Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "bearophile" <bearophileHUGS@lycos.com> wrote in message news:gr1l57$vu5$1@digitalmars.com...
>> Nick Sabalausky:
>>> Sounds like most of the CS classes I had in college.<
>> You have to form a little group with few other of the students most interested in those classes (or you can even act alone), and ask the teacher to change the style or way, explaining him/her to slow down or speed up topics. Most teachers if asked kindly are willing to change their speed, especially if there's enough time to slow down.
>>
> 
> Heh, it's much too late for that. Been out of college for awhile now ;)
> 
> Besides, it probably wouldn't have worked anyway. Most of my classmates had practically zero experience outside of class, so they probably did need that (and don't get me started on the complete ineptitude of the CS *grad* students I met. Hell, even some of the cs phd profs didn't know what the hell they were doing, I have stories about all of that...), whereas I've been coding practically since I learned to read. If there's one thing my school experience taught me, it's that teachers are only interested in focusing on the low-to-mid-range students. The advanced ones are only there to shell out tuition money and act as cheap tutors. They would be far better off saving their time and money by not even going, but they almost *have* to go anyway just because the rest of society (and HR drones in particular) are brainwashed into thinking that there's a direct correlation between academics and competence (if anything, it's slightly inverse - one of the smartest people I know had so much trouble with school he ended up a high school dropout). 

Sigh. Amen to that. :-(
Been there, both as a university teacher, a student, and a job seeker.
It's simply depressing. And I don't even want to get started on this.

"dsimcha" <dsimcha@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:gr31s9$2enc$1@digitalmars.com...
> == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound1@digitalmars.com)'s article
>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> > If there's one thing my
>> > school experience taught me, it's that teachers are only interested in
>> > focusing on the low-to-mid-range students.
>> That wasn't my college experience at all (Caltech). I was a
>> low-to-mid-range student there
>
> ...Which kind of proves the point that the way knowledge/learning in
> college is
> measured is pretty flawed in that it doesn't predict who will be
> successful
> afterword.  I just finished undergrad a couple years ago and I feel that
> the kinds
> of multiple choice exams you get in huge lecture-based classes are good at
> testing
> rote memorization and superficial understanding and the ability to get
> inside the
> professor's head, where as what's important is the ability to take your
> knowledge
> and apply it to something useful or use it to create more knowledge.
>

Exactly. I remember this one class I had (wasn't cs though) where I tended to do poorly on the essay portions of the exams. At one point I decided to answer one of the essay questions by quoting the prof's lecture nearly verbatim, and got a perfect score.  Way to reward plagiarism and discourage independent thought. That was the final straw that killed off any last shred of interest I may have had in getting a decent grade.

"Walter Bright" <newshound1@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:gr31gj$2du5$1@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> They would be far better off saving their time and money by not even going, but they almost *have* to go anyway just because the rest of society (and HR drones in particular) are brainwashed into thinking that there's a direct correlation between academics and competence (if anything, it's slightly inverse - one of the smartest people I know had so much trouble with school he ended up a high school dropout).
>
> My 4 years at Caltech were transformative to me, particularly in my problem solving skills.
>

College was quite transformative for me as well, just in different way: It make me an enormous cynic ;)

But maybe tech schools are different. The ones I went to were typical "traditional" ones.

"Georg Wrede" <georg.wrede@iki.fi> wrote in message news:gr31tc$2dsk$2@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "bearophile" <bearophileHUGS@lycos.com> wrote in message news:gr1l57$vu5$1@digitalmars.com...
>>> Nick Sabalausky:
>>>> Sounds like most of the CS classes I had in college.<
>>> You have to form a little group with few other of the students most interested in those classes (or you can even act alone), and ask the teacher to change the style or way, explaining him/her to slow down or speed up topics. Most teachers if asked kindly are willing to change their speed, especially if there's enough time to slow down.
>>>
>>
>> Heh, it's much too late for that. Been out of college for awhile now ;)
>>
>> Besides, it probably wouldn't have worked anyway. Most of my classmates had practically zero experience outside of class, so they probably did need that (and don't get me started on the complete ineptitude of the CS *grad* students I met. Hell, even some of the cs phd profs didn't know what the hell they were doing, I have stories about all of that...), whereas I've been coding practically since I learned to read. If there's one thing my school experience taught me, it's that teachers are only interested in focusing on the low-to-mid-range students. The advanced ones are only there to shell out tuition money and act as cheap tutors. They would be far better off saving their time and money by not even going, but they almost *have* to go anyway just because the rest of society (and HR drones in particular) are brainwashed into thinking that there's a direct correlation between academics and competence (if anything, it's slightly inverse - one of the smartest people I know had so much trouble with school he ended up a high school dropout).
>
> Sigh. Amen to that. :-(
> Been there, both as a university teacher, a student, and a job seeker.
> It's simply depressing. And I don't even want to get started on this.

I could probably fill a book with all of the various problems I observed with the "education" system. Maybe I should write one...But I'd probably just give myself a heart attack just thinking about all of it (and I have good blood pressure!).

dsimcha wrote:
> == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound1@digitalmars.com)'s article
>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> If there's one thing my
>>> school experience taught me, it's that teachers are only interested in
>>> focusing on the low-to-mid-range students.
>> That wasn't my college experience at all (Caltech). I was a
>> low-to-mid-range student there
> 
> ...Which kind of proves the point that the way knowledge/learning in college is
> measured is pretty flawed in that it doesn't predict who will be successful
> afterword.  I just finished undergrad a couple years ago and I feel that the kinds
> of multiple choice exams you get in huge lecture-based classes are good at testing
> rote memorization and superficial understanding and the ability to get inside the
> professor's head, where as what's important is the ability to take your knowledge
> and apply it to something useful or use it to create more knowledge.

