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

Hard Part of Computer Science? Getting into Class

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 305 posts

Re: Hard Part of Computer Science? Getting into Class

#121

Post by Aeolun »

jefftk wrote: post #29
chrisseaton wrote: post #3

Why do US colleges over-admit like this? In the UK you apply to do a computer science course, and they have 50 places or whatever for that course, and so they admit 50 people. You can't get into the college and then be told that actually it's full. If they do accidentally over-admit it's their problem to solve, not yours.

The US, especially liberal arts colleges, is pretty wary of premature specialization. A common thing here is that you apply to a university, take classes in a range of departments, and then by the end of sophomore year (two of four) you decide on a major. I went to Swarthmore (referenced in the article) before CS enrollment surged (www.swarthmore.edu/computer-science/alumni) and there were some people in my CS classe…

I don’t get this. In the Netherlands I’ve studied for 4 years on hard computer science.

Somehow someone from the US has done maybe 1.5 years of that and gotten the same degree?

Re: Hard Part of Computer Science? Getting into Class

#122

Post by bytematic »

amvalo wrote: post #112
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is elitism at its worst. Even if you completely accept the validity of self-learning, there is still a place for formal education. Some people can learn a lot about a complicated field on their own, but there are still plenty of people who would benefit from some pedagogical help.

Pretty sure the kids paying 60k a year to learn CS at Swarthmore are more elite.

low-effort reply that adds nothing to the conversation

Re: Hard Part of Computer Science? Getting into Class

#123

Post by jandrese »

el_cujo wrote: post #105

>Aafia Ahmad, a sophomore computer science major at U.T. Austin, had hoped to take an elective course in computer security this semester. But when she tried to sign up during early registration in November, the course was already full. I know this doesn't refute the point the article is trying to make, but it doesn't seem that unreasonable to me that an underclassman might not get into a highly sought after elective.…

I had to write a script to constantly monitor my school's class scheduling system to get into a couple of classes. It was an interesting script because the system was an IBM 3270 style mainframe.

Re: Hard Part of Computer Science? Getting into Class

#124

Post by detaro »

docbrown wrote: post #106
detaro wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does, but it's an interesting question why it always does. Knowing universities that lost their best lecturers because they insisted on a high-impact research record to consider giving them a permanent position, more flexibility in that regards looks like it'd be a good idea.

>it's an interesting question why it always does. Not really. It’s a good question to ask but the answer is rather simple: R1 institutions stay afloat because of research grants; they need researchers to secure that grant $$.

And it's surely helping the grant-getting that their researchers have to spend time teaching classes they don't really want to teach. Teaching-focused people, even if you make them full professors, are still comparatively cheap (since they don't need big teams or labs), and I don't think it's obvious that it doesn't make sense, especially if you consider decrease in teaching quality and other factors. And this also happens at institutions that aren't in dire need of cash. (To be clear, I'm not suggesting to do this for all teaching, but if you get good teachers as e.g. postdocs to try and keep them)

Re: Hard Part of Computer Science? Getting into Class

#125

Post by chrisseaton »

Aeolun wrote: post #115
gdfasfklshg4 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was already fairly clear by then that major employers require a 2:1.

Can someone explain what that means to me? Is this a kind of grade?

British final undergraduate degree grades are first class honours (1st), upper second class honours (2:1), lower second class honours (2:2), third class honours (3rd), or ordinary degree.

That's what you put on job application forms. We don't use a GPA.

A 1st is good. A 2:1 is fine. A 2:2 is a problem. A 3rd is a failure.

Some people use cockney rhyming slang - a 2:2 is a 'Desmond' (Desmond Tutu, two-two).

In some cases you can get a double 1st, or triple 1st, but these are very specific to your university and are about what courses you took.

