I want to thank flipp, Fast Company, and IBM for saving me $10: I don't need to go see "Waiting For Superman" now because it's all in this sentence. Why wouldn't they just start with the most qualified applicants and fill slots until there are none left?
It's virtually impossible to read all of them and still think that the ways schools are organized and the role teachers unions currently play is acceptable.
I do worry a bit about lock-in at an early age, though. A 14-year-old is young enough that a decent proportion may turn out not to really want a career in computer science after all, especially because I suspect decisions on whether to go here or not will in many cases be either made by or strongly pressured by parents. Will the curriculum be broad enough that a 20-year-old who's successfully completed it could plausibly get a job doing something other than working for IBM or a similar company? Or could they even leave at 18 with a normal HS degree and go to a 4-year college in a different major? The article is unclear about whether the 6-year-to-associates-degree part is mandatory, or if there's a possibility of opting to earn a normal high-school diploma after 4.
Maybe having a specific goal to drive for will make it easier students and teachers to focus on a certain goal but I don't think that it'll make the students less able to switch tracks if needed.
There are two possible scenarios here: First IBM is being straightforward and they are trying to help redevelop the US education system. Second they are trying to develop a cheaper source of US labor.
The recent history of IBM would indicate the latter scenario is more likely.
