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

Ask HN: A question for those who went to MIT/Stanford/CMU

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 57 posts

Ask HN: A question for those who went to MIT/Stanford/CMU

#1

Post by artisfury »

I am wondering what's the learning environment and what behavior makes folks at these and alike school smart. They don't get hung up on new Javascript framework or new language. My observation is that top performers from this school are focused on solving problems. I have met quite a few who are very smart folks but they are not chasing new Java/Scala/GO language feature. Heck, some even don't know Java programming.

Despite this, these folks solve hard problems and often solve it better than anyone else.

I am curious about distinction between chasing new language/technology/language vs solving problems. How do you see yourself after graduating from these schools?

Re: Ask HN: A question for those who went to MIT/Stanford/CMU

#2

Post by aphextron »

I've spent a lot of time around Stanford and Berkeley CS grads. The main difference I would say is not that they are particularly more intelligent than anyone else, but that they are filled with an incredible amount of motivation. They tend to be extremely driven, focused people who are capable of putting in tons of work to "get shit done". They also tend to have a million different things going on at once (clubs, side projects, jobs, etc.) and have every moment of their lives scheduled out.

Re: Ask HN: A question for those who went to MIT/Stanford/CMU

#4

Post by catmanjan »

Not sure about those particular schools, but my experience of CS is that it is completely separate from the going ons of the commercial market.

I believe most schools stick with traditional tools for educating, using Haskell and C for projects, although some are moving towards python.

I'd be surprised if any of them teach any javascript whatsoever unless you took a course specifically on that topic.

Re: Ask HN: A question for those who went to MIT/Stanford/CMU

#5

Post by sokoloff »

It's going to be difficult to draw a generalization because I have mostly my experience from MIT, but I can't tell how that's the same/different as others from MIT or other schools.

For me, MIT taught me how to think more than it taught me anything specific. Sure, I learned a bunch of engineering, but mostly, I learned to be skeptical, to think through and quickly identify the key aspects of a design, a business, or a model and zero my efforts in on the sensitive areas and ignore (or minimize investment in) the routine parts. (Part of it is you get this secondarily from having such a firehose of work and interesting opportunities around you.)

In industry, it has made me skeptical of the framework flavor of the week, but I also don't want to be forever stuck in K&R C, so there's a balance to be struck.

I also wouldn't be overly impressed with an MIT grad just based on that fact. Getting into MIT is hard. Getting out of MIT mostly takes determination.

Re: Ask HN: A question for those who went to MIT/Stanford/CMU

#7

Post by vowelless »

I went to one of these schools. I know the basics of java but pray to the spaghetti monster I never have to actually work with it.

Most people I knew at school were a lot smarter than me. And the thing I noticed about them was that they saw things more abstractly. It wasn't about semi colons, or the latest frameworks; but a desire to see things a little more generally so that their understanding could apply to large classes of languages.

Beyond languages, another thing this helped with was being able to use mathematics, computer science and logic to model parts of the world with some level of mathematical rigor. In other words, answering an under defined question systematically by first formulating it rigorously.

One more thing abstract thinking seems to help with is that it makes learning new concepts a little easier. And so, being at these schools probably also teaches people how to learn, which can be useful throughout life.

Re: Ask HN: A question for those who went to MIT/Stanford/CMU

#8

Post by jghn »

vowelless wrote: post #7

I went to one of these schools. I know the basics of java but pray to the spaghetti monster I never have to actually work with it. Most people I knew at school were a lot smarter than me. And the thing I noticed about them was that they saw things more abstractly. It wasn't about semi colons, or the latest frameworks; but a desire to see things a little more generally so that their understanding could apply to large…

"It wasn't about semi colons, or the latest frameworks; but a desire to see things a little more generally that could apply to large classes of languages."

This is the number one most important lesson a software developer can learn. Strive to understand the underlying abstractions and patterns, make sure to have a broad experience base so you can see many different ways these abstractions and patterns are applied in different languages and frameworks. You will be far more useful as your career progresses, quicker to learn things, able to spot the good and bad in the latest buzzwords.

I did not go to one of the 3 named schools but my observation over the last 20 or so years has been that while not a perfect correlation, better CS programs tend to do a better job instilling this sentiment into students.

Re: Ask HN: A question for those who went to MIT/Stanford/CMU

#10

Post by loeber »

I think that focusing on undergraduate credentials as a measure of engineering ability is largely unproductive, and phrases like "they don't get hung up on new Javascript framework" are stereotypes, and you will meet many counterexamples. To be clear, these schools turn out plenty of mediocre engineers.

Usually, the selection process of which you're seeing the results is that kids who are very good at engineering will choose to go to one of these schools to maximize the chances of meeting like-minded people.

These people were already budding great engineers in beforehand. The schools they attend do not apply some kind of Midas' touch that turns an ordinary person into a great engineer or scientist.

So, I think your proposition has its causality inverted. Potential great engineers often end up at MIT/Stanford/etc., and they continue being great engineers. It is not the case that MIT/Stanford produce great engineers by having some magic classes that the other top-20 schools don't.

Post reply on HN