MIT dean to start new university: “No majors, no lectures, no classrooms” • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by dhimes » Thu, Jan 28, 2016, 6:46 PM UTC

akhilcacharya wrote: post #104

dhimes wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"guarantee" that students "know" what they are "taught" That used to be the case, but now corporations require you to pass their own exam before they hire you. Let that sink in a moment. No longer are the universities taken at their word about their product. For some of you it has never been any different, but this change came about more or less when I was teaching at university/college. Some of us saw this as a quit…

> corporations require you to pass their own exam before they hire you If you're talking about software interviews, know that you need to have pedigree even to get an interview. See Twitter or Palantir recruiting.

Not just software- it started in engineering before software. My point is just that- pedigree is no longer trusted.

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

#112

Post by Nimitz14 » Thu, Jan 28, 2016, 6:47 PM UTC

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…

> Both teach basically the same thing.

They should, but they don't. Teachers make a difference. I'm at a mediocre university and watching MIT lectures has made me realize I'm missing out on literally mountains of knowledge. Never mind the qualification process, spending several years with intelligent people (both students and faculty) makes a huge difference.

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

#113

Post by nostrebored » Thu, Jan 28, 2016, 6:48 PM UTC

bobby_9x wrote: post #56

The current system was created for a reason: because for most people, it works. I ran a language learning group for a couple of years and we tried many different styles of learning. With no structure, most people flounder. Unless you already learned the material and just need it for review, it really doesn't work well. The best was complete structure: tests, lesson plans, and homework. Most people are passive. They w…

I think you're mistaking socialization for some broader natural truth. My partner was unschooled, and her peers are on average doing much better than mine, having attended the best charter/magnet high school in my state.

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

#114

Post by crispyambulance » Thu, Jan 28, 2016, 6:48 PM UTC

dhimes wrote: post #31

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…

"guarantee" that students "know" what they are "taught" That used to be the case, but now corporations require you to pass their own exam before they hire you. Let that sink in a moment. No longer are the universities taken at their word about their product. For some of you it has never been any different, but this change came about more or less when I was teaching at university/college. Some of us saw this as a quit…

While companies do sometimes give tests to candidates coming out of college, it is rarely the case that this is more than a crude in-house diagnostics tool that attempts to gauge very narrow job skill-sets or aptitudes.

There is no "Exam".

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

#115

Post by Pharaoh2 » Thu, Jan 28, 2016, 6:49 PM UTC

such_a_casual wrote: post #92

Pharaoh2 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a place for you that your might really like, https://www.reddit.com/r/topmindsofreddit Go there and be happy. The important thing in high school and college wasn't what I learned in the classroom, although some of it does help me in life. The important this was what I learned in that environment with my peers. I don't know how bad your college was, but I did go to a pretty good college in my country. It might…

You've addressed none of the points that I made. You claimed that school is the only way to learn how to think critically and should be used to take away the suffrage of millions of people. In response to me calling you out on this very dangerous and ignorant opinion, you've chosen to derail by linking to reddit, talk about "life lessons" you learned as a teenager, and brag about the college you went to. Nice.

Well, if you are an american, the college I went to is nothing to brag about. But we do with what we have.

> Graduating from school (highschool or university) is about learning how to follow directions and play the game.

Really? Is that what college is about, or is that what some colleges have become? The progress from middle school to high school to college is less about learning what's on the board and more about being able to stand on your own among your peers. It gradually moves you from a smaller echo box to a larger and larger one. Until the time you start working and living independently, where the echo box becomes your workplace and the city.

> But you're not even making such a modest claim, you're actually claiming that it is the

I never said that was the only way, but it has been one of the better ways historically. If you know of a better way to teach a good portion of the population critical thinking abilities I am all for it. I am not supporting going to a college with and being $200K in debt when you graduate and still not knowing what you want to do in life. But I am opposed to the fact that the r/hn hivemind thinks that all college is a waste of time.

> Are you aware of how absolutely stupid school seems to peop...

Well good for them, maybe they can broaden their horizons a bit earlier, but what kind of smart people are you talking about? 3 standard deviation from the mean? So the 0.1%? Or 2 sigma? So the 2.3%?

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

#116

Post by paulojreis » Thu, Jan 28, 2016, 6:49 PM UTC

such_a_casual wrote: post #55

paulojreis wrote: post #44

Maybe I'm wrong - and I kind of hope I am, as there's a noble motive behind this movement - but I always feel that people are focusing too much on IT and the stories of a guy who became a full-blown IT professional learning by himself, Google and open courseware. I think this kind of approach to learning works for IT, because a) the logistics to learn it are easier to handle; but mostly because b) most IT jobs actual…

So all of those people with psychology and business degrees are going into jobs that require "degree deserving knowledge"? If you're going to say something special about a particular field, at least compare it to something else otherwise the statement is meaningless.

I didn't mean to talk about the field in general. Computer science is, beyond doubt, "degree deserving knowledge". I just meant that most IT jobs don't require such knowledge and, in my opinion, would benefit from a more flexible approach to teaching. Something more trade school-like.

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

#117

Post by st3v3r » Thu, Jan 28, 2016, 6:50 PM UTC

Sounds like a cool idea, and I wholeheartedly support attempts to distribute education so that all can benefit and contribute to the sum of human knowledge.

However, one of the primary reasons for higher education (for better or for worse), is to get a job. Currently, most places are going to ask for your degree, or experience. What's someone coming out of this program going to have? And how long until most employers accept it?

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

#118

Post by MattSteelblade » Thu, Jan 28, 2016, 6:53 PM UTC

brodawg wrote: post #15

gravypod wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 educat…

I disagree. One of the most enjoyable classes I took was Weather and Climatology. Completely irrelevant to my current work and I paid a significant sum of money to take that required science credit.

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

#119

Post by waterlesscloud » Thu, Jan 28, 2016, 6:54 PM UTC

tedmiston wrote: post #17

gravypod wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

An interesting thing about OCW and some of the moocs is that they allow us to see what different schools are like, to some extent. Even with the semi-watered-down versions of classes from Stanford and MIT, I definitely feel those schools in particular are more challenging than most others.

Other ivy league schools, not so much, at least from the watered down versions, and with some exceptions from notables (Financial Markets taught by Robert Shiller, for example)

Most schools, at least in the mooc versions, tend to be about the same level, regardless of prestige.

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

#120

Post by st3v3r » Thu, Jan 28, 2016, 6:55 PM UTC

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…

Someone attending MIT has the opportunity to expose themselves to far, far more than someone who went to community college. MIT has far more resources, and cutting edge research is taking place there.