You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

NancyLebovitz comments on An attempt at a short no-prerequisite test for programming inclination - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: ShardPhoenix 29 June 2013 11:36PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (68)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 30 June 2013 07:21:49PM 0 points [-]

Which skill specifically is the one that some students have, and other students cannot be taught?

There is no particular, identifiable, atomic skill that they're calling "programming skills". Like any other performance or talent, it is made up of a jillion jillion component skills. And I don't see them claiming that any particular skill cannot be taught, only that it is less likely to be taught to some than others with a given amount of instruction.

They take the grade in class as a proxy for general programming skills. That has it's own issues, but I'd expect it to have decent merit on population statistics.

I don't see any "magic" coming out of further reduction, here.

"Our teaching style of programming has a 'double hump'." instead?)

Because they claim the empirical observation that the double hump is prevalent across the distribution of classes, not just in any particular class. Yes, maybe with a different teaching method, the bottom cluster could do better. Maybe I would have been a better basketball player than Kobe Bryan is someone had taught me differently as well. But they didn't. Oh well.

I recalled this story from years ago and tracked it down. Their main claim was that a particular test at the beginning of the course accurately predicted the outcome of the course in terms of their grade. Someone else mentioned that in the later papers, they say that their test is no longer predictive.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 01 July 2013 12:03:03AM 0 points [-]

Their main claim was that a particular test at the beginning of the course accurately predicted the outcome of the course in terms of their grade. Someone else mentioned that in the later papers, they say that their test is no longer predictive.

It's possible that people are enough more used to computers that some elementary concepts (like that the computer responds to simple cues rather than having any understanding of what you mean) are much more common, so those concepts aren't as useful for filters.