Live data from Hacker News

Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

comlab.ox.ac.uk

51–60 of 177 posts

Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

#51
post #31
post #17

Caveat: this is an anecdote, and your mileage may vary, but I think it illustrates a point of contention in the "two cultures". As a computer science major in the US, I once took a "philosophy of mind" course out of a genuine multi-faceted interest in AI. I was working on undergraduate machine learning research at the time, so I used to pore over the green Norvig/Stewart AI book like a religious text. Unfortunately,…

If physics was taught the same way philosophy is, we'd learn about the four elements before getting to Newtonian mechanics.

I agree with your point, but this seems like a difficult problem to fix.

http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/footnotes_plato.ht... is really accurate.

Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

#52
post #39
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If physics was taught the same way philosophy is, we'd learn about the four elements before getting to Newtonian mechanics.

Every high school chemistry textbook I've seen actually works this way! It's horrible. The chapter starts with Dalton, works up through Rutherford and Bohr, and the last two or three I've seen ended there. Each section is presented as fact, and the kids are quizzed to make sure they know the material, before tearing it all down and teaching them a new bogus theory in the next section. Ugh.

Unlike say, physics, there is a big shortage of over-arching theories in chemistry. The field (in my experience of it, at least; about 5 semesters' worth) is mostly a collection of ad-hoc rules, with many exceptions and special cases. So I think the historical approach is more or less necessary for teaching these fields.

It works the same way as when bootstrapping a computer, where you have to load a bunch of fake "operating systems" (e.g. BIOS, Grub, early stages of init daemon) before you can run the latest version of the "real" OS. And after that, you will still progress mostly by patches.

Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

#53
post #31
post #17

Caveat: this is an anecdote, and your mileage may vary, but I think it illustrates a point of contention in the "two cultures". As a computer science major in the US, I once took a "philosophy of mind" course out of a genuine multi-faceted interest in AI. I was working on undergraduate machine learning research at the time, so I used to pore over the green Norvig/Stewart AI book like a religious text. Unfortunately,…

If physics was taught the same way philosophy is, we'd learn about the four elements before getting to Newtonian mechanics.

This simply obeys the inner logic of each discipline. Philosophy without regard to its history would be myopic, and hard science would be bogged down by historical details. This is not to say that the history of science is not worth learning, simply that it is not useful for science.

Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

#54

As an undergrad philosopher who became self-taught hacker after graduation, I can say with confidence that this is a great synthesis. While contemporary academic philosophy is little more than a circular passing of jargon, there is no doubt that the practice of philosophy has inspired great science. Kant, for example, wrote books about anatomy and other empirical topics prior to this metaphysical work, and made presc…

As a hacker who married a philosopher, I can also say with confidence that this is a great synthesis.

More than just in grand sweeping ways, the fields align in the little ways, too. My wife understands my work more quickly than other non-hackers because she understands the concept of a rigorous artificial language ( she uses formal logic, I use programming languages ).

Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apply?

That's like answering, "How do I write a good book?" with "Start typing." Applying isn't the same thing as "getting in"--it's one small part. Where do you apply to? What matters in the application? Do you apply under the course or do you apply generically? Are "A-levels" a thing that matters? What are people looking for in applicants, or how do you find out?

I applied to Oxford for the 2011 cycle (as an American student), and it is fairly different.

Oxford works under the tutorial system. There's a set number of courses and subjects, and every course is specific and roughly fixed. This is basically what the U.S. system calls a major, but you don't generally study anything outside of major. Every class you take is within your course. For the course I applied to, every week there's: 10 lectures, 5 hours of practicals (like labs), and at least two tutorials (which are really small, 1-3 person discussions with your course tutor, sort of like preceptorials in the U.S.)

The narrowness of your course of study is both an advantage and a disadvantage, and you usually graduate with a BA/BS in 3 years and a masters in 4 (compared to 4 years/2 years in the US)

You apply to a specific course at a specific college:

- When you make your application, you make it for the one course you want to study. This means that you need to know before you apply, there is no declaring of majors and it's generally pretty hard to change courses.

- Oxford is made up of about 40 colleges. Most colleges offer most courses; the courses are the same at every college, but the tutors are different, and the main differences between colleges are in the culture, location, facilities, tradition + formality, size, funding, events, and number of tourists, etc. People make a big fuss about which college is better, but really its just be one that fits you the best.

