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

GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 194 posts

Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down

#141

Post by rjzzleep »

8ytecoder wrote: post #135
gravypod wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In college we had to use them. It was a financial burden on myself. $100/course essentially. Our school mandated that we take homeworks using Pearson's online system. This means if you found a used copy of the book it was essentially waste. You needed to have a one-time-use code (printed on the book) to do your homework. If you didn't, you'd essentially fail the class. Also, the system was buggy. The entire thing is…

Why is education like this in the US? Is it the teachers who willingly allow students to spend so much unnecessarily? Is it the admins? Do they get paid to do this stuff?

Because in US the social fabric is based on money. So it's not something you would necessarily consider odd. Kinda how Germans say "was always like this, why should we change" but in different contexts.

The other part is that Pearsons lobbies, the tests are already accepted as mandatory and then not every teacher is capable of coming up with his own test that allows you to then perform well in the Pearson test. You probably also risk a lot if you used your own test.

It's basically industry developing its own industry.

Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down

#142

Post by Teknoman117 »

8ytecoder wrote: post #135
gravypod wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In college we had to use them. It was a financial burden on myself. $100/course essentially. Our school mandated that we take homeworks using Pearson's online system. This means if you found a used copy of the book it was essentially waste. You needed to have a one-time-use code (printed on the book) to do your homework. If you didn't, you'd essentially fail the class. Also, the system was buggy. The entire thing is…

Why is education like this in the US? Is it the teachers who willingly allow students to spend so much unnecessarily? Is it the admins? Do they get paid to do this stuff?

I think a lot of this hides behind the notion of "accredited" universities and courses.

Some education board (with heavy influence from various companies) decides that you need to select from a set of curriculum to be accredited. Other universities (and some employers) won't honor credits or degrees unless they're from accredited courses.

Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down

#143

Post by Teknoman117 »

da_big_ghey wrote: post #75
truth_ wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an unethical practice employed by some companies. Although in many cases it can be circumvented by buying old textbooks anyway. I am glad that many CS authors nowadays make textbooks available for free. And companies like O'Reilly, Packt, and Manning provide DRM free copies.

also many professor make wink-and-nod that student may simply "find pdf copy" from internet. good ones are not desiring for to make students pay large moneys.

I got a bit pissed that this for one course. Wasn't the professor's fault, but rather the school.

(in 2011) University tells incoming students they must check the book list for their course and get books before classes start. Books are expensive.

First day of class - professor gives everyone a PDF of the physics book I just spend $200 on. Says, "the university requires that I list at least one book for the course and they can't communicate with the students beforehand.

Never bought books before the first day of class again.

Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down

#144

Post by temp8964 »

manquer wrote: post #131
temp8964 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

State universities are not good at doing either. There are not enough psychometricians or test writers or textbook writers in psychology or curriculum and instruction departments. State government is not better at doing things than big companies. Hope your solution is not to ask the government to do everything.

You think testing companies keep all the psychometricians/text book writers on payroll ? Many of the big tests are developed within an academic setting with university/public funding then licensed out. Almost every book is written by university professor then published by pearson or others. State government does not outsource writing the tax code or the other regulations to companies why is tests any different ?

Another aspect you fail to understand is that because the accountability / rating / funding of local education agencies is involved, the state government and the state university do NOT want to and can NOT get involved in producing the test. It must be produced by an outsider.

Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down

#145

Post by g_p »

8ytecoder wrote: post #135
gravypod wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In college we had to use them. It was a financial burden on myself. $100/course essentially. Our school mandated that we take homeworks using Pearson's online system. This means if you found a used copy of the book it was essentially waste. You needed to have a one-time-use code (printed on the book) to do your homework. If you didn't, you'd essentially fail the class. Also, the system was buggy. The entire thing is…

Why is education like this in the US? Is it the teachers who willingly allow students to spend so much unnecessarily? Is it the admins? Do they get paid to do this stuff?

I think educators are certainly to blame - as much as it's convenient to blame admin staff, educators in my experience set the course book.

Pearson etc offer them a time saver they don't have to pay for - they take out the effort of assigning and marking exercises, and don't add any cost to the educator. The students pay, and Pearson uses these codes to inconvenience students and force them to buy new copies.

If you think like an MBA, it's a great idea - the person in decision making power benefits from this move (exercises handled for them), is probably unaware of the issue for students, and has more time to spend on something else they need to do (raising grants, trying to write papers to keep going on the tenure treadmill). But you also get to sell a new copy of each book annually, at full price, without used sales cannibalising your returns. Given there isn't a huge growth in universities each year, this is a great way to boost revenues sustainably.

In my experience on the other side of the pond, we used 1 textbook in the entire degree. It was reasonably priced, readily available second hand, and didn't have any single use license codes. Indeed, one instructor used to upload the relevant chapters of their own book as PDF files, insisting nobody buy the book as it wasn't worth it!!

Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down

#147

Post by temp8964 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #133
temp8964 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You apparently don't know what you are talking about. No. Testing companies do not lobby to get standardized tests mandated where they were not. The federal government mandates this as a requirement for federal money. Districts do not pay for the state test or buy test questions from Pearson...

> Testing companies do not lobby to get standardized tests mandated where they were not. Yes, they do. > The federal government mandates this as a requirement for federal money. Sure, some mandates come from the federal government; others are from state governments, and still others from local governments. Guess who lobbies legislators making those decisions, especially at the federal level, but also at the state lev…

Assume what you said is true, guess what will happen if they don't lobby? Same.

Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down

#148

Post by mabbo »

yccs27 wrote: post #105
mabbo wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even simpler, require those filing a claim to put down a monetary deposit. If the accused disputes, they too file a deposit. The winner gets the money back and the platform gets to keep the losers deposit as a fee for having a trained, certified human make the decision. Make the fees scale up with the number of claims by an accuser. No one would file a frivolous claim. No one would dispute an obviously correct claim.…

This seems like the perfect way to enable frivolous takedowns, because the accused might not be able to pay the deposit to dispute the claim. Additionally, small artists might similarly become unable to enforce their rights. (And if the deposit isn't too big, do you think a few dollars will deter billion-dollar companies?)

Is it worse than the existing system where there is no cost, and no way to fight back?

I'm not arguing that it's a perfect system, but with a few adjustments I feel it's a much better one than exists today.

Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down

#149

Post by dragonwriter »

temp8964 wrote: post #147
dragonwriter wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Testing companies do not lobby to get standardized tests mandated where they were not. Yes, they do. > The federal government mandates this as a requirement for federal money. Sure, some mandates come from the federal government; others are from state governments, and still others from local governments. Guess who lobbies legislators making those decisions, especially at the federal level, but also at the state lev…

Assume what you said is true, guess what will happen if they don't lobby? Same.

> Assume what you said is true, guess what will happen if they don't lobby? Same.

Obviously, they disagree, or they wouldn’t spend money lobbying, which isn’t something companies do just to burn money. They do it because they expect RoI on the money spent lobbying.

Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down

#150

Post by temp8964 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #149
temp8964 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assume what you said is true, guess what will happen if they don't lobby? Same.

> Assume what you said is true, guess what will happen if they don't lobby? Same. Obviously, they disagree, or they wouldn’t spend money lobbying, which isn’t something companies do just to burn money. They do it because they expect RoI on the money spent lobbying.

Can you give an example what will happen if states do not use standardized tests?
Post reply on HN