Live data from Hacker News

Lessons of an MIT Education

math.tamu.edu

201–210 of 263 posts

Re: Lessons of an MIT Education

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget Peterson's claim that only men have high enough motivation to be successful in competitive industries. His view is problematic because some VCs grill female founders not on their products but on their motivation level and how they will take care of their kids. Most power couples I know hire nannies. It's common enough where people shouldn't ask. Anyway, I concede people can be good in one way or another…

I was curious to see if he'd actually said that or if you were misrepresenting a more reasonable claim. I'm not familiar with Jordan Peterson but managed to find this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV2yvI4Id9Q ... in which he says that high-powered careers are very unpleasant due to hyper-competition among people who are exceptionally willing to tilt their work-life balance way toward work, and that most (but…

Thanks for the link! This thing is hilarious!

About 7:00: "And you think when you're 19, 'cause you're so clueless when you're 19, you don't know a bloody thing, you think, "well, I'm not really sure I want children anyway". Like, oh, yeah, you can tell how well you have been educated. Jesus. Dismal. Dismal. Without fail.

"I've watched women go through their professional careers, many, many of them. It's a very rare woman who at the age of 30 who doesn't consider having a child her primary desire. And the ones that don't consider that, generally, in my observation, there's something that isn't quite right in the way that they're constituted or looking at the world.

"Sometimes you get women who are truly non-maternal, you know, by temperment. They have a masculine temper [-ment?], disagreeable, they're not particularly compassionate, they're not maternal, they're not that interested in kids. Fair enough, man. But there aren't that many of them and there's plenty who will not admit to themselves that that's what they most desperately want."

Re: Lessons of an MIT Education

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

your mileage may vary. https://nicemangos.blogspot.com/2017/07/professor-jordan-pet...

I did not check every claim in that article. What I did check, did not check out. They show a video of Peterson arguing that being a CEO of a billion dollar company is basically pointless stupid competitiveness and men happen to be more pointlessly stupid in that regard, and the blog interprets it as him saying women should not try to be CEOs That video is the center of the argument (the thing the post 'builds up to'…

He also says, in the other video mentioned in this thread, that pointless stupid competitiveness is how you end up running things, so there's that.

I wonder if you could actually get him to agree that everything wrong with the world is due it being run by pointlessly stupid, hyper-competitive men.

Re: Lessons of an MIT Education

#203
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 suggest that a society only interested in the workings of machines rather than the workings of people will soon treat people as mere machines. Let the nightmare begin. So far the society that treats people as mere machines is constantly mouthing platitudes about the humanities to itself, chanting, "Think about people! Think about philosophy!" as though this will actually alter the balance of class power. USAians a…

AFAICT, in many cases (e.g., history) that's just to catch up with the rest of the world's pre-university humanities' level (and that the same applies in reverse for the humanities degrees).

Re: Lessons of an MIT Education

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are plenty of nutty mathematical or physics theories around. At least for mathematics I have hardly seen any "nutty mathematical theories" (I am a PhD student in mathematics, but not a physicist, so I cannot say anything about physics here). The reason that I see is that for a math text to be considered as solid, it has to contain good, understandable proofs - which are hard to write by "crackpots". To be mor…

If we were physicists, I'd be tempted to mention "normalization" here. Ask your favorite well-known professor how many proofs of P=NP, the Riemann hypothesis, or whatever they get per week. Sure, they're all Time-Cube level crazy, but most off the wall theories are, too.

> Ask your favorite well-known professor how many proofs of P=NP, the Riemann hypothesis, or whatever they get per week.

My PhD advisor actually works in an area that is related to complexity questions that are related to P=NP. So if he would get spammed a lot with this kind of papers, I am pretty sure that I would know. Similar statements hold for other researchers who work on the same floor.

You might object that even though they might work on questions that are related to complexity theory, they are perhaps simply not the people that an "ordinary crackpot" thinks of as target reader for their texts - in other words one has to know a little bit about mathematics to know that the questions these people work on are actually related to P=NP. I will not disagree with this objection.

You may also object that the respective persons are well-known and well-regarded in their respective community, but the general public is not so much aware of them. I also will not disagree with this objection.

Nevertheless I strongly believe that if your claim were true in general, I would probably know.

Re: Lessons of an MIT Education

#205
post #96

On the other hand... http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/03/16/suicide-rate-mit...

I can't seem to get to the article. What does it say?

Sorry about that. Wr,dr: Suicide is a bit of a problem at MIT.

"Over the past decade, the university’s student suicide rate has been 10.2 per 100,000 students, according to a Globe review of public records as well as university and media reports. More recently MIT’s suicide rate has been even higher; over the past five years the campus has reported 12.5 suicides per 100,000 students.

"The increasing rate has been driven by the school’s undergraduate population, whose suicide rate in the past decade has outpaced that of the school’s graduate students — 12.6 to 8.5.

"The national average for college campuses is roughly between 6.5 and 7.5 suicides per 100,000 students, according to three major studies that looked at undergraduate and graduate student suicides from 1980 to 2009."