- You can only apply to one course at one college. Each college has a fixed number of spots, which is generally pretty small (ex. CompSci only has 2-3 at Balliol College). If you're a good candidate but the college you've applied to is full, they will pool you for the other colleges. You can also make an open application, which means you are up for any college, but this means you'll generally end up at a less popular or attractive college and there are debates as to whether it negatively impacts your application

As far as the practical aspects, there's around 3 steps:

1. You make an application through UCAS (a.k.a Common App for U.K.) For Oxford and Cambridge, this is due October 15th. This includes an essay, a recommendation, and your testing scores. As an American student, you send SAT, SAT II, and AP scores instead (or equivalent). A-Levels are sort of like AP classes over here, but you are limited to typically 3 or 4. The recommendation is the same, but also talks about your suitability for your selected course. The essay is pretty short, but is more like a resume + cover letter than the Common App essay. You talk about your interests, extracurriculars, and reasons for selecting your course along with your qualifications for that course.

2. Sometime in late November/December, you'll hear back on whether or not you were shortlisted. This means that you've passed the first round of applications, and you'll be subsequently invited to interview at your college. The rate for shortlisting is typically above 60% but depends on course, and is based on your UCAS app.

3. You'll interview at your college with the tutors for your course in December. Everybody who is shortlisted for that particular course goes on the same few days. In my experience, this was like a behavioral job interview, where they ask you conceptual and practical questions and want you to describe your thought process as you solve the problem (e.g., "how would you calculate the efficiency of a fridge?"-type questions but also the "how comfortable is that chair?"-kind.) Earlier HN discussion about CS interview questions: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2103161

4. If you do well, you'll receive an offer in late December/January which is either conditional or unconditional. Unconditional = congrats, welcome to Oxford, while conditional = we like you, but we'd like to see you get a 5 on your CompSci AP, etc. Here the rate of acceptance is much lower, but again depends on course and college, and is based heavily on your interview.

Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

#58
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like answering, "How do I write a good book?" with "Start typing." Applying isn't the same thing as "getting in"--it's one small part. Where do you apply to? What matters in the application? Do you apply under the course or do you apply generically? Are "A-levels" a thing that matters? What are people looking for in applicants, or how do you find out?

Can't answer all your questions, but as a brit thats been on the brink of applying, I know that all applications go through a system called Ucas ( http://www.ucas.ac.uk/ ). I'm not sure if what we call 'Oxbridge', the big 2 (Oxford & Cambridge) handle their own applications, but I'm pretty sure Ucas is the place you need to start. I know it works (at least for UK students) on a points system, where you get points per…

Oxford goes through UCAS. You'll want to kill yourself when using it.

Only an absurdly low amount of characters (with spaces) are allowed for the personal essay, 1600, 2400, or something, so don't start preparing for a 36-page-long piece of circumspection.

It's really down-putting that there is so little focus on this part, as this is what allows applicants to stand out the most.

Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

#59

As an undergrad philosopher who became self-taught hacker after graduation, I can say with confidence that this is a great synthesis. While contemporary academic philosophy is little more than a circular passing of jargon, there is no doubt that the practice of philosophy has inspired great science. Kant, for example, wrote books about anatomy and other empirical topics prior to this metaphysical work, and made presc…

As another undergrad philosopher turned self-taught hacker I wouldn't see why you'd want Philosophy to come down from the ivory tower. It's hard to imagine what would be of Philosophy today if Kant had spent all his life writing about science and hadn't given us the Critique of Pure Reason.

Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

#60
post #43
post #17

Caveat: this is an anecdote, and your mileage may vary, but I think it illustrates a point of contention in the "two cultures". As a computer science major in the US, I once took a "philosophy of mind" course out of a genuine multi-faceted interest in AI. I was working on undergraduate machine learning research at the time, so I used to pore over the green Norvig/Stewart AI book like a religious text. Unfortunately,…

My mileage did vary. Nobody in modern academic philosophy is a dualist. Facts are nice, but philosophical debates tend to be about things that are fundamentally unprovable, unobservable, etc. I think a lot of people that come from the sciences and other "hard" disciplines are frustrated by how useless their facts are in solving these debates. As someone with degrees in both a hard science and philosophy I'd say that…

Good philosophical debates tend to be about things that are, at least currently, unprovable or unobservable. I think a lot of people that come from the sciences are frustrated by how ignorant many philosophers are that the things they're debating have been observed in repeatable experiments and are no longer suitable fodder for philosophical debate.
Post reply on HN