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

Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

comlab.ox.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 177 posts

Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

#141

Post by haliax »

boredguy8 wrote: post #3

How does an American get in to a program like this? Especially if, say hypothetically, they dropped out of school to work.

I'm an American who applied and got in 4 years ago (graduated with an M.Sc. this past October).

The application process is phenomenally simple, especially when compared to that for American universities.

1. You fill out an application for Oxford, containing basic biographical information and some information about the course and college you want to apply for.

2. You fill out a more detailed UCAS application, with your academic history, etc. and write a personal statement

3. You get called for interview either by phone, in person in New York/Vancouver, or in person in Oxford depending on what you can do.

4. You take an exam in your subject of choice.

All of this happens between October and November, and you get a response in late December.

Your choice of College is somewhat important, as it determines the life you'll have at Oxford, so research that in some depth. I went to New, and loved it, and my thesis supervisor was at Magdalen which is just lovely in every conceivable way (he's also a pretty kickass Computer Scientist).

Academically, you'll want a decent SAT score, a good mix of SAT II's and AP's, and a good recommendation from a teacher in a relevant subject area.

Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

#142

Post by dagw »

krakensden wrote: post #136
Confusion wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that physics is being taught the way philosophy is. It's just that with physics, there's clear evidence that previous approaches fell short and there is no need to dwell on them for a long time. However, in introductory classes, you still go into the reasons that previous approaches were wrong. Why do we need to postulate such things as atoms? Knowing why advances were needed makes it much clearer why the c…

I think there's a real difference between teaching wrong-but-very-useful things like Newtonian mechanics and teaching wrong-and-not-at-all-useful things like the four elements.

I found learning about things like caloric theory, and the ways it was dis-proven, in physics rather enlightening since it gives great insight into the evolution of scientific knowledge and the general workings of the scientific method.

Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

#143

Post by haliax »

tomsaffell wrote: post #80
liuhenry wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's doable at Oxford as well, though not terribly common.

Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

#144

Post by _sh »

akeefer wrote: post #102

I did my BA in philosophy (focusing mainly on ethics and political philosophy) and my MS in computer science, and I personally found the mix to work incredibly well, though not in the obvious way many people expect (which tends to be around epistemology and logic on the philosophy side and AI on the computer science side). The point of a philosophy education is not to teach you anything in particular; there's no body…

I also did my BA in philosophy (epistemology and Heidegger) and my MS in computer science. I sell my philosophy experience as an ability to quickly understand and manipulate abstract concepts. I used to be pretty confident with this position, but these days I am less so.

I think the greatest benefit of my undergrad years haunting the philosophy department is that if I'm going to argue a point, I'm damn sure I'll have satisfied myself with my position, and have ready refutations for all counter-arguments I can think of. I don't comment much on web sites because the rigour of this far exceeds the two cents my opinion is worth.

My advice for anyone contemplating philosophy is this: learn to be good with analogies. Explaining abstract concepts is difficult and a good analogy (and here I mean a genuinely fitting one) goes a long, long way. If you spend a lot of time just thinking about stuff anyway, studying philosophy really gives you a lot of quite interesting stuff to think about: what is truth? Can we know something without expressing knowledge of it? If so, how can I know that you know something without your expressing it? A heady trapdoor indeed.

Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

#145

Post by mbateman »

gwern wrote: post #139
mbateman wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism? Accept or lean toward: physicalism 526 / 931 (56.4%) Accept or lean toward: non-physicalism 252 / 931 (27%) Other 153 / 931 (16.4%) Not sure how you can pick "other" from those options, but there you have it. (Physicalism implies non-dualism. Non-physicalism does not imply dualism.)

> Physicalism implies non-dualism. Non-physicalism does not imply dualism. Since they didn't ask about dualism directly, nor, as far as I can tell, any position that logically entails dualism, obviously there is no deductive implication here. I'm making a probabilistic point - non-physicalism is heavily represented (more than a quarter) among the group Samd specified, and thus there are pretty good odds that at least…

Yes lots of them do (e.g. Chalmers), but most of them don't by a fair margin.

Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

#146

Post by siganakis »

krakensden wrote: post #136
Confusion wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that physics is being taught the way philosophy is. It's just that with physics, there's clear evidence that previous approaches fell short and there is no need to dwell on them for a long time. However, in introductory classes, you still go into the reasons that previous approaches were wrong. Why do we need to postulate such things as atoms? Knowing why advances were needed makes it much clearer why the c…

I think there's a real difference between teaching wrong-but-very-useful things like Newtonian mechanics and teaching wrong-and-not-at-all-useful things like the four elements.

Learning about the four elements is useful if one approaches it from the perspective of learning about how such models are built.

Its not always about the outcome, but rather the process of reasoning.

Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

#147

Post by ig1 »

JonnieCache wrote: post #72
liuhenry wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cambridge Maths has been known to give EE offers (which is almost a conditional; it's basically means you can get the lowest pass grade possible at A-Levels and they'll still take you). Essentially it's a way to get students they really want to make them their first choice.

Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

#148

Post by randallsquared »

gwern wrote: post #137
randallsquared wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that "libertarianism" here refers to an argument about free will, not political libertarianism.

? I know perfectly well what libertarianism refers to here, that's why I mentioned it in the context of a philosophy of mind discussion.

Since you're the one who used it, I assumed you knew what it means. :)

I was confused, because (not having taken any philosophy classes since 1990) I didn't recognize the term as anything but political. I thought other people might similarly be confused if they weren't familiar with the philosophical use of "libertarian".

Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

#149

Post by jedc »

swombat wrote: post #23
chrisaycock wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are several Oxonians on HN from the looks of it. I read for my DPhil in Computing, as did @cperciva.

There certainly are. The Oxbridge mafia is everywhere shifty eyes . I'm pretty sure there's at least a few dozen moderately active HN users from Oxford (I'm one).

And there are a number of Cambridge grads here, too. (And quite a few that are YC founders!)

Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

#150

Post by poet »

Poleris wrote: post #70
_delirium wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can manage to do something like that as a CS PhD if you have the right advisor, though it's harder to pull off than it used to be as CS has gotten much more obsessed about being a rigorous science. It especially used to be the case in AI, and in some corners still is, that a good thesis makes conceptual and philosophical advances in analyzing problems and domains (or proposing new problems), which are "validated"…

I would deeply appreciate advice from you or anyone who has thoughts. I did a double major in CS and Business during my undergrad at CMU ('09) and focused very much on practical learning (read: programming/web apps) and corporate/startup endeavors. However, I was always drawn towards studying the relationship between minds and machines on my own time. Mostly triggered from Godel's theorem, reading GEB/AI books, and s…

A PhD is a formal license to do research and it marks the start (not the end) of a lifetime of research. You need such a license if you plan to work at a company with a rigid corporate ladder or in academia.

The only additional reason to get a PhD besides the license is an increased probability of being in contact with peers who you can collaborate with. People often undervalue this but empirically it's pretty clear what the benefits of having at least one research collaborator are.

If you actually do decide to go for a PhD, you're going to need at least one strong recommendation that speaks to your research ability if you want to get into a top program. Your undergrad institution and GPA put you in the running to be sure, but admissions committees are looking for evidence that you can perform research. Recommendations that say "this kid got an A in my class and is a good student" don't really have an impact on your application either way.

Post reply on HN