&gt; Other research points to similar results. There seems to be a ‘double hump’ in the outcome of any programming course between those who can code and those who can’t.<p>&gt; “In particular, most people can&#x27;t learn to program: between 30% and 60% of every university computer science department&#x27;s intake fail the first programming course.”<p>Argh, I knew when I opened the article that its evidence would end up pointing to the &quot;camel has two humps&quot; study.<p>That study has been retracted, and the author regrets the damage it may have caused to computer science education:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;retractionwatch.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;07&#x2F;18&#x2F;the-camel-doesnt-have-two-humps-programming-aptitude-test-canned-for-overzealous-conclusion&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;retractionwatch.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;07&#x2F;18&#x2F;the-camel-doesnt-have-...</a><p>&gt; Though it’s embarrassing, I feel it’s necessary to explain how and why I came to write “The camel has two humps” and its part-retraction in (Bornat et al., 2008). It’s in part a mental health story. In autumn 2005 I became clinically depressed. My physician put me on the then-standard treatment for depression, an SSRI. But she wasn’t aware that for some people an SSRI doesn’t gently treat depression, it puts them on the ceiling. I took the SSRI for three months, by which time I was grandiose, extremely self-righteous and very combative – myself turned up to one hundred and eleven. I did a number of very silly things whilst on the SSRI and some more in the immediate aftermath, amongst them writing “The camel has two humps”. I’m fairly sure that I believed, at the time, that there were people who couldn’t learn to program and that Dehnadi had proved it. Perhaps I wanted to believe it because it would explain why I’d so often failed to teach them. The paper doesn’t exactly make that claim, but it comes pretty close. It was an absurd claim because I didn’t have the extraordinary evidence needed to support it. I no longer believe it’s true.