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

161–170 of 281 posts

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

#161

Post by stvswn »

david927 wrote: post #54
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 surprising that it's taking so long. The wealthiest have always found ways to preserve their wealth and Ivy League institutions have played a role in that. Take some smart people, a lot of people that are good at fitting the mold that looks best, mix your rich kids in there and call the paint one color. Remember, George W. Bush (all politics aside, just looking at him in terms of intellectual prowess) graduated…

Your argument is: 1) George W. Bush went to Yale and Harvard Business School (not the other way around, btw) 2) George W. Bush is not intelligent

Therefore, one need not be intelligent to graduate from those schools

You may be right about your conclusion, but you don't support premise #2 -- rather, you just assume we all agree.

Why do you think he's dumb?

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

#162

Post by a3n »

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…

Nobody ever got fired hiring a college graduate.

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

#163

Post by [deleted] »

cmurf wrote: post #94
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.

Well 100 is average so you're pretty much riding the top of the bell curve with this comment. But then, there are house plants that decided not to invade Iraq and Afghanistan...

[deleted]

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

#164

Post by fao_ »

st3v3r wrote: post #129
fao_ wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I have also had the experience with infomally teaching (read with a bias towards 'mentor') programming to people, along with the second hand experience of knowing numerous teachers, including my father. Along with this I was unschooled from the age of eleven, and I have seen the effects of this upon the children -- most notably with a child (Eleven years of age) teaching themselves to read to an adult level in roughly six months -> one year, simply because they were interested in a subject.

My example was anecdotal, however when combined with my (Also anecdotal) experiences concerning the education system, the second-hand experiences I noted, and the writings of Russell, Whitehead, Lockheart, and numerous others who also have expounded on the problems with overly structured teaching and similar methods, it provides me with enough evidence to convince me until equal evidence is provided to the contrary.

That is why I say it is not true -- or more accurately, that in my experience, it is not true. I accept that a structured environment is a requirement for some people to learn, but I dispute that it is a hard requirement, and I also dispute that it is natural for the general population to require structure to learn.

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

#165

Post by finid »

bitwize wrote: post #157
Jach wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Love that piece. It's worth pointing out also that Keith was there only for the final year of office, rather than near the beginning, which is one of the best pieces of anecdata against the post-1994 ongoing dementia theory (which a priori I still think is more likely than the "playing dumb" theory). There is of course other anecdata on Bush not being as intelligent as Keith claims, but the big issue that should make…

I don't much like his policies, but I always had a big question mark in my mind when it came to Bush's raw intelligence. He spoke like a man who didn't know how to speak in public, not like someone who was ignorant or addled. There was a peculiar absent-mindedness to his gaffes ("misunderestimate", "is our children learning") and so forth but it had a more "way out of his element" feel rather than coming from a place…

> He spoke like a man who didn't know how to speak in public, not like someone who was ignorant or addled.

His problem went beyond not knowing how to speak in public, which, by itself, is not a sign of not being intelligent. He was truly very dull, something he himself admitted to ("I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed").

Aside from that, if you passed through college, then through grad school and always referred to the Internet as "the internets", and to "the google", then public speaking is the least of your worries.

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

#166

Post by Amezarak »

paulojreis wrote: post #53
Amezarak wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even if they're both accredited, wouldn't better faculty lead to better teaching? No. Generally, at research institutions, faculty are not chosen for their teaching ability. They are chosen for their research background. They are often horrifically bad teachers, if they even teach the class at all and don't just assign it to a TA. It also doesn't take a world-renowned genius to teach an undergraduate or even a Mast…

I can see your point, but I believe this roughly depends on the education level we're talking about. I did my degree quite a few years ago, but finished my PhD last year. At least in the higher-level, when "learning" isn't exactly the classroom-like experience, I'd rather have a brilliant researcher but lousy teacher as a professor (instead of the opposite).

Absolutely, at the highest levels, where you are doing research, working with researchers, and working in labs, then you definitely want brilliant researchers hired for their research background. I just don't think that's true for the majority of undergraduate or even graduate students. And (I think), universities are very good at hiring for research ability.

Hiring for teaching ability they are not good at, even when they intend to.

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

#167

Post by tzs »

cmurf wrote: post #94
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.

Well 100 is average so you're pretty much riding the top of the bell curve with this comment. But then, there are house plants that decided not to invade Iraq and Afghanistan...

Why are you lumping Iraq and Afghanistan together? Those were vastly different situations.

Note to down voters: do some research. First of all, there was widespread support for invading Afghanistan in both the US (over 90%) and in Afghanistan (also in the 90% range). This was not the case for Iraq.

Second, Iraq was based on questionable intelligence that there might be things going on there that could potentially lead to attacks on the US at some future time. Afghanistan was in response to an attack that had already occurred by groups that were operating out of Afghanistan.

Third, Congressional support for the Afghanistan invasion was 420 yes, 1 no, 10 not voting in the House, and 98 yes, 2 not voting in the Senate. For Iraq, the House was 297 yes, 133 no, 3 not voting, and the Senate was 77 yes, 23 no. FFS, even Ron Paul voted for invading Afghanistan.

There is no way you can make a plausible case that Bush supporting the Afghanistan invasion indicates low intelligence, whereas you can kind of make such a case for Iraq.

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

#168

Post by finid »

kamaal wrote: post #152
mietek wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you really know about George W. Bush? http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/

To add to this, as a student in India, I would often run across people who thought Bill Gates was an Idiot. Not sure from where that caricature arose. But some people simply hated Bill Gates, and believed he didn't deserve to be the richest person in the world. I'd have to talk to them and explain he was a work horse extraordinaire, and was the equivalent of great project manager, programmer, and a business guy all r…

Nobody I know hates GW because he's successful. They do, because of the mess he got us in. Yes, he was led to taking the actions he took by smarter and more devious people around him, but the ultimate responsibility was with him, or on him. He was the president.

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

#169

Post by [deleted] »

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...

[deleted]

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

#170

Post by tzs »

hackuser wrote: post #144
st3v3r wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don't forget access to the faculty and your peers.

When I was at Caltech there was an informal weekly thing where students in the freshman physics class who wanted some help or wanted to discuss some things from class in more depth could go as a group and get help from or discuss things with Richard Feynman. (One of my regrets is that I did reasonably well in freshman physics and was not smart enough to realize that spending time chatting about physics with Feynman would have been worthwhile even if I did not need it to pass the class).
Post reply on HN