Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MIT dean to start new university: “No majors, no lectures, no classrooms”

tech.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 281 posts

Re: MIT dean to start new university: “No majors, no lectures, no classrooms”

#11

Post by gravypod »

legutierr wrote: post #5
gravypod wrote: post #4

The only point of a modern day university is that they are (a) exclusive, and (b) "guarantee" that students "know" what they are "taught". That's at least what people who hire think. I remember someone saying "It wouldn't matter if MIT only taught basket weaving as long as they still had such a thorough selection process". This holds true here. People only care about the pedigree of your degree, it's substance comes…

By this reasoning, you should put a list of the universities you were admitted to on your resume, not the university that you actually attended. Under these terms, what's the difference between going to Harvard for a couple of semesters and dropping out, and getting admitted to Harvard but deciding to attend Dartmouth instead?

If you have not joined the university you are not part of the "in" group. There is a perception among people that if you attend a "prestigious" university that you are smarter than someone who attends a community college.

I find that crazy. Both teach basically the same thing. If they are both accredited, then it is almost indistinguishable.

Who would you think is smarter off the cuff, a Harvard graduate, or someone who attended an accredited community college and followed it with a masters from an accredited online school?

I'm sad to say that I've been programmed to assume that the Harvard graduate is smarter. It is just a bias that we are all taught as we are young.

Re: MIT dean to start new university: “No majors, no lectures, no classrooms”

#12

Post by adrianN »

gravypod wrote: post #7
skizm wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly it probably makes it more acceptable to the "everyone needs to go to college" crowd. Trade schools have been around for a while, but for some reason people think you need a "university degree" to get anywhere. I assume they are trying to bridge that mental gap by using similar language to that of traditional colleges / universities. Also "trade schools" and / or specialty schools rarely have the same social…

Honestly, I wish there were major respected trade schools that taught CS/Software Engineering/IT/IS. The university environment, in my opinion, is adverse to the development of good CS knowledge. Most of us on here, I'd say, have learned through trying and experimentation and that is why we are fairly good at what we proclaim to do. University doesn't foster that kind of understanding. I also hate that currently I ne…

I guess that depends on what you call "good CS knowledge". It's true in my experience that universities are not particularly good at teaching the actual engineering part of software engineering. But I that that is because the major is called "Computer Science", not Software Engineering. In my opinion, universities' main focus should be on educating potential scientists, not churn out workers for the industry. That implies a heavy focus on theory, with the practical parts being mostly self-taught when necessary.

Re: MIT dean to start new university: “No majors, no lectures, no classrooms”

#14

Post by Taek »

legutierr wrote: post #5
gravypod wrote: post #4

The only point of a modern day university is that they are (a) exclusive, and (b) "guarantee" that students "know" what they are "taught". That's at least what people who hire think. I remember someone saying "It wouldn't matter if MIT only taught basket weaving as long as they still had such a thorough selection process". This holds true here. People only care about the pedigree of your degree, it's substance comes…

By this reasoning, you should put a list of the universities you were admitted to on your resume, not the university that you actually attended. Under these terms, what's the difference between going to Harvard for a couple of semesters and dropping out, and getting admitted to Harvard but deciding to attend Dartmouth instead?

For me, being at MIT has been much more valuable than my time at RPI (my alma mater). And that's because lots of cool, innovative, and intelligent people flock to MIT. When hosting an event, MIT is able to get the best speakers in the world to show up, because the speakers are excited to be at MIT. I've had conversations with people who would never have come all the way out to RPI because RPI just isn't as interesting.

And so it reinforces itself. Intelligent people flock there because intelligent people flock there. But it also means that the time spent there is more valuable.

Re: MIT dean to start new university: “No majors, no lectures, no classrooms”

#15

Post by brodawg »

gravypod wrote: post #7
skizm wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly it probably makes it more acceptable to the "everyone needs to go to college" crowd. Trade schools have been around for a while, but for some reason people think you need a "university degree" to get anywhere. I assume they are trying to bridge that mental gap by using similar language to that of traditional colleges / universities. Also "trade schools" and / or specialty schools rarely have the same social…

Honestly, I wish there were major respected trade schools that taught CS/Software Engineering/IT/IS. The university environment, in my opinion, is adverse to the development of good CS knowledge. Most of us on here, I'd say, have learned through trying and experimentation and that is why we are fairly good at what we proclaim to do. University doesn't foster that kind of understanding. I also hate that currently I ne…

I think you're missing the point here.

