"No, our students are eager to get through on their own, knowing the projects are "open book" in the sense that the documentation is always available. Programming is not about memorizing ungodly amounts of pure trivia. That's what Google is for. Learn the concepts, the heuristics, and then be prepared to slog your way through unfamiliar APIs for the rest of your life."
And many a hopeful programmer did not become a programmer, or anything else, because of that idea. You must have a working knowledge of what it is you do. Before google we had large (3 feet or even longer) racks that held the documentation for the systems we worked with. They had dividers etc and you could find what it was you were looking for quick enough. Google and electronic documentation are certainly more convenient but still serve the same purpose and nothing but the same purpose. In the end, you must get a majority of that information into your head, all at the same time, for it to be working knowledge. And working knowledge is not trivia. Trivia is useless knowledge.
And you even seem to acknowledge this when you say "The skills I'm teaching are in high demand and the likelihood of getting work is pretty good if you master the content." The key word there is "master" and that takes much practice and knowing.
"If you grew up in the 1950s you might be thinking of 'Boys Life' and some kind of ranger danger camp, lots of testosterone."
That is actually still the norm. At least in many of these STEM professions, especially in computer science (from what I witness) and math (from what we hear). I think it works out that way because individuals choose what they feel good at or good with and considering the different lives that the two sexes live and breathe, the resultant set of what they feel good at and with doesn't end up the same. Since the 60's and 70's there really have not been barriers left to women and when those barriers were lifted the women that chose these professions chose them rather quickly. Any prejudice left seems to be entirely in the minds of those that seem to want different statistics. I mean, in the beginning, the civil rights movement was about marching up the steps to closed doors and opening them. Well, the doors have been opened for quite some time now, a whole generation, and now it seems that civil rights is about dragging unwilling participants up those steps and pushing them through those doors. Very bizare.
"You might think I'm being way too counter-culture in connecting gross and fine motor skills with math skills, but that was the role of music (add dance) in Greek civilization."
My only response there is "No it wasn't."
"Hansen goes on about piano training and math training for a reason. These two go together. That sense of rhythm, of timing, of getting the right beat, was not seen as distinct from computational ability. A similar intelligence, associated with Athena and Apollo, was seen to connect these disciplines."
If you wanted to know what I mean with my analogy between music and math you could have just asked. They are not simultaneous things as you imply. The analogy is that they both involve a sense of a universal truth that is not man made but god made. The truth simply exists and therefore it is. That once you are struck with that sense, there is a component of theory where you categorize and classify that sense and there is a component of performance. And this isn't just about music and math, it is about any higher skill that we individually resonate with and choose or are called to. But music and math share a purity that makes the analogy easier.
"Fast forward to our own time and music is a highly computational activity, having switched to digital even for most analog sounds. Post production fine tuning is a job for high end digital gear. Any music studio is likely to house Apples running Pro Tools or whatever. Fourier Transforms become a way of life, and those really understanding the math have an edge, not just along the production pipeline, but when it comes to the artwork, like that of Kraftwerk. M.C. Escher helped pave the way."
This isn't true. I mean, musical people know how to hook their stuff up but they are mostly (very mostly) ignorant of the internal workings, and for a very good reason, they get to concentrate on their skills of performing and/or creating music. They are not technophobes but they also have little need to understand the deep workings. And that is a very good thing. That is what technology is for. And the same thing goes for mathematicians (the pure form), they are seldom accomplished programmers, even though they use computers a lot.
"There's a reason those corporate giants squander money on gyms. They're not just "being nice". Having a DM track that includes heavy exercise on occasion (geocaching an excuse?) is a godsend to many a geek parent and grandparent."
People need exercise. That doesn't relate it to math. People also need food, so is food math as well?
What you seem to be doing in this post (and in most of your other posts) is making anagrams.