PT111 · S1 · Q4 Parent P: Children will need computer

This is somewhat tempting, in that it addresses Q's concern that the computer stuff we would teach will be obsolete by the time the students grow up. This is like, "Sure, but that's true no matter what. When tech advances rapidly, we all need to re-train to keep our skills proficient to deal with modern society". However, it's not the strongest logical counter, because it doesn't establish that there is any value to teaching K-12 students this stuff in the first place. If we thought that Q was saying, "the downside of doing this plan is that they'd need to be retrained", this answer would seem to say, "Well, everyone will need to be retrained, so no biggie". But Q is arguing we're not getting anything out of teaching kids soon-to-be-obsolete systems and languages. This answer isn't saying anything to the contrary, because it hasn't yet demonstrated that there is any upside to teaching K-12 students computers in the first place.

This is just like (A), in that it addresses Q's concern that the computer stuff we would teach will be obsolete by the time the students grow up. This is like, "Sure, but kids will be able to adapt to tech as it advances." However, it's not the strongest logical counter, because it doesn't establish that there is any value to teaching K-12 students this stuff in the first place. If we thought that Q was saying, "the downside of doing this plan is that the students are going to need to learn new computers / new languages by the time they're adults", this answer would seem to say, "Well, everyone will need to be retrained, so no biggie". But Q is arguing there's no upside to the plan. It's pointless. We're not getting anything out of teaching kids soon-to-be-obsolete systems and languages. Even if kids will have no problem adapting to new technology, what was the point of wasting precious K-12 class time teaching them technology they won't have a chance to use in their professional lives?

This analogy isn't totally crazy, but it's pretty weak. The idea that I don't have to relearn to drive cars as car technology improves relates to the objection that "kindergarteners won't have to relearn how to use a computer just because the specific computer they had in their classroom is obsolete by the time they grow up". This answer wouldn't speak to the other half of the discussion, though. Learning a computer language would be more like engineering a car, not driving a car. It's very possible that no one needs to relearn to drive, if they want to drive an electric car like a Tesla. But it's also very possible that car engineers definitely would need to learn a lot of new stuff if they went from designing gas-powered cars to electric cars. Another problem with the analogy is that it doesn't suffice to make cars / computers "fair to compare" that they both have continually advancing technology. Computers are being said to advance "so rapidly" that today's stuff will be obsolete in 5-10 years. It's not clear from this answer that car stuff will be obsolete in 5-10 years, just that tech is always advancing.

This sounds like it's making a good case for, "Let's teach computers in K-12, because those students won't have much time to learn them once they graduate". However, this answer does nothing to address Q's objection: if the computers they'll be using and language they'll be learning are going to be obsolete by the time they're out in the real world, then won't that computer education have been pointless?