Re: Hard Part of Computer Science? Getting into Class

#126

Post by bytematic »

whatshisface wrote: post #84
gumby wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US university system is quite unusual (I believe Canada also has a similar system): at the undergraduate level you typically don't apply to a specific program; all students are expected to take a variety of classes (confusingly called "courses"), only some of which apply to a specific course of study. Domain-specialized classes become an increasing proportion of your overall classes after the first or second year…

> Of course the reality isn't quite as utopian. It also means professions like law and medicine require whole additional degrees. I kind of like the fact that in the US, doctors usually have some exposure to science outside of memorizing facts for their next test at med school. It makes them more likely to be able to understand studies, for one thing. I might hazard to guess that if you study philosophy before going…

I believe that philosophy undergrads get the highest lsat scores, however that could have changed in the last 5 or so years.

Re: Hard Part of Computer Science? Getting into Class

#127

Post by bytematic »

Aeolun wrote: post #108
whatshisface wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course the reality isn't quite as utopian. It also means professions like law and medicine require whole additional degrees. I kind of like the fact that in the US, doctors usually have some exposure to science outside of memorizing facts for their next test at med school. It makes them more likely to be able to understand studies, for one thing. I might hazard to guess that if you study philosophy before going…

Given the depth of knowledge that is generally imparted in 3 or 6 ECTS (average course length in europe, 75-150 hours of combined self/guided study) is fairly shallow, I’m not sure how much this would help the learner. Maybe courses in the US are generally longer?

Depends on how many "credits" the course is worth (which can be pretty arbitrary). However, 14-15 weeks of 1hr classes twice a week is standard.

Re: Hard Part of Computer Science? Getting into Class

#128

Post by el_cujo »

rguzman wrote: post #80
bachmeier wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not CS faculty, but this is similar to the situation in economics. Interview 40. Of those, 20 may end up being acceptable. The eight best of those 20 get offers at better places. Four others take nonacademic jobs. You're left fighting over a pool of eight candidates with a lot more than eight other schools. It was really tough after the recession, when the Fed was hiring a ginormous number of new PhD's.

this is one of the pathologies in academic institutions: they need teachers, but they evaluate researchers. the people who make the cut for researcher also have a lot of other options, and the institution ends up with an undersupply of teachers.

I went to a relatively large public school with a big endowment. The "just teachers" were called Adjunct Professors and they really had a shit deal. They basically didn't make any more money teaching at my school than they would teaching at a community college and I don't even think they were considered full-time with benefits. Meanwhile, my research PI was a tenured professor who made a very decent living (salaries of teachers at the school were publicly available) but almost all of his salary was paid out by research grants, not the school.

Really among most of the department, I was surprised how much of an afterthought teaching seemed to be. They were by no means bad teachers, and I guess when you've been teaching the same class for many years it becomes pretty effortless, but there really is no good incentive for them to sign up and teach a bunch of extra classes when research is what they are interested in and pays for their salary (along with the salaries of all of their lab members).

Re: Hard Part of Computer Science? Getting into Class

#129

Post by nradov »

goldenkey wrote: post #116
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is elitism at its worst. Even if you completely accept the validity of self-learning, there is still a place for formal education. Some people can learn a lot about a complicated field on their own, but there are still plenty of people who would benefit from some pedagogical help.

It's not elitism because learning how things work "under the hood" at the age of 20, when you've been using tech your whole life, it shows a lack of curiosity. Tech is inherently obfuscated, nail-biting debugging, and a crap ton of reverse engineering. CS is a subset of mathematics. Software development is a lifestyle and an ethos. No degree will provide that in full capacity like being a curious kid who wrote game m…

Software development is a skilled trade, like being a plumber. It's not a lifestyle.

Re: Hard Part of Computer Science? Getting into Class

#130

Post by mietek »

chrisseaton wrote: post #82
Wiretrip wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a problem across the board in UK univeristies these days. When I did my CS degree (1993), I was one of two people in the year who got 1st class, now I think it's something like 25% awarded 1sts and the rest get 2:1s

I'm not convinced people aren't just legitimately working a lot harder. When I went to university graduating in 2007, so just before the crash but not really very long ago, everyone was pretty chilled out about their courses. Nobody did internships. As long as people weren't failing they were relaxed and enjoyed themselves. Getting a 2:2 was a bit of banter rather than a serious threat to your ability to ever get a g…

Standards have been lowered. Here’s a perspective from someone who used to be a tenured lecturer in the UK:

http://www.marktarver.com/professor.html

Post reply on HN