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

121–130 of 281 posts

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

#121

Post by nostrebored »

wfo wrote: post #35
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…

Intro courses are the same (calculus and basic chemistry are calculus and basic chemistry) but once you get past anything more difficult than 101 you see a wild disparity in difficulty across different universities (some universities will have material as junior-level undergrad that others have as graduate). Community colleges don't even try to teach the vast majority of courses taught at the smallest least prestigio…

I went to two different state schools. 4000 level courses at one were 2000 level classes at the other, and vice versa. I lost 30+ hours transferring, because courses didn't meet the rigor, or they weren't even courses at the better university. For instance, a 4000 level linear algebra course counted as half of a calc 2 credit.

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

#122

Post by NovaS1X »

Pharaoh2 wrote: post #75
NovaS1X wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't finish high school nor did I go to college or university. I'm now a systems engineer. Should I not be able to vote?

Did you develop an ability to think critically? Can you rationalize your position? Congratulations, you can do well on your own and you are not a liability. But you are also in the minority, I envy your the intelligence and will to learn you were born with, but not everyone has that. Most discussion about college not being important is about the fact that we don't use anything we learned in our majors after college,…

Thanks for the comment. I understand what you we're trying to say, however, the last part about not being able to vote rubbed me the wrong way. I've been through the pain of trying to find a job with no "education" as the system currently is. Making things more difficult doesn't help. Companies don't know how to judge critical thinking, that's why they rely on degrees. It's a cultural problem. I got lucky because someone was willing to take a gamble on me and it worked out for both of us. Not everyone with my "intelligence and will to learn" get so lucky as me no matter how capable they are.

Tech seems to be a strange exception to the rule. It's easier to get a job being self educated in tech than anywhere else it seems.

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

#124

Post by dhimes »

gravypod wrote: post #45
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…

It's good to know that the teachers/professors who still care are aware of how bad things have gotten. Do you, as a former/current educator, see things changing in the future?

I see two things. One is what I've already discussed. The other is something perhaps just as interesting.

Colleges and universities go up for accreditation every ten years (perhaps it varies, I'm not the world expert on this but I've been part of the process). A large part of this process is a self-study conducted by the faculty and staff of the university. In the recent (one-to-two accreditation rounds) past there have been high profile universities that have failed that process. The thing that I find interesting is that the faculty at these universities (to the best of my knowledge) don't particularly give a shit about this process. This accreditation means very little, and is not worth them putting time into. Now, accreditation by their respective professional society is quite important- the Chemistry department cares deeply about what the American Chemical Society (or whomever it is) says, but not about what the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools says. This is exactly the way that certificate programs work: Learning to be a Honda mechanic, for example, requires a program accredited by Honda, not specifically by the NCACS.

So it could be that the idea of going to a university and spending $100K on a "broad education" becomes a thing of the past for all but the true scholars, and most people start turning to specialized education for jobs like engineering and computer science. Just a hunch.

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

#125

Post by gravypod »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #76
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…

Five physics classes? Really? So... what subjects are those? Because you should definitely be taking at least a little physics and quite a lot of math.

I can opt out of the physics, but I'd have to take something like chemistry or biology. I'm taking the physics route because I feel that will benefit me specifically based on the carries that I'd like.

I just rechecked, I think I need to take Biophysics, Astronomy, and nuclear physics with 1 bridge class between the three. Why? Because.

I'd love to take the nuclear physics because that sounds fun, but and biophysics will make me claw my eyes out.

Also, for my university I for some reason need to take 3 random 300 level classes and three electives as well as 3 PE classes, 8 social science classes. I can't for the life of me justify these in my situation. To be honest, I'd trade the time I would waste on this with CS classes branching into different fields. Maybe it's just me and that I know exactly what I would like to do with my career but this seems useless to me.

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

#126

Post by st3v3r »

jasode wrote: post #91
edtechdev wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting admitted isn't as valuable a signal as getting a degree. Both are a signal or proxy for intelligence (IQ), but getting a degree is also a signal of persistence and conformity to get through the grind of college courses. Bryan Caplan has written much about 'signaling theory' and education in posts like this one: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2006/02/mixed_signals.ht...

>Getting admitted isn't as valuable a signal as getting a degree. It depends. In the limited world of software startup hiring, a compsci student that got admitted to MIT/Stanford but drops out after his freshman year conveys a more valuable signal than graduating from the University of Alabama (a much lower ranked school) after 4 years of study. If it's an older institution doing the hiring such as IBM or Goldman Sac…

What signal does that show? Other than not being able to follow through with things (although dropping out of college can be due to a multitude of factors that has nothing to do with the candidate's work ethic or dedication)

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

#127

Post by solipsism »

gravypod wrote: post #109
wfo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Good CS knowledge" isn't 'learning git'. It's mathematics, theory of computation, recursion theory and type theory and PL, compilers, complexity theory and algorithms, advanced data structures, concurrency and distributed systems etc. If you know these, you should be able to pick up more applied subjects on the job quickly. You very much need a university to teach you this. Social sciences will make you a more well-…

> theory of computation, recursion theory and type theory and PL, compilers, complexity theory and algorithms, advanced data structures, concurrency and distributed systems etc All of those are fairly basic topics that most people can pick up in an afternoon or two. These are all things that anyone who has been programming, reading, and interacting in the field of computer science understand. I could understand someo…

> theory of computation, recursion theory and type theory and PL, compilers, complexity theory and algorithms, advanced data structures, concurrency and distributed systems etc

All of those are fairly basic topics that most people can pick up in an afternoon or two.

...

I think these are fairly rational claims that I am making

Um... no. Not fairly rational claims at all.

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

#128

Post by david927 »

shawndumas wrote: post #106
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

George W Bush plays much dumber than he is. It's hard to get an unbiased opinion on the matter since it can be used to score political points, but he definitely has >100 IQ.

I'll just leave this here: "George W. Bush, Republican, 1946–present, 2001–2009, IQ:138.5" --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax#IQ_e...

I love it. For everyone who believes a study that gives him an IQ of around genius level (and for every US president -- look at that!), I actually own the Brooklyn Bridge and I'm looking to sell it.

I used the wrong example: nothing creates cognitive dissonance faster than politics or religion. But, that said, it's not a show. He's quite consistent in the types of grammatical mistakes he makes, such as simple subject-verb agreement, for example, and they indicate that he's either aphasic or mildly-retarded.

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

#129

Post by st3v3r »

fao_ wrote: post #65
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…

> With no structure, most people flounder. I find the opposite -- it is impossible for me to get any kind of complex learning done while I am on a structured course. It's telling that I learned more in three weeks of being ill and choosing to passively read books on mathematics (While coughing my guts up, of course), than I did actively participating in a course. (The only reason I am participating in the course is b…

So they give their experiences with many, many students that they've taught over the years, and you say it's not true because you're different?

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

#130

Post by st3v3r »

0xFFC wrote: post #71
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…

>most people are passive They are not naturally. But society designed by people like you turned them to being passive. Imagine people start education from start in society like this university, everyone will be excited, because they are going to do what they like . My problem with people like you is this.you are scaling your small experience to one of the fundamental things in human kind. Maybe passiveness in your la…

And how do you pay for it? How do you turn that into being able to support yourself and your family?
Post reply on HN