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

91–100 of 263 posts

Re: Lessons of an MIT Education

#91

Post by michaelscott »

analog31 wrote: post #84
brudgers wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 'good' chemists I know eventually wound up at places like Coca-Cola making sugar water after a post-doc or teaching titration...after a post doc.

Every field has its own sugar water, and its own titration. Advertising and GUI design are the sugar water of computer science. The "coding interview" tells me that at least some aspect of programming is akin to titration.

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

Re: Lessons of an MIT Education

#92

Post by zaptheimpaler »

bjourne wrote: 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…

My experience is that the curriculum and what is taught is the same in many places but the assignments & exams are much more difficult at top schools. My bar for what "learning" something meant became much higher after constantly being beat down by insanely hard assignments/exams. Now I think testing is just as important as teaching in determining how much someone learns - hard tests expose sloppy learning very quickly and give you feedback on what you didn't learn as well as you thought.

Not to say that non-elite universities can't be as rigorous - some certainly are, and some students will be better than others. The brand is definitely a part of it too.

Re: Lessons of an MIT Education

#93

Post by mcguire »

rayiner wrote: post #27
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…

The charactetization is incorrect. The liberal arts do teach “how.” Creative writing or political philosophy or history teaches you skills you can use to analayze scenarios and communicate with people in different ways to different effect. Where the author is correct is that in those fields the output isn’t falsifiable. Your math skills allow you to construct proofs that can be verified. Your study of history allows…

Keep in mind that mathematics is only falsifiable in that sense because it is built entirely on assumptions.

Mathematics isn't really a science.

Re: Lessons of an MIT Education

#94

Post by analog31 »

michaelscott wrote: post #91
analog31 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every field has its own sugar water, and its own titration. Advertising and GUI design are the sugar water of computer science. The "coding interview" tells me that at least some aspect of programming is akin to titration.

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

As I understand things, it's possibly the biggest employer of people with computer science degrees, as well as the biggest revenue driver for the software industry.

But perhaps to generalize, the relationship between "look at how creative this discipline is" and "look at what people actually do with it in the real world" is an issue facing every academic field.

Re: Lessons of an MIT Education

#95

Post by mcguire »

wolfgke wrote: post #62
foldr wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can certainly counterexemplify philosophical arguments. It's also weird to suggest that no historical claims are falsifiable. That seems to put real history on a par with nutty conspiracy theories.

> It's also weird to suggest that no historical claims are falsifiable. That seems to put real history on a par with nutty conspiracy theories. In my humble opinion the scarceness of falsifiability in history is the reason why it is so easy to create nutty conspiracy theories about history vs, say, mathematics or physics.

There are plenty of nutty mathematical or physics theories around.

History is roughly as falsifiable as astronomy or biology.

Re: Lessons of an MIT Education

#98

Post by foldr »

wolfgke wrote: post #82
foldr wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then why do you judge the conspiracy theories to be nutty, if they are on just as firm an epistemological footing as actual history?

First: I used your "nutty conspiracy theories" wording. > But then why do you judge the conspiracy theories to be nutty, if they are on just as firm an epistemological footing as actual history? But to elaborate on your argument: Because of the dubious epistemological footing indeed "actual history" has not the highest reputation to me. The reason I disregard lots of "nutty conspiracy theories" rather lies in the fac…

So, you believe that the moon landings weren't faked solely becuase of the credentials of the people who say that it was faked? You believe that the Holocaust happened solely because Holocaust deniers say crazy things about other topics? That seems really, really, off base.

Re: Lessons of an MIT Education

#100

Post by BeetleB »

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 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 it's more common among physicists.

Branching over into computer science is common.

As is economics and engineering.

I rarely see a non-math PhD as a faculty in the math department. Same with physics. However, it is not at all unusual to see a math/physics PhD as a faculty member in another department.

Post reply on HN