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

101–110 of 259 posts

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

#101

Post by WalterBright »

progman32 wrote: post #98
WalterBright wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My career advice is usually: 1. draw a circle around the things you enjoy doing 2. draw a circle around the things that pay well 3. draw a circle around the things you're good at The intersection is your best career path. I tried to be a musician. Epic failure. I tried sports. Catastrophic failure. I tried sales. Monumental failure. Persisting in those endeavors as a career is akin to beating my head on a rock. Peopl…

This is a good starting point. I suspect some of the disagreements in this comment section stem from the difference in mindset between people for whom classwork either directly applies to or closely resembles their intended career path, and others for whom a lot of classwork (like my statistics courses) appear simply as a rigid gate to gaining access to their best career. Perhaps a solution to the problem is better s…

I also reject the idea that everyone has the same ability. They don't. Everyone is different.

I find when doing a collaborative project, partnering with someone just like me won't work. I need to find someone with complementary skills. Someone strong in the areas I'm weak in, and vice versa.

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

#102

Post by progman32 »

xupybd wrote: post #21

I remember a lecturer responding to similar feedback from one of my class mates. I'll never forget his reply. "Life is hard. Then you die"

Sometimes, of course, things are artificially hard for reasons that don't stand up to scrutiny. These should not be accepted as inevitable.

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

#103

Post by SilasX »

WalterBright wrote: post #91
haswell wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 "a…

My career advice is usually: 1. draw a circle around the things you enjoy doing 2. draw a circle around the things that pay well 3. draw a circle around the things you're good at The intersection is your best career path. I tried to be a musician. Epic failure. I tried sports. Catastrophic failure. I tried sales. Monumental failure. Persisting in those endeavors as a career is akin to beating my head on a rock. Peopl…

You might add a fourth circle for “what the world needs” (or, a more relaxed standard, “what is not actively harmful/promoting negative sum games”):

https://themindfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Ikigai_do...

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

#104

Post by xyzzyz »

haswell wrote: post #84
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…

> 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 "a…

> That doesn't mean there is no room for "average" researchers.

The "average" researchers are doing disservice themselves, the people funding their research, and actually good researchers.

They are doing disservice themselves, because they would have most likely enjoyed much higher success at some other career or lifestyle. An "average" researcher at age 35 is rather poor, his or her life is rather unstable and precarious, family goals are likely unmet, their scientific output is too mediocre to be a source of pride, and generally they are not very happy. Talk to them and you'll find out.

They are failing the funders, who hoped for quality output, but got worthless crap. Finally, they are failing quality researchers, who more and more eschew academia, and instead enter industry, where they can make >3x times as much money putting less effort into something that's typivally less socially valuable than high quality research.

> This is a binary mindset that ignores the value of the discipline and seems like gatekeeping with no apparent benefit.

The benefit is not wasting lives on worthless activities, and getting more useful research output. I do agree, though, that this is not "apparent", and is often hard to see even in hindsight. If you follow science news, however, you will find many people wondering why science productivity has fallen so much in last 50 years, despite funding being greatly increased in absolute terms. One of the reasons here is that we have many more people doing science that simply shouldn't be involved in it.

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

Sure, but so what? If you cannot keep up with your peers during graduate studies, why should anyone expect you to keep up when you're actually expected to produce valuable research? Some people might not be able to keep up, because e.g. they spend half of their time caring for their disabled child. This is not their fault, but for the institutions and (usually) taxpayers who pay them, why should they care? Why wouldn't they prefer to instead employ someone who'll be able to spend more of their energy on research, and produce more valuable output?

Yeah, it means that some people through their bad luck will be denied their dream career, but, again, my point is that life isn't fair, and the research careers are not prizes to be handed out to people who deserve them in some moral sense: they are public service.

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

#105

Post by abdullahkhalids »

overgrownzygote wrote: post #51
abdullahkhalids wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can give you prof perspective on this. Going between different stages of education, you can't really double or triple the amount of time you study, but you need to change your study and thinking techniques to learn 2x or 3x more [1]. The problem is that if the teachers try to set up too easy a ramp at the start of a new stage, many students refuse to upgrade their study/thinking techniques. They continue to use sub…

Could you elaborate on what those "upgrades" look like? At least for math, I found that by around Calc II I had to start grinding problem sets to do well on exams, and I can't imagine what the next "level" would look like for something like a graduate-level math course.

