Harvard 1869 entrance exam • Hacker News Board

Re: Harvard 1869 entrance exam

#131

Post by baby » Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 4:00 PM UTC

BrandonM wrote: post #76

[deleted] wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

I think people are more likely downvoting because "it's PHP also" is utterly incorrect, yet stated as if it's fact. As for the UI, many HN members (including pg?) have expressed the idea that the types of people that get hung up on UI shortcomings are a close approximation to the types of people we wouldn't want as members, anyway.

> the idea that the types of people that get hung up on UI shortcomings are a close approximation to the types of people we wouldn't want as members, anyway.

I'm sorry but you sound like a ...

"we"? You speak for the community? Which I'm part of.

I'm using HN, I love HN, I just know when to recognize a UI is a bad UI. You want me to write a blog post about what is wrong with this UI point per point? I even considered re-doing it myself and submit it here but I don't have the time now.

I might sound aggressive but I really don't like people taking quick conclusions.

Re: Harvard 1869 entrance exam

#132

Post by DrJokepu » Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 4:09 PM UTC

jacobolus wrote: post #32

boredguy8 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhm, what? You couldn't be more off. Traditionally, any liberal arts education would include extensive familiarity with the classics. That means Plato & Dante, at the minimum, whether a BA or BS. You were expected to know Latin and Greek because you were expected to read Latin and Greek. If you were pursuing a BS, then perhaps you would read Euclid's "Elements" instead of Thucydides' "The History of the Peloponnesian…

Dante wrote in (what we now call) Italian.

My understanding is that even for native Italians it's very difficult to understand Dante as it's rather archaic. I'm not sure that being able to read Latin would be of any help.

Re: Harvard 1869 entrance exam

#133

Post by pak » Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 4:12 PM UTC

yvdriess wrote: post #115

pak wrote: post #75

The thing I noticed (sorry, LaTeX fan here) was how well they could typeset math and Latin all the way back in 1869! I have to say I'm impressed, and it makes me a bit sad that most of my college exams looked worse (typographically) than a paper produced over a century ago. Look at those goddamn gorgeously even margins, the ligatures, the kerning of the italics, and the protrusion of the hyphens. Hell, this makes the…

Out of curiosity, how did they typeset those mathematical formulae? Still by carefully tiling little metal blocks or with something more advanced.

I was wondering this myself. I think that they were still tiling little metal blocks, according to this picture: http://www.datadeluge.com/2010/09/how-maths-was-typeset-befo...

Which makes it all the more impressive--each page took considerable craft and attention to detail.

For more information on this, you'd have to get a book like this one--I can't find anything more online: http://www.worldcat.org/title/printing-of-mathematics-aids-f...

Re: Harvard 1869 entrance exam

#134

Post by gzavitz » Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 5:29 PM UTC

mcweaksauce wrote: post #5

This looks way harder than the SATs, or rather any standardized test for college admissions that's in use today.

The students who went to Harvard most likely attended a prep school that taught them for the test.

Re: Harvard 1869 entrance exam

#135

Post by orionhickman » Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 5:57 PM UTC

pflats wrote: post #23

orionhickman wrote: post #13

The math here is surprisingly weak. I'm not sure about where you guys went to school, but this is fifth grade stuff. Sure, there's a lot of memorization, more classics. But wowzers. No math.

You're exaggerating more than a little bit. There's 2 trigonometric proofs, and a number of less than obvious geometric proofs, especially the latter ones pertaining to the circle. The rational equation in #8 on algebra going to involve solving a cubic. And although #7 in arithmetic wouldn't be too hard if you worked entirely in pence, it is still a trickier problem in the days before decimalization. Granted, it's we…

It takes a lot of time, but the calculation was definitely something I had to do in elementary school.

In terms of proofs, they are pretty basic, and I learned that stuff in third grade. I mean, I went in and out of gifted programs, but I think the better question is how long does it take to get people to add integers correctly? Ten years?

