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

In the past, I've had students call my problem sets “emotionally trying”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 259 posts

Re: In the past, I've had students call my problem sets “emotionally trying”

#81

Post by jrm4 »

xyzzyz wrote: post #63
deskamess wrote: post #42

Pretty much most senior level/grad algorithm classes are like this. They introduce a framework for solution and then give you about 2-3 example lecture problems that they walk you through. 2-3 weeks after being introduced to 5/6 frameworks its Exam day. You are given unique word problems that, in the eyes of someone experienced like a prof or PhD student, is trivial. But you are struggling with 1 week of homework exp…

> But there are smart people who get all this stuff "easily" (previous practice, exposure). Or, simply by virtue of being more intelligent. Life is not fair, and some people do have it easier than others, without having to pay for it with extra study time. If you are pursuing a research career, and you observe other students putting similar amounts of effort, but obtaining much better results, understanding things mo…

Genuine question.

Does this kind of "weeding out" actually have any value in the real world, or is it just gatekeeping slash carnival-prizes?

Re: In the past, I've had students call my problem sets “emotionally trying”

#82

Post by eyelidlessness »

chitowneats wrote: post #70
progman32 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or a better teacher. The limiting factor isn't necessarily the student.

So we should ensure equal opportunity to ice-skating lessons, in perpetuity, for all humans? Just in case?

Yeah dawg! That sounds like basic decency that doesn’t cost much to anyone who’d be harmed. Also it’s a general principle of meritocracy. You can’t merit anything without access to merit it!

Re: In the past, I've had students call my problem sets “emotionally trying”

#83

Post by feet »

p1necone wrote: post #72

The "if you get 3/5 you're doing fine" thing only works if you actually give As for 3/5 answers. Otherwise no amount of placation is going to make students ignore reality.

3/5 is 60% which is barely not failing and in classes for the major wouldn't even get you credit

Re: In the past, I've had students call my problem sets “emotionally trying”

#84

Post by haswell »

xyzzyz wrote: post #63
deskamess wrote: post #42

Pretty much most senior level/grad algorithm classes are like this. They introduce a framework for solution and then give you about 2-3 example lecture problems that they walk you through. 2-3 weeks after being introduced to 5/6 frameworks its Exam day. You are given unique word problems that, in the eyes of someone experienced like a prof or PhD student, is trivial. But you are struggling with 1 week of homework exp…

> But there are smart people who get all this stuff "easily" (previous practice, exposure). Or, simply by virtue of being more intelligent. Life is not fair, and some people do have it easier than others, without having to pay for it with extra study time. If you are pursuing a research career, and you observe other students putting similar amounts of effort, but obtaining much better results, understanding things mo…

> and you observe other students putting similar amounts of effort, but obtaining much better results, understanding things more quickly and getting better ideas, you should probably just drop out

I'm sorry, but even if this is true under some circumstances, this seems like terrible general advice, and only matters if your only goal is to reach the top echelons of your field. That doesn't mean there is no room for "average" researchers. This is a binary mindset that ignores the value of the discipline and seems like gatekeeping with no apparent benefit.

And struggling relative to your peers can happen for many reasons unrelated to core intelligence.

Re: In the past, I've had students call my problem sets “emotionally trying”

#85

Post by chitowneats »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #82
chitowneats wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we should ensure equal opportunity to ice-skating lessons, in perpetuity, for all humans? Just in case?

Yeah dawg! That sounds like basic decency that doesn’t cost much to anyone who’d be harmed. Also it’s a general principle of meritocracy. You can’t merit anything without access to merit it!

LMFAO do you have any idea how much it costs to operate an ice-skating rink? How about in a place like Los Angeles, California? Apparently not.

Or you're trolling me. In that case, well done friend.