Those physics classes will teach you to think about problems abstractly. In my experience, my knowledge of physics has helped me think about algorithmic problems significantly. Even if you don't use the physics itself, it's good to learn.

The accounting might not help you so much for CS, but it could be useful. And a few liberal arts classes are always good for breadth of education, and making you realize that you can always pick up a good book and read it, and that not everything you do has to be so math and science oriented.

Also, for the record, what you would learn at a trade school would be "programming". What they teach at university is "computer science". There is a pretty serious distinction, and I don't really believe you can learn computer science properly without a formal education (even if that comes from self-studying formal books - but teaching yourself javascript is not computer science).

Re: MIT dean to start new university: “No majors, no lectures, no classrooms”

#16

Post by noonespecial »

legutierr wrote: post #5
gravypod wrote: post #4

The only point of a modern day university is that they are (a) exclusive, and (b) "guarantee" that students "know" what they are "taught". That's at least what people who hire think. I remember someone saying "It wouldn't matter if MIT only taught basket weaving as long as they still had such a thorough selection process". This holds true here. People only care about the pedigree of your degree, it's substance comes…

By this reasoning, you should put a list of the universities you were admitted to on your resume, not the university that you actually attended. Under these terms, what's the difference between going to Harvard for a couple of semesters and dropping out, and getting admitted to Harvard but deciding to attend Dartmouth instead?

This advice exactly was given to me by my HS guidance counselor. He told me to apply everywhere I think I might be accepted and then use the list on my resume.

Edit: Excepted to accepted. Read what your damn phone types for you...

Re: MIT dean to start new university: “No majors, no lectures, no classrooms”

#17

Post by tedmiston »

gravypod wrote: post #11
legutierr wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By this reasoning, you should put a list of the universities you were admitted to on your resume, not the university that you actually attended. Under these terms, what's the difference between going to Harvard for a couple of semesters and dropping out, and getting admitted to Harvard but deciding to attend Dartmouth instead?

If you have not joined the university you are not part of the "in" group. There is a perception among people that if you attend a "prestigious" university that you are smarter than someone who attends a community college. I find that crazy. Both teach basically the same thing. If they are both accredited, then it is almost indistinguishable. Who would you think is smarter off the cuff, a Harvard graduate, or someone…

> I find that crazy. Both teach basically the same thing. If they are both accredited, then it is almost indistinguishable.

Speaking just on computer science here, but the depth of CS courses varies radically across universities. Sure they all might follow the ACM model curriculum, but how much of the book you're actually reading (and which book you're using in the first place), the number and difficulty of practice problems you're assigned, etc. is definitely not basically the same.

I went to an average engineering school, and also took a handful of grad classes. Many of the assignments in Master's classes were a similar difficulty level to the assignments in undergrad MIT classes on OCW. Not all of the courses were this way, but many were.

Re: MIT dean to start new university: “No majors, no lectures, no classrooms”

#19

Post by matt_wulfeck »

We don't need a "new" university system. We need to update our expectation about higher education and the work force. Let's start but dropping our mantra that everyone should go to college.

Here's another: Maybe not everyone should even go to high school.

Re: MIT dean to start new university: “No majors, no lectures, no classrooms”

#20

Post by ttcbj »

gravypod wrote: post #4

The only point of a modern day university is that they are (a) exclusive, and (b) "guarantee" that students "know" what they are "taught". That's at least what people who hire think. I remember someone saying "It wouldn't matter if MIT only taught basket weaving as long as they still had such a thorough selection process". This holds true here. People only care about the pedigree of your degree, it's substance comes…

This econtalk provides some nuance for your point:

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/04/bryan_caplan_on.htm...

There are many reasons to believe that college is more about signaling than knowledge. While admission is an important part of the signal (certainly at the high-end), completing college is probably an important signal in the mid-range and below. Completing college is probably associated with work-ethic, the ability to follow rules successfully, etc.

Post reply on HN