I drove myself a lot as a child, and drove enough teachers crazy to have to switch schools about ten times before middle school, but I would be surprised if my experience is no longer strictly atypical for people seeking a world-class education.

Note: I didn't attend an Ivy-League, but I did end up skipping a few grades. All those were after elementary school, so it's likely I was ahead of students at the time -- ahead of average, not ahead of the expectations we should have for first class minds seeking a higher education in an age when this is exceptionally uncommon.

Re: Harvard 1869 entrance exam

#136

Post by BrandonM » Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 6:41 PM UTC

roel_v wrote: post #119

BrandonM wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's exactly like learning scheme. Seriously who fucking cares about scheme? Err... This website is written in Arc (a cousin of Scheme), which itself is implemented in MzScheme. So by extension, you care about scheme, and so does everyone else here.

Right, because all the readers of, say, CNN.com care about whatever language that website is written in?

From that perspective, sure, but the original context was that Scheme is not useful to a programmer except perhaps as an instructional endeavor. I gave evidence contradicting that assertion.

Re: Harvard 1869 entrance exam

#137

Post by the-cakeboss » Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 8:05 PM UTC

slowpoke wrote: post #124

the-cakeboss wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that is what I perceive as the greateset failing of modern math education. More emphasis on memorization rather than a deep understanding.

The thing is, most fields that apply math do not need to "deeply understand" math. I think it is highly arrogant to imply that everyone needs a deep understanding of math to use the tools it provides. For most people which aren't mathematicians, it's perfectly fine to just be able to apply formula. They don't gain anything from a deep understanding of the matter. It's the same as libraries in programming, really. You…

A deep understanding allows one to deal with problems that they have not only been explicitly taught, but those they have also never encountered.

I don't think your example regarding libraries really applies well here. I think a more appropriate example would be knowing how to do a few things with a library without a real ( or any ) understanding of the language its based upon.

I'm no mathematician, nor am I a (professional) programmer for that matter, yet I've seen real benefits going back and really learning some of those topics that were kinda passed over in high school ( so what exactly is sine doing to my numbers? Taylor series? Fourier series? Optimization functions?). Besides, math teaches you to think, memorization doesn't.

Re: Harvard 1869 entrance exam

#138

Post by bowyakka » Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 8:34 PM UTC

kijin wrote: post #86

pak wrote: post #75

The thing I noticed (sorry, LaTeX fan here) was how well they could typeset math and Latin all the way back in 1869! I have to say I'm impressed, and it makes me a bit sad that most of my college exams looked worse (typographically) than a paper produced over a century ago. Look at those goddamn gorgeously even margins, the ligatures, the kerning of the italics, and the protrusion of the hyphens. Hell, this makes the…

It's also interesting that the Greek portion of the exam was handwritten. Perhaps Harvard University Press didn't have movable types for Greek letters at that time? Also, I'm curious how they distributed the handwritten pages to all the applicants (hundreds?) without a Xerox machine.

I found the handwritten section quite illegible.

Re: Harvard 1869 entrance exam

#139

Post by baby » Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 4:28 AM UTC

c4m wrote: post #85

baby wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with you. I did 2 years of latin and one year of greek. I don't feel like it really helped me. I actually found it pretty useless except the syntax/grammar part which can be good to understand new languages easier. It's exactly like learning scheme. Seriously who fucking cares about scheme? I see latin and greek in a Harvard test as a part of distinguishing highly educated kids from the others.

> It's exactly like learning scheme. Seriously who fucking cares about scheme? I'm a CS student at the University of Waterloo, where most early CS courses and many advanced courses here use scheme. There are thousands of students taking CS courses here so in fact there is a generation of grads being produced where a significant number (thousands at least) of them base much of their CS knowledge on scheme. That makes…

What is "CS" ?

Re: Harvard 1869 entrance exam

#140

Post by mixmastamyk » Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 6:59 AM UTC

Looks pretty tough... I haven't studied many of these subjects seriously in years. I think its safe to say a high-acheiving school board member[1] would fail handily.

[1] See today's links.