This sounds great. My favorite semester during college (majored in comp sci / engineering) was when I took a philosophy course along with my regular CS and math courses.
Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy
71–80 of 177 posts
Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy
#72Earlier 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?
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 wee…
A very comprehensive post. The only thing to add is that unconditional offers to oxbridge must be very rare.
Universities only give unconditional offers when you are already overqualified for the course at step 1. Even mid-range unis will rarely give an unconditional offer to someone who is still taking their exams. I imagine oxford or cambridge doing so is pretty much unheard of.
Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy
#73I recently completed my M.Sc in Software Engineering at the University of Oxford (Soft Eng is closely affiliated with ComLab, but is a slightly separate department) and I can only speak well of the program, its lecturers, and its resources. This looks like a great program; if I were 18 again I might consider going to Oxford for this undergrad degree.
There are several Oxonians on HN from the looks of it. I read for my DPhil in Computing, as did @cperciva.
Come by during the open days for the Computer Science & Philosophy programme. Chances are I'll be arranging puzzle-hunts.
Edit: realised you're probably not here anymore.
Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy
#74I was reminded of the following excerpt in Howard Marks' book "Mr. Nice", who wanted to study Philosophy of Science in Oxford University many decades ago:
"There was a problem with respect to how my diploma course would be financed. In those days there were two main grant-giving bodies funding postgraduate study: the Department of Education and the Science Research Council. The former limited its grants to graduates in non-scientific subjects while the latter would only fund students undertaking research degrees in the pure sciences. These regulations precluded my Philosophy of Science studies being funded by either body."
Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
"These two fields have been begging to merge for several years now." You could say this about almost every discipline, except maybe for religious studies and a couple other niche fields. Ignoring the epistemology is easily one of the biggest problems with academia today, to the point where 'higher education' generally isn't even much worth doing. There is a pervasive attitude on HN and elsewhere that we don't need ep…
No, in fact you couldn't say that about every discipline. There is a lot of two-way synergies between philosophy and mathematics, more so in days gone by, less so now. Many modern philosophers had a leg in both camps. Think Descartes, Leibniz ... Very recent philosophers have tended to stick to mathematical logic. Think Russell, Frege, the early Wittgenstein, Kripke. Now where is mathematical logic used an awful lot?…
"You could absolutely not say this about any two disciples taken at random."
I was talking about philosophy and other disciplines, not two disciplines taken at random.
With my statement about epistemology, I just meant that most people (incorrectly) believe things like "penicillin works, therefore the monoamine hypothesis must be correct." Of course they don't actually say this, but that's how their thinking works. Or similarly, "iPods get better every year, therefore god does not exist."
And I'm not trying to make any claims about the validity of depression or religion (at least here), rather I'm just trying to point out how broken most people's thinking is.
Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Am I the only one who enjoyed this approach? I was taught atomic theory chronologically starting with the plum pudding model, then rutherford's model, then Bohr's model and finally the quantum models. At each stage, the focus was on: * What observations led the scientists in question to propose the model? e.g. in Rutherford's case, there was an extensive discussion on the gold-foil experiment, the observations he saw…
That would have been great. But, like I said, each model was presented as the "end", and I felt like I had to un-learn things after every section.
Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The personal essay is the part where applicants stand out the most? I sure don't hope so...I am tired of reading all these I-almost-cured-cancer-as-a-kid type essays that people in the US seem to submit for the undergraduate application. Give me a break, seriously.
The single most important part of the Oxbridge application process is the interview. That's where you get to sit down with two professors that take you through challenging math problems (in case of Computer Science) and you are supposed to take them through your thinking process. Now, _that_ is where you can stand out. That's more like it.
Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy
#78Caveat: 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,…
Paul Graham wrote an essay a few years ago about his very frustration with this: http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html
As someone with a degree in philosophy and mathematics but who has earned his bread & butter doing QA, coding, network and sys admin I feel that I have a lot of inside knowledge that I can bring to this debate.
I could fill an essay myself in response to Paul's post but I'll keep it brief so as not to bore anyone.
This: "Philosophy doesn't really have a subject matter in the way math or history or most other university subjects do. There is no core of knowledge one must master. The closest you come to that is a knowledge of what various individual philosophers have said about different topics over the years. Few were sufficiently correct that people have forgotten who discovered what they discovered."
The subject matter of philosophy is the world of abstract ideas. Some call them universals, they are to be contrasted with cold hard facts, stuff we can reason scientifically about. It is not that "few were sufficiently correct" but rather (as Kant for one pointed out) that metaphysical claims like the famous "Gods exists" or the "universe is infinite" can be asserted to be true while at the same time there opposite can be asserted to be true! "God does not exist". "The universe is finite". Now, does that make everyone wrong? No, of course not, a wiser person just digs deeper.
And this: "But did studying logic teach me the importance of thinking this way, or make me any better at it? I don't know."
The thing is, as I've come to realize (from thinking about it long and hard!) is that logic is not a part of philosophy. Yes they go hand-in-hand but logic is really a cross-disciplinary tool with applications in many disciplines, mathematics, computer science, philosophy and so on. Just because it has traditionally been very closely associated with philosophy can mislead us into thinking that logic is part of philosophy. And so to blame philosophy because learning logic didn't benefit you in the way you thought it would is a category error at the very least in my opinion.
I'll stop here but I have to say, I would love if Paul were a bit more humble and a bit less arrogant and realize that there's a reason philosophy is so difficult. It's not because it's all smoke and mirrors and sophistry - though there is some of that, and you need the mental tools to sort the wheat from the chaff. You know Richard Rorty has said that philosophy is merely a branch of literature! And he was one of the leading philosophical figures of the last century! Think about that for a moment...
Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are several Oxonians on HN from the looks of it. I read for my DPhil in Computing, as did @cperciva.
Come by during the open days for the Computer Science & Philosophy programme. Chances are I'll be arranging puzzle-hunts. Edit: realised you're probably not here anymore.
I went back for Alumni Weekend in September. I didn't stop by ComLab since I was busy with the port collection at Christ Church. :D
Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy
#80Earlier 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?
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 wee…
>it's generally pretty hard to change courses.
I cant speak of Oxford, but I knew several people at Cambridge who changed subjects (sometimes more than once). It's not trivial, but if you want it enough then there isn't much to stop you. (Once you are there then the college's MO is to support your academic success, whatever path it takes). Take-away: don't be put-off applying by this - if you need to change, you can.