Kids Can't Use Computers... And This Is Why It Should Worry You

[Bompalompalomp]

His message comes across in a badly condescending way and could do with a rewrite to say the least, and his personal anecdotes related to his own failings are all silly. "I fix the computers in my house and never bothered to tell the kids how, look at how awful society is today!"

 

That being ignored, I've noticed this a lot. Parents and teachers are all too quick to say "Oh, my kids are great on their iPads and phones. They tap and click away faster than I ever could." So what? What are they learning by doing that? I've seen kids who tap at monitors expecting the button to press and not in the slightest way knowing how to use a mouse or keyboard. I've seen a year 1 teacher who has all of her kids use a keyboard correctly to type their usernames and passwords and a year 3 teacher whose kids didn't know how to save an image.

 

He definitely has a point when he says that things are too locked down, even if it is blunt and incorrect in areas regarding android and others. But I don't think it's easy to point the blame at the locked down systems themselves and their manufacturers. It's not their fault that consumers have no interest in learning the skills. I'd say teh fault mostly lies with the people pushing for kids to exclusively use these. Just another reason why I'm objecting to the Head wanting to get rid of the ICT Room and replace it with iPads because "nobody uses it". Because they don't know how!

[Garacesh]

As much as I had a good chuckle at the 'Can't use computers' section, which I can't help but agree with, this guy is a condescending douchecanoe that needs to lighten up a little.

 

I know how PC's work, because I'm interested in them. Always have been. You know what I'm not interested in? Dancing. If the GCSE Performing Arts lesson call down with an issue with the laptop, projector, etc, I can head down there and fix it with no issue. Could I tell you about their routine? Could I explain why the certain warmup stretches they were doing are important? Would I be able to replicate what they're doing? Not a chance. Not one. Okay, dancing isn't applicable to most people in their everyday life, so the example isn't perfect (I could use cars, but I know when I eventually get one I'll tinker and explore because it will be an important machine to me) but the point being people know more about what they're interested in. A dancer would be willing to try a move that I might look at and think "Err, that looks a bit dangerous (for your body), is that safe?". I would quite happily open a computer and start to replace an OEM heat sink with a water cooler, then swap out the memory for good measure. A dancer would probably watch what I'm doing and think "Err, that looks a bit dangerous (for the machine - or maybe me), is that safe?"

 

Computers are, in all fairness, going the same way as tablets are. They're becoming very much consumption-orientated devices. No longer is the computer just for the data-crunching corporate office, or the news studio green-screening the weather forecast, or the architect rendering his latest building schematic. It's more than commonplace that Joe and Jane Bloggs Public have a PC at home, to the point that people are actively shocked if otherwise! So yes, I agree that someone at home needs to be able to set up and maintain a small network and be versed on the perils of the internet, but not everybody. Think about here, at school. Everyone isn't a techie - just us. There is a (theoretical) ratio of technicians-to-non-technicians that allows us to keep things running properly. So why should it be different on a home network? Yes, people should read error messages and be taught how to properly report an issue. Yes, everybody should know the 'basic' and common issues (layer 1, mostly) and understand how to troubleshoot them. Should users know what a proxy is? Probably. But should everybody be expected to know how to work the CLI, or how to build a machine from scratch? No. I wouldn't say so. His own example of cars proves this. He uses his car, but he wouldn't have a clue how to build one from scratch. Motor vehicles are just as important as computers in day-to-day life, so why should it be different?

 

Regarding 'Techno-Dad to the rescue!' I do have to agree with him to some degree. Kids learn by tinkering, breaking and researching something they're interested in. For me, it was PC's. For my brother, for example, it was his bicycle. I can't count the amount of times I saw him dismantling his. I remember him sat in the back yard with his bike in bits as he replaced the chain and brakes. Me? I just got on my bike and rode it. I took care of it, so it didn't need repairs, but I know if I'd have needed a part replacing I'd have likely asked him to do it, which is precisely my point. "I don't know what I'm doing. $someoneElse does, so I'll ask them. It's safer that way." Admittedly, the better approach if you wanted to learn something would be "I wonder if $someoneElse would be willing to show me how to sort this out?" (which is the approach I always try to take where appropriate). The thing is we're often not demonstrating what we're doing to the person we're fixing the issue for. That's their fault for not taking interest, and that's our fault for not making the subject approachable, which is their fault for being scared of technology, which is our fault for having a walled garden, which is malware vendors fault for crafting malicious files, which is the users fault for not learning about PC's, which is our fault because we do everything for them - You see where this is going. The blame can go round and round in circles but there needs to be work done on both sides, not just one.

 

As for the supposition that things would be better if we gave the wheel back to the user and stopped with all the lock-down, heck no. Not in a million years. The kinds of data we have on our networks mean we need these controls, and some phishing attacks and counterfeit websites are so convincing that you can't expect someone who didn't devote their working day to technology to be able to cover their own ass all the time. In this kind of environment, it's just not safe to let users tinker and break things. They can go ahead and do it to their home PC fine, but not our systems. They have a job to do, and our job is to provide them with the tools to do it and to ensure those tools are safe to use. Giving them the reigns means we're not doing that. Any corporate system (which ours essentially are, too) simply cannot open itself up to that many possible avenues of attack, and to propose such is nothing short of absurd.

 

Rant over. Gee-gee well played.

Edited March 31, 2014 by Garacesh