> SICP is not a programming course, it’s a computer science course.
I don't see what you mean by this at all. Furthermore this doesn't strike me as a useful distinction when a) it doesn't cover most topics labeled by consensus as "computer science" and b) it very clearly does teach a great deal about programming.
Why not say it teaches computer science and programming skills? Why do these have to be exclusive? There's obviously a great deal of overlap in general.
The goal of the course is not to teach programming skills, it's to teach computer science. The difference is explained quite thoroughly in the lectures. One might even say that answering the question "what is computer science?" is one of the core goals of the course and a major part of the philosophy of the professors who created the course.
The argument being made by the comparisons to geometry and astronomy is that in any discipline there is a difference between means and ends: what you are attempting to achieve is distinct from the tools you're using to achieve it. Furthermore, it's a mistake to believe that the discipline is all about the tools. No, the tools are the means, not the end.
> The goal of the course is not to teach programming skills, it's to teach computer science.
Who cares what the goal is? It teaches programming skills too. The intent is irrelevant and for the most part so too is the distinction (outside the american education system, anyway).
> Furthermore, it's a mistake to believe that the discipline is all about the tools.
Who outside the american education gives a damn about "the discipline", if that refers to anything meaningful outside the american education system in the first place? It's arbitrary and has no purpose or benefit aside from organizing the education system. This is a course that miraculously, against all odds, manages to teach useful skills in addition to jargon patterns of thought. Why not celebrate this?
Anyway, programming is a useful pedagogical tool for teaching CS. CS is a useful pedagogical tool for teaching programming. To brag about not teaching one is just hobbling your own insight into the value you provide students.
I myself have a CS degree from a prestigious institution and largely enjoyed my education. But this attitude you alude to is just jerking off for the sake of jerking off. Particularly in the case of SICP.
I don't see what you mean by this at all. Furthermore this doesn't strike me as a useful distinction when a) it doesn't cover most topics labeled by consensus as "computer science" and b) it very clearly does teach a great deal about programming.
Why not say it teaches computer science and programming skills? Why do these have to be exclusive? There's obviously a great deal of overlap in general.