Live data from Hacker News

Algorithms by Jeff Erickson

jeffe.cs.illinois.edu

151–160 of 162 posts

Re: Algorithms by Jeff Erickson

#151
post #9

Here's a previous post on HN with lots of discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18805624

I'm happy to see that the top comment is about his 25% credit for I Don't Know. That willingness to fold with grace is something that gets lost with standardized testing. IIRC, he also announced that the top 5% of the class would be automatic (and the only) A+ grades, and the bottom 5% would be automatic F grades. But don't worry, there would inevitably be more F's than that, naturally, so nobody was going to get scr…

> I'm happy to see that the top comment is about his 25% credit for I Don't Know. That willingness to fold with grace is something that gets lost with standardized testing

I'm afraid I'm going to disappoint you. After using the "I don't know = 25%" policy for fifteen years, I was finally convinced to abandon it. Not because of pressure from administration, but rather from an honest evaluation of actual student behavior.

The IDK policy was meant to reward self-awareness, but in practice it seems to actually punish lack of confidence. In particular, female students answered IDK more often than male students with similar scores on questions that they both answered in full. (I suspect the same is true of international and BIPOC students, but my rosters don't reveal which students those are.)

I've seen lots of students who lacked confidence get trapped in mind games, wasting time worrying about (and sometimes asking me or the TAs) whether their solution was worth more or less than IDK, instead of putting forward their honest best effort. In particular, I've seen students who were already struggling, who might have scored 30-50% on an exam question, "play it safe" by answering IDK instead, and then after seeing the solution say "I did know that!"

The last time I taught algorithms, five students (out of 300) took the three-hour final exam in fifteen minutes or less. They walked in, sat down, got their exam booklets, wrote their name on the first page, wrote IDK on every other page, handed in the exam and walked out. None of those students passed.

I expect the next time I teach algorithms, without the IDK policy, exam averages will be slightly HIGHER, not lower. (I'd have data already, but the pandemic clouds everything.) I saw a similar score increase years ago when I stopped dropping the lowest problem score on each exam.

> IIRC, he also announced that the top 5% of the class would be automatic (and the only) A+ grades, and the bottom 5% would be automatic F grades.

Oh god no. I've never used grade quotas; that's just evil. My usual policy is that students with course averages above 95% automatically get an A+, students with course averages below 40% automatically get an F, and intermediate grade cutoffs are determined by score distributions that ignore those outliers. (I plan to move to an absolute grading scale the next time I teach the class.) In practice, that usually means about 4-6% A+s and 2-3% Fs, but I don't set those percentages in advance.

Re: Algorithms by Jeff Erickson

#152

Can't find the exact policy reference, but I remember that if you don't understand Jeff's problems(in HW or exams), you could write "I don't know" and get 25% of the grades for the problems not exact reference towards the policy: "In the table below, green scores are above 95% and red scores are below 25% (equivalent to "I don't know" on every page); those outliers were excluded when computing statistics and cutoffs.…

Not any more; see my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26096052

Re: Algorithms by Jeff Erickson

#153

it's a bit of a shame that the comments here have descended into a quibble over the availability of the solutions to the questions for each of the sections. All the while overlooking just how excellent the source material is written and also overlooking the fact that this is an entire textbook on college level algorithms that is being gifted away for free instead of locked behind a 150-200 dollar paywall at the books…

Thanks for the kind feedback!

Re: Algorithms by Jeff Erickson

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can still get value from a book that doesn’t give you all the answers. You can even get more value. Christ the answers have been all solved in papers, in literature, it’s all out there in small baby words what to do. But the whole damn point of math is learning to do it on your own. It’s like bitching that an art textbook doesn’t include draw by numbers in the back pages. “I just want to know I’m doing it right“…

> And I love that the problems remain difficult and meaningful And there it is, your argument comes down to gatekeeping. If all the problems have been publicly solved, as you said, then what's the harm of having a solutions guide? The cheaters can already find what they're looking for and it helps the self-learners who are actually trying to learn.

> And there it is, your argument comes down to gatekeeping

Bullshit. If you want to play basketball in the NBA, you have to practice your ass off to develop the necessary skills. If you want to be a successful car mechanic, you have to practice your ass off to develop the necessary skills. If you want to be a successful cook, you have to practice your ass off to develop the necessary skills.

The homework is a vehicle for practice. Effective practice is real work. Real work is hard. Therefore, the homework must be hard.

Re: Algorithms by Jeff Erickson

#155
post #23

> Algorithms by Jeff Erickson (Free algorithms textbook) Please, change title to: "Algorithms by Jeff Erickson, free book (2019)"

Thanks, I've changed the title. But I'm confused by the page saying "1st edition (2019)" when there are HN threads going back at least to 2015: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10661376

The book evolved from lecture notes that I've been publicly posting since at least 2005.

