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

Lessons of an MIT Education

math.tamu.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 263 posts

Re: Lessons of an MIT Education

#11

Post by throwanem »

dougmwne wrote: post #6

The author was quite harsh on the soft sciencies and humanities and I'm going to attempt a defense. First, he characterises these subjects as merely what, facts to be learned, instead of how, skills to be mastered. Let's take history, which seems very what, full of dates and names. A great course in history teaches you how to think differently and with deeper context about world events and your country's politics. I…

"Begin"? The prior century is replete with horrific examples of societies, spanning - perhaps defining - the modern ideological spectrum, which behaved in precisely such fashion.

I agree that the study of history is the best method yet found for recognizing the errors which produced those enormities, in order to avoid repeating them. But I'm not sure how effective undergrad history courses, or even history specializations, are likely to be in equipping their students with the tools for such study. Granted I've never taken such a course myself and so cannot speak with authority on even one example of the type - but I have found it not at all unusual for people who do have such education to be surprised in even so elementary and recent a matter as the American origin of the eugenic idea. Quite aside from being in my opinion a necessary antidote to the idea that the United States are somehow blessed with a permanent immunity to such enormities as we here discuss, such ignorance, on the part of so many supposedly educated in history and - if you're to be taken at your word - historical analysis, does not inspire enormous confidence in the value of such education.

Re: Lessons of an MIT Education

#12

Post by throwanem »

david-gpu wrote: post #8
baxtr wrote: post #4

> Lesson Ten: Mathematics is still the queen of the sciences. > When an undergraduate asks me whether he or she should major in mathematics rather than in another field that I will simply call X, my answer is the following: "If you major in mathematics, you can switch to X anytime you want to, but not the other way around." You can argue that with Physics as well. However, I have learned in my life, that there is a v…

> "If you major in mathematics, you can switch to X anytime you want to, but not the other way around." I hear people say that about mathematicians, physicists and even philosophers, yet I've never come across any of them in my career. I suspect it's wishful thinking.

I disagree. I've worked with a sizable number of people whose training was in mathematics or physics. I've never worked in an organization dedicated to either field; my surmise is that a high level of facility in those subjects demands an activity and agility of intellect which lends itself well to almost any complex and primarily mental pursuit.

Re: Lessons of an MIT Education

#13

Post by ahussain »

icc97 wrote: post #3

> The world and your career are unpredictable, so you are better off learning subjects of permanent value. I've been looking for a way to express this idea for years. Doing a core subject at University like Mathematics or Physics can be used in a million different careers. In a similar way I'd recommend learning say Functional Programming over React or Scala. Plus I guess learning Category Theory over functional prog…

This is true, but after studying physics you find that you have a lot of catching up to in comparison to the computer scientists. Maybe you will have more insight in understanding some complex linear algebra concept, but it's not of great use if you can't debug a docker issue or get a database working.

Re: Lessons of an MIT Education

#14

Post by hudibras »

dougmwne wrote: post #6

The author was quite harsh on the soft sciencies and humanities and I'm going to attempt a defense. First, he characterises these subjects as merely what, facts to be learned, instead of how, skills to be mastered. Let's take history, which seems very what, full of dates and names. A great course in history teaches you how to think differently and with deeper context about world events and your country's politics. I…

I don't think he was that harsh, and he actually praised the "knowing what" subjects. He simply meant that at MIT, the "knowing how" is more important.

Re: Lessons of an MIT Education

#16

Post by foldr »

throwanem wrote: post #12
david-gpu wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "If you major in mathematics, you can switch to X anytime you want to, but not the other way around." I hear people say that about mathematicians, physicists and even philosophers, yet I've never come across any of them in my career. I suspect it's wishful thinking.

I disagree. I've worked with a sizable number of people whose training was in mathematics or physics. I've never worked in an organization dedicated to either field; my surmise is that a high level of facility in those subjects demands an activity and agility of intellect which lends itself well to almost any complex and primarily mental pursuit.

Most people in most jobs are doing work that's not directly related to their degree.

Re: Lessons of an MIT Education

#17

Post by jhbadger »

ahussain wrote: post #13
icc97 wrote: post #3

> The world and your career are unpredictable, so you are better off learning subjects of permanent value. I've been looking for a way to express this idea for years. Doing a core subject at University like Mathematics or Physics can be used in a million different careers. In a similar way I'd recommend learning say Functional Programming over React or Scala. Plus I guess learning Category Theory over functional prog…

This is true, but after studying physics you find that you have a lot of catching up to in comparison to the computer scientists. Maybe you will have more insight in understanding some complex linear algebra concept, but it's not of great use if you can't debug a docker issue or get a database working.

True -- but those are hardly computer science issues. Some of the best computer scientists I've met were really applied mathematicians who were great at figuring out whether a problem was NP-hard but couldn't really program or handle sysadmin problems.

Re: Lessons of an MIT Education

#18

Post by sdenton4 »

foldr wrote: post #10
david-gpu wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "If you major in mathematics, you can switch to X anytime you want to, but not the other way around." I hear people say that about mathematicians, physicists and even philosophers, yet I've never come across any of them in my career. I suspect it's wishful thinking.

Indeed, what is it even supposed to mean? You can become a doctor or a lawyer or whatever just like that because you have a degree in math?

It's pretty common for math majors to go kick ass in the LSAT and become lawyers. Switching to medicine is a bit less common, I think.

Re: Lessons of an MIT Education

#19

Post by throwanem »

foldr wrote: post #16
throwanem wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. I've worked with a sizable number of people whose training was in mathematics or physics. I've never worked in an organization dedicated to either field; my surmise is that a high level of facility in those subjects demands an activity and agility of intellect which lends itself well to almost any complex and primarily mental pursuit.

Most people in most jobs are doing work that's not directly related to their degree.

I've worked with a lot more math and physics grads than, say, poli sci or sports medicine grads. Not to disparage fields that aren't math or physics, and I don't have a degree in the fight in any case; just that I have noticed something of a preponderance over the years among those who do have degrees not actually in the field.

Re: Lessons of an MIT Education

#20

Post by sdenton4 »

david-gpu wrote: post #8
baxtr wrote: post #4

> Lesson Ten: Mathematics is still the queen of the sciences. > When an undergraduate asks me whether he or she should major in mathematics rather than in another field that I will simply call X, my answer is the following: "If you major in mathematics, you can switch to X anytime you want to, but not the other way around." You can argue that with Physics as well. However, I have learned in my life, that there is a v…

> "If you major in mathematics, you can switch to X anytime you want to, but not the other way around." I hear people say that about mathematicians, physicists and even philosophers, yet I've never come across any of them in my career. I suspect it's wishful thinking.

I think there's a bit of perception bias here based on when people 'convert out' of mathematics. People leaving after undergrad are both the most common, and pretty unlikely to be described as 'mathematicians' outright.

There's also a relatively small number of people majoring in math compared to many of the fields the math majors switch into.

My current team of SWE's at BigCorp for a while was >50% phds; I did a math postdoc, we had another MIT math phd, and a physics, bio and EE phd off the top of my head. So I guess it depends what you're working on?

Post reply on HN