Live data from Hacker News

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

twitter.com

131–140 of 259 posts

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

#131
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 dro…

So...not correct.

But how then, do you decide when to drop out? Trying to judge yourself based on the study habits of your peers strikes me an exercise in imperfect information. I would suggest talking to the professor who gave you "emotionally draining" questions and trying to determine what fundamental knowledge you may lack. But perhaps you have more relevant experience you can share.

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

#132
post #84
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…

Sometimes this advice is spot on. Depends on how competitive the field is.

Medicine? Plenty of average doctors.

Jazz musician? Everyone who does it for a living ranges from amazing to genius and being just very good gets you nowhere professionally.

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

#133
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dro…

So...not correct. But how then, do you decide when to drop out? Trying to judge yourself based on the study habits of your peers strikes me an exercise in imperfect information. I would suggest talking to the professor who gave you "emotionally draining" questions and trying to determine what fundamental knowledge you may lack. But perhaps you have more relevant experience you can share.

My experience is that I dropped out after getting Master’s degree, after realizing that while I can graduate and then get a postdoc job, I am simply not able to produce as high quality output as some of my colleagues. In hindsight, and especially looking at some of my other colleagues who didn’t drop out but should have, I made a great decision, and I am very happy to have done so.

I think that telling everyone that they can achieve anything they want is doing them a huge disservice. If you talk to actual grad students or post docs, most of them are actually quite unhappy and unsatisfied at their careers. They constantly fell insecure and unstable, and they in fact are so. This is much less common among top ones, because they quite clearly see that they are ahead of others.

In short, if you don’t feel confident that you can succeed in academia/research, leave before the academia chews you out. If you are confident you can succeed, you are probably wrong, but at least you’ll be much healthier psychologically throughout.

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

#134
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…

Sounds good in theory. For many, though, there won't be any intersection (which has any representation in job offerings).

Only persistence and perseverance through failures builds the necessary skills and the right attitude for the thing you need to do. "Career" can be a secondary thing.

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

#135
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…

Hah! When I took the first steps on my career path I wasn’t good at anything, had no idea what I really liked because I hadn’t had the opportunity to try most stuff and the top paying jobs of today didn’t even exist.

I know you are a smart person, but this advice will hold young people back.

Try stuff. Don’t sweat it. You’ll fail and you’ll succeed and you won’t know which is which until years later when you tell a story about your life and force it into a narrative.

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

#136
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do economics programs ever push a single theory? They're supposed to teach you about the whole field, no?

While my Economics courses did offer insight into various schools of economic thought and different teachers had slightly different views on various topics, the basic premise that "Capitalism is awesome" was pretty much treated as axiomatic in every course I took.

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

#137
post #63

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

Sorry, but that would be just dumb. The starting point matter awful lot. I remember multiple things that were super difficult to me and I was slow, until I learned some missing piece and it clicked. Then I became good.

Initial struggle does not mean anything. There is such a thing as talent, but fixing your preexisting knowledge and calculating exercises will move you up into "it is not an effort to learn further" category awful often.

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

#138
post #12

Part of the difficulty with emotional views of problem sets and tests at universities is not so much that these sorts of problem sets are emotionally trying themselves, but that from the student perspective, going between institutions and class levels, the style, grading and expectations for problem sets and tests can change quite quickly. While I strongly prefer the sorts of problem sets being described, and preferr…

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…

Jolting people with assessments where old techniques don't work is fine as long as you don't do it first time on exam.

But also, students here just want to know whether they are expected to give detailed reasoning or less detailed one. How many questions they need to answer to get A. Basic stuff about rules.

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

#139
> On exam day you are just emotionally devastated looking at the problem not knowing where to start

I honestly understand the frustration,but not the "emotionally devasted" part.

Emotionally devasted to me means losing someone.

When I studied CS I went to the exams knowing very well if I had studied or not and how much, and did not expect anything.

The exam was the easiest part, you either know how to solve the problems or don't and walk away

If something was out of the scope or "impossible knowledge" I would book a personal appointment with the professor to talk about it.

For any too hard to solve exam, there have been more than one that I passed having honestly not spent enough time studying.

Luck is an important factor and usually it levels out in the long run.

also those kinds of failures teached me to focus on the things I could solve instead of those that I couldn't and eventually go back and give them a second shot. It boosts your confidence and helps look at the problems from a different angle.

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

#140
post #104
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…

> 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 preca…

Not wasting lives on worthless activities? Is a bench player in the nba or someone who bounces between minor and major leagues wasting their life because they’re not Lebron James? Or are they getting paid to do something that they’re pretty good at but certainly not great at? Sorry you can’t score 30 points a night, maybe just go find fulfillment with your family…
Post reply on HN