we had a teacher who made us use materials only discovered at the high school library; any other sources weren't allowed. Was a stupid assignment, but it was rather shocking to me the number of kids that failed it. (And no, I was not one of them; I passed.)

Yugoboy: I've worked on the educational side of a program like this.

In the vast majority of cases, the students did not listen to us regarding avoiding viruses and other maintenance suggestions. Before the school year was out every kid in the program I asked had a non-functional computer.

Including a modem and internet access is probably the LAST thing that should be included in these... although if you didn't include them, 90+% of kids would literally throw sell them out.



FTFY

KelvinTheClown: Confabulat:
Then I got an AOL account in like 1993. I've read about 3 books since.

Most AOL users haven't read a book since 1993.

Really? I figured you'd have plenty of time to read while waiting to log on.

Zimmy: You've shifted your reading from reading books to reading forums, probably video games, and websites

Which is a lot more simplistic form of reading.

I got my first taste of the Internet when I subscribed to a Unix timeshare back in the late 1980s. Even back then when the Internet was ruled by geeks, dorks and intellectuals, most of the content available via FTP, Usenet and Gopher was fairly basic. You had a lot of stuff to pirate and a lot of forums to flame people... just like now. Sure, you could find some really in-depth information on the comp.sys.* forums, but most everything else was fluff.

How often do you find an online news site today that will publish an article longer than 4 pages? Except for a few from Slate, Rolling Stone, Time and the WSJ, it is fairly rare. I'm actually starting to hate reading things online because the reporting is so shallow. It is as if news and information has a bad case of A.D.D. Sadly, news is heading the other direction. An article has to fit within the text limitation of an SMS page or a tweet.

So yeah, there is a lot more information out there because of the Internet, but is it really quality information? For most of it, I would say no.

Charities wonder why providing computers to impoverished families doesn't help their educational level. Blizzard Entertainment, you have a call holding on Line 80

My kid told me it's level 85 now. I really have no idea, I quit right after the level 80 cap expansion came out.

So, the promise of the 1990's that giving all the chilrens computers would provoke an educational renaissance turned out to be bullshiat.

Color me surprised.

Maybe Aldous Huxley was right.

Dinjiin: How often do you find an online news site today that will publish an article longer than 4 pages?

To be fair, how often do any news organizations report anything that would print on more than 4 pages of standard paper? No, having it split throughout the newspaper doesn't count. It's not just online, but on paper as well.

lennavan: My kid told me it's level 85 now. I really have no idea, I quit right after the level 80 cap expansion came out.

It's currently 80. Next expansion pack makes it 85.

unalivezombie: I think discipline and curiosity are a better indicator of success. That, or attractiveness and social ability.

Or a good ratio of all of the above.

Bennie Crabtree: Zimmy: And you've probably read about as much since. You've shifted your reading from reading books to reading forums, probably video games, and websites.

Which is unfortunate, because you learn differently by using a library than you do by using websites. for example, my students are al3ways amazed that I know stuff google doesn't know. They call me a genius because of it. In reality, I just encounter all sorts of information in the unique ways that libraries allow users to interact with their technologies. My students are at the mercies of search algorithms and embedded links. It's really very sad that computers are replacing libraries. They do a totally different job. We should use both, not choose one or the other.


Well, to be fair most of that information is on the internet. It is just a lot harder to find than just using google. The trick is knowing where on the internet to look for much of this stuff. Not to mention the person who can best help you find stuff online that you can only (and also can't) find in the library, is probably the librarian.

Zimmy: To be fair, how often do any news organizations report anything that would print on more than 4 pages of standard paper?

Given that online news and printed news are just the same articles published to different mediums, it isn't often. You have to subscribe to a news magazine like Time, US News, Newsweek or The Economist to see in-depth journalism. Even then, it can be really hit-or-miss.

unalivezombie: It is just a lot harder to find than just using google.

I really wish that Google would return more results to pages in Google Books and other online book repositories. It seems to be heavily weighed towards generic web pages.

Same exact reason that giving a set of high end tools to the person doesn't does make them an expert wood maker.

You have to train their kids how to use the compter properly or there will be no progress.

Also, while I'm thinking about it, another problem is with instant-access to news, too many news orgs are trying to bring you the LATEST IN BREAKING NEWS. When the oil spill happened, think of all the links Fark must have received about it.

On the positive side, however, any breaking developments can easily be put onto a page for a reader to read. In example, a magazine would have had all of the following links in one giant article, yet they are about the same story paced out over different times(or, at least, could be put into one 4+ page article):

http://torrentfreak.com/raiohead-to-testify-against-the-riaa-090404/
http://torrentfreak.com/student-hit-with-fine-in-riaa-case-090731/
http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-appeals-court-net-broadcast-090117/
http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-victim-files-for-new-trial-damages-100106/
http://torrentfreak.com/judge-slams-riaa-675k-fine-ruled-unconstitutional-10070 9 /
http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-warns-1-million-copyright-infringers-a-year-100704 /

You can probably kinda make out what happened just by the link names, though...

Giving the poor little darlings is going to do little, without the proper encoragement and support snowflake will end up yellow snow, computer or not.