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

Are Stanford Students Just (Really Excellent) Sheep?

stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 169 posts

Re: Are Stanford Students Just (Really Excellent) Sheep?

#91

Post by sliverstorm »

jcnnghm wrote: post #83
WiseWeasel wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that would have been boring! How about a BS in four-five years with a bunch of random cool-sounding classes in between, along with a fair share of partying and establishing hopefully enduring friendships and romantic relationships.

Or you could graduate, and do the same thing, except making $10k+ a month while you are doing it. The idea that college is now about romance and partying is part of what's skewing the prices.

$10k+ a month right out of college? When did this become the norm?

Re: Are Stanford Students Just (Really Excellent) Sheep?

#92

Post by scythe »

jcnnghm wrote: post #86
fivethirty wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the risk of sounding trite, college is what you make of it. If all you care about is trading in your four years and n-thousand dollars for a marketable degree, then of course you aren't going to feel like you learned anything, but I argue that this is your fault for not prioritizing actual learning and understanding (aside: "actual learning and understanding" is an incredibly vague phrase and that bothers me. Oh w…

your fault for not prioritizing actual learning and understanding How do mandatory pre-reqs fit into this? When I went to school, I had about 10 years of programming experience already, but no java. That got me out of exactly zero classes, because the first two classes were effectively java syntax and apis. It also made the first two years of classes completely trivial, and was also unavoidable. At one point, I got a…

For the record, I'm pretty sure this doesn't happen at Stanford. It certainly didn't happen at Georgia Tech (I placed out of Python with Java and went right into circuits and assembly. Awesome.)

Re: Are Stanford Students Just (Really Excellent) Sheep?

#93

Post by ScottBurson »

larsberg wrote: post #80
sliverstorm wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the present reality, and if I could do it over again, I would have tried to go to a top-tier school right out of high school and ground out a BS with honors in 2.5 years Well, on the other hand, if you secure grants or scholarships, you can take the 4 year pace and use the extra time to pursue your own interests. This has a bad rap (Underwater basket weaving, anyone?) but nobody says you can't be spending that…

I did exactly that and can't recommend it highly enough. I finished the CS major in my first 2 years and then spent the next two years taking "independent study" courses and just generally hacking and doing research for a few different faculty members. Protip: you can take "freshman physics/chemistry" as a senior if it's not a pre-req for anything else you need. And by then, you'll have learned to study more effectiv…

Yeah, I did something like that -- put off a digital electronics lab course until my last semester. I was so engaged in my pet project by that point that I almost completely blew off the lab course. They were very generous to give me a D so I could graduate :-)

Re: Are Stanford Students Just (Really Excellent) Sheep?

#94

Post by saryant »

larsberg wrote: post #80
sliverstorm wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the present reality, and if I could do it over again, I would have tried to go to a top-tier school right out of high school and ground out a BS with honors in 2.5 years Well, on the other hand, if you secure grants or scholarships, you can take the 4 year pace and use the extra time to pursue your own interests. This has a bad rap (Underwater basket weaving, anyone?) but nobody says you can't be spending that…

I did exactly that and can't recommend it highly enough. I finished the CS major in my first 2 years and then spent the next two years taking "independent study" courses and just generally hacking and doing research for a few different faculty members. Protip: you can take "freshman physics/chemistry" as a senior if it's not a pre-req for anything else you need. And by then, you'll have learned to study more effectiv…

I just graduated and did a similar thing. I wrapped up everything but my thesis before my senior year and spent those two semesters taking fun courses I didn't need like Intro to Nanotechnology and rigorous philosophy classes. The only regret I have is that I didn't take those classes earlier and thereby missed out on upper divisions in those departments.

That said, at my university your major only takes up 1/3rd of your overall credit hours so I had tons of time for electives and courses far outside CS.

Re: Are Stanford Students Just (Really Excellent) Sheep?

#95

Post by ye-olde-taper »

jcnnghm wrote: post #53

I went to school, then dropped out, and then went back. I finished my BS last week with a 4.0 GPA. I dropped out because I wasn't learning anything, and it was an incredibly time consuming grind that wasn't any fun. I dropped out to start a company, and probably learned more every few weeks doing that, than it would be possible to learn in years of classes. There isn't a guide and every problem requires actual though…

This is nice summary. I would add that one of the major things you are paying for with university is the opportunity to be assessed. You are paying for the right to sit the exams and to be graded. You can then take that document evidencing your marks with you to future "assessors" such as HR departments.

The grading function you are paying for is important. Otherwise you could just take a syllabus, go off and complete the work on your own and be done.

You need to pay someone to assess the work.

Whether the amount you pay for this "service" is proportional to the benefit you get from it is for you to decide.