There is no concise general answer to that question, especially one that covers many fields.

What you are saying is correct - from grade 1 to phd, the best way to learn is to solve problem (sciences) or create art pieces (arts) etc. As you solve problems, there are a few things I can say about how you can upgrade.

* If you are level N, you should only be learning techniques at level N. If you find that you are struggling even a little bit with level N-1 techniques, adopt an immediate no-nonsense attitude about eliminating those confusions. Eg. I have seen far too many students in my second year(!) differential equation struggling with solving with quadratic equations. This means they have to constantly jump between different levels of abstraction (algebra and differential equations) and that makes the question much harder to get right. A few hours of serious review should eliminate any confusion for something that probably took 2 weeks in high school, and probably give them an entire grade bump in differential equations.

* Figure out the meta-techniques at level N and take-off the training wheels. For instance, in graduate level applied math, you are working with a lot of theorems. Something that needs to become part of your study is generating positive and negative examples of each theorem as soon as you encounter it (something the book/prof did for you in undergrad). Nobody is ever going to teach you this at the grad level, as there is very little a grad prof can say to help you learn such meta-skills. But they will hit you with novel theorems in exams (or you will encounter new theorems in research), and you need to have the skill ready.

* Length of each study session and intensity of your study. In high school, a smart student can watch TV and still learn everything for an exam. A undergrad can listen to engaging music while still thinking about their problem on an assignment. A grad student needs the discipline to sit in a quiet room and fully engage with the problem for several hours. A PhD student might need to think about the problem and only the problem from the second they wake up all the way to when they go to sleep. Andrew Wiles might have to lock himself away for 6 years and immerse his whole life and being into solving Fermat's last theorem.

P.S. Not very happy with my answer. I need to chew on this for a few days or weeks.

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

#106

Post by solarmist »

sarchertech wrote: post #60
solarmist wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's another big difference with the US. Honors are about GPA here, nothing else. The whole A-level system was confusing for a long time because of this kind of conflation of terms between the systems.

At many schools in the US there is an honors program that is separate from Latin honors. Such programs generally require you to complete x honors classes. Honors classes are either regular classes with additional components or they’re just harder. For example when I took honors biology long ago, we had an additional lab section where grad students lectured us on their research, and we had extra assignments. So I grad…

Oh yeah, but that’s still different than an extra year. More like high school advanced placement programs. It’s the same material, but at a more rigorous level.

Their system is closer to combined bachelors and master’s program.

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

#107

Post by Galanwe »

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…

> Or, simply by virtue of being more intelligent. Life is not fair, and some people do have it easier than others

I'm really not convinced this is the case when reaching higher level education.

My experience is that "being smart" is an advantage for the first years - say up to bachelor - at which point there is no magic: if you don't work, you won't get your exams.

This is in part because most exams will test not only your raw understanding, but also your practical experience at solving quickly/intuitively all the little pieces leading to the solution. And that can only be achieved in time if you're comfortable with this mental gymnastic, which comes with practice.

> If you are pursuing a research career, 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

Come on... I am a firm believer that exams test skill sets that are only partially correlated to being actually good at job X - even if X is fundamental research.

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

#108

Post by fires10 »

Tostino wrote: post #57
LudwigNagasena wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, if I was a black man and the teacher was white, my essays about slavery would be not about if I learned the material but my trying to work around determining how racist a teacher might be. That would be a valid concern regardless or your or professor’s race. And even if we take into account that people are more biased towards opinions that elevate them, we should also take into account what an average…

That's an interesting take, one that I don't believe is backed up by the data. Show me an economics program in the US pushing Marxist theory throughout.

Or how many programs in general push Marxist theories in the US.

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

#109

Post by xyzzyz »

anthomtb wrote: post #90
xyzzyz wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If you read what I said with even a modicum of good will and charity, you'll observe that I recommended that people who don't keep up drop out on their own initiative, instead of being culled by "my own definition of smart enough". I was offering advice, not demanding some explicit policy be introduced and maintained. If you aren't fit to cut it, you'll drop out at some point anyway, and it's best for you if you drop out sooner rather than later: you'll be much happier to have dropped out at 24 than be denied tenure at 3rd tier school at age 38, failing to build wealth and start a family up till that point.
Post reply on HN