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

Mastering Linear Algebra in 10 Days: Astounding Experiments in Ultra-Learning

calnewport.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 79 posts

Re: Mastering Linear Algebra in 10 Days: Astounding Experiments in Ultra-Learning

#41

Post by xyzzyz »

Evbn wrote: post #38
xyzzyz wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

University shouldn't be time capped or subject load restricted - people should be allowed to do as many as they wish I'm particularly happy that Math and CS department in my university (University of Warsaw) was precisely like this. It let me take 2-3 times the usual course load, which kept me motivated, prevented from getting bored, and let me learn a lot more things than I would have learned if I followed the stand…

Why not just skip some lower level courses, and catch up using your free time?

What do you mean by skip? You cannot test out of the lower level courses here, though you can just skip lectures and classes, do the required projects/homeworks and show up only on exam, which is what I usually did with easy courses or the ones I didn't care about. Frequently I couldn't even attend these, because other more advanced/difficult courses I took were at the same time.

Re: Mastering Linear Algebra in 10 Days: Astounding Experiments in Ultra-Learning

#42

Post by SeanDav »

One of the achievements I am most proud of was doing a full year's university course in computer science in 6 weeks and passing. It was pure cramming though and very hard work. I got into a routine of full-on study from 9am-1am with short breaks every hour or so. 16 hours a day for 6 weeks.

Not something I would ever want to repeat and was first year level courses. Basically I was doing a correspondence 3 year degree while working full time. I got heavily involved in my work and decided that I wouldn't continue studying. Then with about 4 weeks to go to the 2 week final exams period I thought, what the heck let's give it a shot...

Amazing what focus and hard work can achieve!

Re: Mastering Linear Algebra in 10 Days: Astounding Experiments in Ultra-Learning

#43

Post by oz »

Ignoring the semantic controversy on 'mastery' and 'expertise', here's my story.

I dropped out of a CS program after first year. I was the classic case of a student who had always been told he was brilliant, so I never worked very hard. In high school, I coasted along simply on a fantastic memory, often 'studying' for the final exams that determine graduation the night before. I never learned how to learn.

Going to college was like being thrown into a bath of cold water. I had never been particularly conscientious, so being in an environment where I was now responsible for my learning was new to me. I skipped lectures, forgot homework that was due, turned in coursework late; the usual suspects. On raw talent though, I qualified for 2nd year, only failing Pre-Calculus. (I skipped the classes and tried to learn math from 1st principles. Ugh...)

I got a summer job at a small telecom startup. By time 2nd year rolled around, my student loan was denied, so I dropped out. I'd always hated school, so I didn't care. I never applied for leave of absence, nothing. I just didn't show up in September. That was 2006.

I was 20 then. I'm 26 now. I've had a lot of time (6 years!) to reflect on why I did so poorly despite being talented (not being conceited; my lecturers in 1st year said as much). There are quite a few reasons; but the major one is that I didn't know how to learn. So if something didn't immediately click, I'd give up in frustration, and decry the teacher as an idiot who couldn't teach (oftentimes true; but irrelevant). I didn't know there was another way.

Being around HN and places like LessWrong which exposes you to so many thought-leaders brought about some interesting side-effects, which culminated earlier this year. Upon reading an article on LW entitled "Humans are not automatically strategic", which was a reply to a Sebastian Marshall article "A failure to evaluate return on time fallacy", I had an epiphany that being systematic about things was the route to accomplishing great things. "Rationalists should win", the LW meme goes, and it's correct. I came to realize that for every goal, there exists an efficient path to achieve it. My task was to find that path, and execute ruthlessly upon it.

Since then I've made leaps and bounds in my personal development. I still slack off sometimes, but I won't fall into my old perfectionist way of thinking that I'm a failure. It's better to be 80% there than 0%.

I made the decision a few weeks ago to get my CS degree, albeit at a different, larger university. Since then, I've been devouring articles like this one. I recently bought two of Cal's books and wanna sometimes slap myself when I realize that if I had had this knowledge and the discipline to implement it 6 years ago, my life would be so much better. But c'est la vie. These articles on meta-learning are priceless.

So if you're in school now, or are going soon, pay attention to articles like these, Here are a few gems I've dug up recently: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3427762

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=818157

http://www.quora.com/The-College-and-University-Experience/H...

http://www.quora.com/Harvard-College/What-are-the-best-Harva...

http://www.quora.com/How-do-top-students-study

Thanks to knowledge like this from Cal Newport and others, I'm going back to college full-time as someone with an above-average cognitive toolset, and a myriad of experiences that will suit me. I'm much more sociable, have a great eye for design having moonlighted as a freelancer some years back, and will now know how to engage my lecturers on an adult level rather than the kid I was 6 years ago. I'm going for a 4.3 GPA. I'm tempted to say wish me luck, but with tools like these, I'll make my own luck.

This rationalist will win.

PS If y'all have more articles like this, let me know. If you wanna chat privately, email's in profile.

EDIT: formatting; clarity

Re: Mastering Linear Algebra in 10 Days: Astounding Experiments in Ultra-Learning

#44

Post by mangostache2 »

47uF wrote: post #20
tangue wrote: post #6

This is written from a student perspective, where "mastering" means passing the exam. I'll stick with Norvig's 10 000 hours.