Re: In the past, I've had students call my problem sets “emotionally trying”

#86

Post by haswell »

chitowneats wrote: post #67
xyzzyz wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But there are smart people who get all this stuff "easily" (previous practice, exposure). Or, simply by virtue of being more intelligent. Life is not fair, and some people do have it easier than others, without having to pay for it with extra study time. If you are pursuing a research career, and you observe other students putting similar amounts of effort, but obtaining much better results, understanding things mo…

Same thing with passing a football or nailing a technical ice skating routine. You can either do it, or you can't. Practice helps but is not a panacea, unfortunately. Find another occupation, friend. You are owed nothing.

Even the NFL needs backup quarterbacks. There are examples in almost every profession that highlight the value of a spectrum of capability.

Re: In the past, I've had students call my problem sets “emotionally trying”

#87

Post by xyzzyz »

jrm4 wrote: post #81
xyzzyz wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But there are smart people who get all this stuff "easily" (previous practice, exposure). Or, simply by virtue of being more intelligent. Life is not fair, and some people do have it easier than others, without having to pay for it with extra study time. If you are pursuing a research career, and you observe other students putting similar amounts of effort, but obtaining much better results, understanding things mo…

Genuine question. Does this kind of "weeding out" actually have any value in the real world, or is it just gatekeeping slash carnival-prizes?

Yes, of course. Some people will produce valuable research, and others will produce worthless papers nobody will ever read. The society is funding the entire activity, so it has vested interest in ensuring that as much money goes towards the former as possible, and as little as possible towards the latter.

This is to me so obvious, that framing this in terms of “carnival prize” is literally incomprehensible. Research careers are not prizes or sinecures, they are positions of trust and responsibility. Scientists are paid for the value they are expected to produce, and if they produce less value than someone else would have in their position, they shouldn’t be there in the first place.

Re: In the past, I've had students call my problem sets “emotionally trying”

#88

Post by [deleted] »

haswell wrote: post #86
chitowneats wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same thing with passing a football or nailing a technical ice skating routine. You can either do it, or you can't. Practice helps but is not a panacea, unfortunately. Find another occupation, friend. You are owed nothing.

Even the NFL needs backup quarterbacks. There are examples in almost every profession that highlight the value of a spectrum of capability.

[deleted]

Re: In the past, I've had students call my problem sets “emotionally trying”

#89

Post by magneticnorth »

feet wrote: post #83
p1necone wrote: post #72

The "if you get 3/5 you're doing fine" thing only works if you actually give As for 3/5 answers. Otherwise no amount of placation is going to make students ignore reality.

3/5 is 60% which is barely not failing and in classes for the major wouldn't even get you credit

Classes like this would be graded "on a curve".

In a 2nd-year PhD level theory class I'd assume the default grade is an A. The point of classes at that level is to provide background and skills for research, and the teachers trust the students to be doing the work to get what they need out of a class. Some students will really want to master the material, some will only feel they need some familiarity, and the test as to whether they got what they need will come in their PhD research over the next few years, not in an exam.

In a course with "real" grades, it still may well be that 60% is an A; I've had classes like that. In that case, it's just divided so that the top 20% get an A, next 30% get a B, and so on.

Re: In the past, I've had students call my problem sets “emotionally trying”

#90

Post by anthomtb »

xyzzyz wrote: post #87
jrm4 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question. Does this kind of "weeding out" actually have any value in the real world, or is it just gatekeeping slash carnival-prizes?

Yes, of course. Some people will produce valuable research, and others will produce worthless papers nobody will ever read. The society is funding the entire activity, so it has vested interest in ensuring that as much money goes towards the former as possible, and as little as possible towards the latter. This is to me so obvious, that framing this in terms of “carnival prize” is literally incomprehensible. Research…

> Research careers are not prizes or sinecures, they are positions of trust and responsibility. Scientists are paid for the value they are expected to produce, and if they produce less value than someone else would have in their position, they shouldn’t be there in the first place.

And getting into these positions of trust and responsibility should be based on your own definition of "smart enough", correct?

Post reply on HN