On the other hand, over across the street at that other school,

"At least one other local school, Harvard University, has an above average rate for its undergraduate population. The rate of suicide at Harvard was 11.8 per 100,000 undergraduates over the past decade. When accounting for both undergraduates and graduates, the rate at Harvard was 5.4 per 100,000."

So maybe it's Boston.

But wait,

"...the university’s undergraduate rate has declined, particularly since the early 2000s. Between 1994 and 2005, the undergraduate suicide rate at MIT was 18.7 per 100,000."

Holy poop.e

Edit: And I just noticed the "Ten Lessons" were written in 1997.

Re: Lessons of an MIT Education

#206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could give GUI design a tenuous connection if pressed, but what on Earth does advertising have to do with computer science?

Google hires a lot of computer scientists. Advertising is it's core business.

Facebook, as well. Along with all the other ad-supported businesses.

Re: Lessons of an MIT Education

#207
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…

[deleted]

Re: Lessons of an MIT Education

#208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I suggest that a society only interested in the workings of machines rather than the workings of people will soon treat people as mere machines. Let the nightmare begin. So far the society that treats people as mere machines is constantly mouthing platitudes about the humanities to itself, chanting, "Think about people! Think about philosophy!" as though this will actually alter the balance of class power. USAians a…

AFAICT, in many cases (e.g., history) that's just to catch up with the rest of the world's pre-university humanities' level (and that the same applies in reverse for the humanities degrees).

AFAICT, that's pretty similar in STEM, except that Americans who don't take STEM degrees don't ever take what other countries would consider pre-university STEM courses.

Mind, other countries specialize their students in early or late secondary school, so the differences may not be quite commensurable. A UK, French, or German student going into a STEM degree will probably have taken calculus and linear algebra by the end of secondary school, but they may not have taken an equivalent to America's AP World History. If you told them they ought to take a first-year university course in world history to get into a STEM degree, they'd look at you a bit weird, but this is admittedly how American admissions works.

I also know an American who basically took every available AP course, had a perfect grade average, volunteered in Girl Scouts, won valedictorian of her well-regarded high school. She ended up wait-listed to MIT, admitted with no financial aid to Cornell, admitted with a moderate scholarship to McGill, and admitted with a full-ride and honors to her state flagship school. She took the full ride.

(Also, we met and later married :-p.)

This contrasts with Technion (I did research there), where you could get into the top-flight STEM institution of the whole country just by earning sufficiently high marks in your matriculation exams.

It really does give me the impression that both other countries educate more rigorously at the secondary level, and Americans have a perverse fetish for inhumanly grueling competition. I think this may be precisely the opposite of a good system: a good system would assure that everyone has a very solid baseline, and then maximize the fraction of top talent that makes it through the training pipeline to do the most difficult work.

Re: Lessons of an MIT Education

#209
post #41

> Lesson Six: You must measure up to a very high level of performance. I can imagine a propective student or parent asking, "Why should I (or my child) take calculus at MIT rather than at Oshkosh College? Isn't the material practically identical, no matter where it is taught, while the cost varies a great deal?" Is there any truth to this? Because it seem like classical university jingoism to me. "My institution is b…

The next two paragraphs go into more detail:

"One answer to this question would be following: One learns a lot more when taking calculus from someone who is doing research in mathematical analysis than from someone who has never published a word on the subject. [...] But this is not the answer; some teachers who have never done any research are much better at conveying the ideas of calculus than the most brilliant mathematicians.

"What matters most is the ambiance in which the course is taught; a gifted student will thrive in the company of other gifted students. An MIT undergraduate will be challenged by the level of proficiency that is expected of everyone at MIT, students and faculty. The expectation of high standards is unconsciously absorbed and adopted by the students, and they carry it with them for life."

I'm going to look funny at the claim of "expectation of high standards"; I suspect he's delusional.

But there is, in my experience, a considerable difference between "someone who is doing research" and "someone who has never published a word on the subject"; I've never met any "teachers who have never done any research [that] are much better at conveying the ideas." Further, the "ambiance" bit is right; being surrounded by people who are deeply interested in a topic beats the pants off people who are just there to get a grade.

Re: Lessons of an MIT Education

#210

> It is demoralizing to give a young person role models of Beethoven, Einstein, and Feynman, presented as saintly figures who moved from insight to insight without a misstep. There isn't a single Beethoven scholar I can think of who seriously entertains the idea of Beethoven being a "self-generating" genius who never made mistakes. Also, the Beethoven pieces that today's composers most admire-- the late string quarte…

Yes, scholars. Maybe it's a generational thing. Young people have too many people they have to compare to. You have to be great at everything! I'm hearing that high schoolers don't have confidence anymore.

> Yes, scholars.

As well as anyone who has played a piece by Beethoven or read a children's book about him. The Beethoven stereotype is the impassioned if erratic genius who literally ripped through the paper correcting his own errors in a quest for perfection, persisting in his struggle to write masterworks even after going deaf.

The author is almost certainly confusing Beethoven's myth with the Mozart myth-- the child musical prodigy through whom Christ's perfection sounded.

This matters because the author is attempting to make a causal relationship between Romantic-era genius myth-making and higher education in the U.S. at present. If he can't even match the myth with the right composer I think I'm right to be skeptical of his theory.

Post reply on HN