Agreed. I had an interesting experience recently when I decided to "relearn" math. I had taken calculus courses in high school and university, and aced all the exams. But when I eventually came back to calculus out of personal interest, I realized that I didn't know what a derivative was! I didn't know what a limit was! How did I pass those classes? And if someone who got the highest marks didn't learn anything, what…

“Nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.” -- Oscar Wilde

What materials did you consult when relearning math?

Re: Mastering Linear Algebra in 10 Days: Astounding Experiments in Ultra-Learning

#45

Post by ArbitraryLimits »

oz wrote: post #43

Ignoring the semantic controversy on 'mastery' and 'expertise', here's my story. I dropped out of a CS program after first year. I was the classic case of a student who had always been told he was brilliant, so I never worked very hard. In high school, I coasted along simply on a fantastic memory, often 'studying' for the final exams that determine graduation the night before. I never learned how to learn. Going to c…

> I didn't know how to learn.

I'm not trolling here, but don't you think it's more accurate to say you didn't know how to work?

Re: Mastering Linear Algebra in 10 Days: Astounding Experiments in Ultra-Learning

#46

Post by infinitesimal »

It's funny because the students at the competitive schools work their ass off for the entire semester/ quarter to learn this material. If you use the weakest possible definition for "learn," then you can claim you have learned anything you want. But that doesn't mean your skill will be comparable to someone who spent 3-5 months practicing non-stop.

Re: Mastering Linear Algebra in 10 Days: Astounding Experiments in Ultra-Learning

#47

Post by oz »

ArbitraryLimits wrote: post #45
oz wrote: post #43

Ignoring the semantic controversy on 'mastery' and 'expertise', here's my story. I dropped out of a CS program after first year. I was the classic case of a student who had always been told he was brilliant, so I never worked very hard. In high school, I coasted along simply on a fantastic memory, often 'studying' for the final exams that determine graduation the night before. I never learned how to learn. Going to c…

> I didn't know how to learn. I'm not trolling here, but don't you think it's more accurate to say you didn't know how to work?

Perhaps...

Re: Mastering Linear Algebra in 10 Days: Astounding Experiments in Ultra-Learning

#48

Post by nessus42 »

stephencanon wrote: post #19
dalke wrote: post #3

There was effectively nothing about linear algebra on that page. After some link followings, it appears that http://www.scotthyoung.com/mit/1806-exam.pdf is the exam which the student was happy with (having done worse on the first version). The final score appears to be 66 out of 100. Based on that test, I think the title is link-bait as it isn't "mastering linear algebra" but "passing an introductory algebra course.…

I am quite confused looking at that final; it seems incredibly basic for even an introductory course at MIT (that might have been a midterm when I was the graduate instructor for linear algebra at Berkeley).

Yes, that is strange. It looks more like the mid-term of the linear algebra class that I took at MIT: i.e., 18.700. And I have to say that 18.700 was one of the easiest classes that I ever took at MIT.

It's kind of a bummer that they gave me a C, in it though. I found it so easy that I never bothered to do the homework and just showed up for the exams and got A's on them all. For non-lab classes at MIT, they'd usually give you an A -- or at least a B -- if you got an A on all of the exams, even if you neglected the homework.

Re: Mastering Linear Algebra in 10 Days: Astounding Experiments in Ultra-Learning

#50

Post by goostavos »

People are kind of picking apart his use of the word "mastering," but I'd say that the crux of the article is spot on when it comes to learning techniques.

As an aside, I've never heard it called the "Feynman Techniques." However, one of my favorite things in the world is the so called "Feynman's Algorithm": (1) Write down the problem. (2) Think very hard. (3) Write down the answer. I just found to hilarious, but I digress.

There are two points of his with which I agree 100%.

Firstly, the process of writing a short summary paragraph of what you just read after reading a chapter or big section of a technical book. There is actually a fantastic book -- maybe one of my favorites of all time -- called, somewhat strangely, How to Read a Book. It's all about very active reading over passive, almost to the point of having a "conversation" with the text you're reading.

Ever since reading that book, I've gotten into the habit of writing a summary of each thing that I read. It really forces you to confront whether or not you "got" the point of what the book is saying. I usually find that there are quite a few bits that I either missed, or didn't quite understand, at which point I go through and search for the pieces I'm missing.

Secondly, looking at all of the low level pieces to understand the whole. This is something Salman Khan, of the Khan Academy talks about in (I believe it was) his TED presentation. Quite often, I find that there is some early concept that I glossed over which is slowing my understanding of the current material significantly. For me, doing this makes me being 'honest' with myself over the state of my current understanding -- which was kind of hard at first when I took this new approach to learning. So much of my 'ego' seems to be unfortunately wrapped up in 'what I know,' and thus I convince myself incorrectly that I do understand something, even when I don't, just because it's something that I "should" already know. Admitting to myself that I didn't understand, for instance, some basic math concept that I should have learned in high school was somewhat difficult -- as odd as that may sound. I suppose I have a fragile ego! But sometimes, getting a good grasp on my modern course work, meant stopping what I was doing, and going back a couple of levels and starting at the beginning.

The question of "What do I need to know in order to understand this" is, I find, an extraordinarily powerful one.

Post reply on HN