But you need to have those "assessments" done.

Admission to a top tier institution functions as an early assessment. You gain credentials just by being admitted, assuming you manage to graduate. This is interesting since the assessment is only based on a brief period of observation, e.g. the person's achievements up to the end of high school.

A criticism that has sometimes been levelled at Stanford is that once you are admitted you can coast your way to graduation.

Obviously that is certainly not true at lower tier universities. Faculty will fail students and those institutions will not hesitate to send them packing. There is always another student to fill the empty seat.

Re: Are Stanford Students Just (Really Excellent) Sheep?

#96

Post by sopooneo »

karamazov wrote: post #73
vecter wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your subjects were that easy, it sounds like you weren't challenging yourself enough. Quantitative degrees like math or physics weed out a lot of people who simply can't complete the material. For most soft subjects, I agree that it's only a matter of putting in time, but those honestly aren't difficult or interesting (as you've noted). If I'm looking at resumes and I see a person with straight As in a hard major,…

Even quantitative degrees just require patience and perseverance - it might be intimidating to be surrounded by people much better at math/physics/cs than you, but if you put in the time and effort, getting a degree in one of these subjects is very doable. It's a matter of effort rather than being smart.

It's a sliding scale of one and the other. I was in the middle range of intelligence among the rest of the physics majors at my school, so had to work reasonably hard to get decent grades. Some of the brightest didn't have to work so hard. But in fact many of them did anyway, and were able to accomplish wonderful things because of that.

Re: Are Stanford Students Just (Really Excellent) Sheep?

#97

Post by vibrunazo »

lhnz wrote: post #46

I am getting quite tired of listening to people argue for or against conformity. You don't become a shepherd by making yourself into a black sheep. And there is nothing wrong with conforming. There is nothing wrong with wearing fashionable status symbols. There is nothing wrong with climbing hierarchies, nothing wrong with pleading for a comfortable life, or listening to what your friends think is cool. There really…

No one is arguing for disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing. We're arguing for disagreeing only when it's the best option to disagree. As opposed to conforming to a worse option only out of fear of being different.

"Wrong" is subjective, but a clear consequence of conformism (as I just described) that one might want to avoid. Is that it makes you more vulnerable to sacrificing your own interests for the interest of others. And more often than not, that means being vulnerable to scammers.

Now do it like everyone else, and make me a sandwich.

Re: Are Stanford Students Just (Really Excellent) Sheep?

#98

Post by goblin89 »

lhnz wrote: post #46

I am getting quite tired of listening to people argue for or against conformity. You don't become a shepherd by making yourself into a black sheep. And there is nothing wrong with conforming. There is nothing wrong with wearing fashionable status symbols. There is nothing wrong with climbing hierarchies, nothing wrong with pleading for a comfortable life, or listening to what your friends think is cool. There really…

I believe there are cases for being an outsider on purpose. For example, you may want to sacrifice being a part of particular social group (which you may happen to be born into) in order to increase your social mobility and gain future advantage. This may not be a conscious decision and does not exclude a possibility of fitting into another, desired social group later.

(Anecdotally, sometimes I have a feeling that lack of social interaction is an easy way to being if not a bit smarter, then at least more focused. However, some social interaction is still important, since 1) the lack of it isn't healthy, and 2) most of us in the end are working for the public anyway (sometimes without realizing it), so it's important to keep track that you work on the right things.)

Re: Are Stanford Students Just (Really Excellent) Sheep?

#99

Post by treenyc »

callil wrote: post #20
treenyc wrote: post #8

That is why people who attended Rudolf Steiner's Waldorf school perform so well in College. It is a school that DOES NOT give grades to students. And the teach write feed back to the students based on whole aspects of their development including social interaction. When college get ride of tests and grade will be a good start.

Hello fellow waldorf student in the wild! Remember that most waldorf schools in the country DO grade in highschool. However it is process that allows for more feedback and conversation about your performance.

Brought up in China. I was NOT fortunate enough to have being a waldorf student myself. But my various experiences in life have lead me to meet many graduates and teacher of waldorf school. So far all of them I meet a incredibly intelligent and very nice to around.

Re: Are Stanford Students Just (Really Excellent) Sheep?

#100

Post by treenyc »

MartinCron wrote: post #12
treenyc wrote: post #8

That is why people who attended Rudolf Steiner's Waldorf school perform so well in College. It is a school that DOES NOT give grades to students. And the teach write feed back to the students based on whole aspects of their development including social interaction. When college get ride of tests and grade will be a good start.

If colleges get rid of grades, however will Peter Thiel know which hedge fund analysts to hire?

well, business school like wharton prohibits employers to ask about their graduate's grade anyway.
Post reply on HN