Re: Algorithms by Jeff Erickson

#156
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, you don't have to use this book. There are hundreds of books on algorithms, many of which have solutions for people who need them. Getting all pissy with the author because he doesn't provide them is sad and not neccessary.

> Getting all pissy with the author because he doesn't provide them is sad and not neccessary. The only person who seems to be getting “pissy” is you. What is the point of making a comment like “if you don’t like it, leave?”. People who say this seem to think they’re some pithy genius but it’s not a comment that advances the conversation at all. “Hey I have some feedback ...” “I don’t accept feedback. Take it or leav…

> People who say this seem to think they’re some pithy genius but it’s not a comment that advances the conversation at all.

Does the conversation really need to be advanced? The author has chosen to not include answers and gave an extremely valid reason for choosing not to and HN'ers are, indeed, getting pissy saying the author should do the "right thing" and provide the answers.

No. Just no. The "right thing" is to accept that the author is choosing not to and move on if you need answers. The author doesn't owe anyone answers.

Re: Algorithms by Jeff Erickson

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm happy to see that the top comment is about his 25% credit for I Don't Know. That willingness to fold with grace is something that gets lost with standardized testing. IIRC, he also announced that the top 5% of the class would be automatic (and the only) A+ grades, and the bottom 5% would be automatic F grades. But don't worry, there would inevitably be more F's than that, naturally, so nobody was going to get scr…

> I'm happy to see that the top comment is about his 25% credit for I Don't Know. That willingness to fold with grace is something that gets lost with standardized testing I'm afraid I'm going to disappoint you. After using the "I don't know = 25%" policy for fifteen years, I was finally convinced to abandon it. Not because of pressure from administration, but rather from an honest evaluation of actual student behavi…

Thanks for taking the time to reply to everyone on this thread. Especially to correct my memory on grading, either I am misremembering the course or the policy.

The impact of IDK is an interesting example of unintentional bias. Do you think it is worthwhile publishing or sharing with the academic world at-large? Seems that if there are clear trends, it could be used as a guide for grading policy elsewhere.

Re: Algorithms by Jeff Erickson

#158
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Getting all pissy with the author because he doesn't provide them is sad and not neccessary. The only person who seems to be getting “pissy” is you. What is the point of making a comment like “if you don’t like it, leave?”. People who say this seem to think they’re some pithy genius but it’s not a comment that advances the conversation at all. “Hey I have some feedback ...” “I don’t accept feedback. Take it or leav…

> People who say this seem to think they’re some pithy genius but it’s not a comment that advances the conversation at all. Does the conversation really need to be advanced? The author has chosen to not include answers and gave an extremely valid reason for choosing not to and HN'ers are, indeed, getting pissy saying the author should do the "right thing" and provide the answers. No. Just no. The "right thing" is to…

Nobody in this chain mentioned anything about making the author change his decision.

The discussion is about whether his decision may be criticized. Which it absolutely can be.

Again, saying, “if you don’t like it, leave” is not the genius rejoinder you seem to think it is. It doesn’t add anything to the discussion.

I could flip this back at you and say “if you don’t like this discussion, leave”. I’m not doing that because I choose to engage in a good faith discourse.

Re: Algorithms by Jeff Erickson

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the ideal would be something like an autograder, rather than a solution. There used to be a Coursera class from Princeton that relied on Sedgewick and Wayne algorithms book, and the class was very, very good. Then we must hope people don't publish solutions on github!

> I think the ideal would be something like an autograder, rather than a solution Me too! But I don't know how to write a useful auto-grader for free-form English text and pseudocode, and neither does anyone else. Even a pedagogically useful auto-grader for actual _code_ — one that doesn't just check a bunch of test cases, but diagnoses the code to identify design errors and offers specific feedback for improvement —…

IIRC the Coursera class autograder used actual code, and offered _some_ design improvement suggestions - about code correctness, edge cases, speed. Of course, it couldn't point out other design flaws.

I think that the Java used in that class was a good approach. By limiting the packages you could use, they prevented leveraging builtin facilities (e.g. Java collections) and forced people to write their own data structures.

Re: Algorithms by Jeff Erickson

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was asked multiple times for solutions to my self-pub ebooks that I relented. You could always publish the solutions in a separate paid ebook. If people want to be able to check their own answers, or they want to use the exercises to set homework and make it easier to grade, they might be willing to pay you for them.

> they might be willing to pay you for them. I think we have some differences of opinion about the point of students not having the solutions. (Hint: Some people arent as greedy as you)

Personal attacks will get you banned here. We've had to warn you about this before. No more of this, please.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Post reply on HN