Yes, one gets the impression that those who do well in exams simply store the stuff in another way in their head. Feels like they've developed methods to store it for easy retrieval and rote memorization, instead of ever trying to internalize the essence of it. (Sure, some kids can manage both, but I wasn't one of them.)

But then, 20 years afterward, ask the three starry eyed ones, what the price will be if there is first a 10% price hike and then you get a 10% rebate. Since they can't remember the formula by heart anymore, they're at a loss with this one. But what does it matter, they've got good secure jobs, a nice family and a car as good as their neighbor.

OTOH, to make things really happen, we need the other kind of guys. Those of us who want to understand. They're the ones who advance the state of the art, and without that, we'd still be traveling on steam trains. I just wish there were more schools and pedagogic knowledge (and good teachers, of course) to make things interesting and fun for us others. But without that, many students get by with so-so grades, having invested only 10% of their effort into it. I know I did. What a waste.

Georg Wrede wrote:
> dsimcha wrote:
>> == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound1@digitalmars.com)'s article
>>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>> If there's one thing my
>>>> school experience taught me, it's that teachers are only interested in
>>>> focusing on the low-to-mid-range students.
>>> That wasn't my college experience at all (Caltech). I was a
>>> low-to-mid-range student there
>>
>> ...Which kind of proves the point that the way knowledge/learning in college is
>> measured is pretty flawed in that it doesn't predict who will be successful
>> afterword.  I just finished undergrad a couple years ago and I feel that the kinds
>> of multiple choice exams you get in huge lecture-based classes are good at testing
>> rote memorization and superficial understanding and the ability to get inside the
>> professor's head, where as what's important is the ability to take your knowledge
>> and apply it to something useful or use it to create more knowledge.
> 
> Yes, one gets the impression that those who do well in exams simply store the stuff in another way in their head. Feels like they've developed methods to store it for easy retrieval and rote memorization, instead of ever trying to internalize the essence of it. (Sure, some kids can manage both, but I wasn't one of them.)
> 
> But then, 20 years afterward, ask the three starry eyed ones, what the price will be if there is first a 10% price hike and then you get a 10% rebate. Since they can't remember the formula by heart anymore, they're at a loss with this one. But what does it matter, they've got good secure jobs, a nice family and a car as good as their neighbor.
> 
> OTOH, to make things really happen, we need the other kind of guys. Those of us who want to understand. They're the ones who advance the state of the art, and without that, we'd still be traveling on steam trains. I just wish there were more schools and pedagogic knowledge (and good teachers, of course) to make things interesting and fun for us others. But without that, many students get by with so-so grades, having invested only 10% of their effort into it. I know I did. What a waste.

I don't buy 10% of this, after another 10% rebate. I'm not sure you meant it that way, but it looks quite narcissistic. Not only the kind of people who operate like you push humankind towards progress.

We all know stories of lousy-student rise to genius. John Backus, Thomas Alva Edison, Einstein... You know why? Because they're spectacular stories. There have been plenty of geniuses who also happened to be good students, but nobody cares for that detail because it's expected and therefore uninformative.

And if anyone is pissed about the quality of higher education in the US, they'll have to move to Mars. US has the best in the world.


Andrei

On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 14:32:20 -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:

>Georg Wrede wrote:
>> dsimcha wrote:
>>> == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound1@digitalmars.com)'s article
>>>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>>> If there's one thing my
>>>>> school experience taught me, it's that teachers are only interested in
>>>>> focusing on the low-to-mid-range students.
>>>> That wasn't my college experience at all (Caltech). I was a
>>>> low-to-mid-range student there
>>>
>>> ...Which kind of proves the point that the way knowledge/learning in
>>> college is
>>> measured is pretty flawed in that it doesn't predict who will be
>>> successful
>>> afterword.  I just finished undergrad a couple years ago and I feel
>>> that the kinds
>>> of multiple choice exams you get in huge lecture-based classes are
>>> good at testing
>>> rote memorization and superficial understanding and the ability to get
>>> inside the
>>> professor's head, where as what's important is the ability to take
>>> your knowledge
>>> and apply it to something useful or use it to create more knowledge.
>> 
>> Yes, one gets the impression that those who do well in exams simply store the stuff in another way in their head. Feels like they've developed methods to store it for easy retrieval and rote memorization, instead of ever trying to internalize the essence of it. (Sure, some kids can manage both, but I wasn't one of them.)
>> 
>> But then, 20 years afterward, ask the three starry eyed ones, what the price will be if there is first a 10% price hike and then you get a 10% rebate. Since they can't remember the formula by heart anymore, they're at a loss with this one. But what does it matter, they've got good secure jobs, a nice family and a car as good as their neighbor.
>> 
>> OTOH, to make things really happen, we need the other kind of guys. Those of us who want to understand. They're the ones who advance the state of the art, and without that, we'd still be traveling on steam trains. I just wish there were more schools and pedagogic knowledge (and good teachers, of course) to make things interesting and fun for us others. But without that, many students get by with so-so grades, having invested only 10% of their effort into it. I know I did. What a waste.
>
>I don't buy 10% of this, after another 10% rebate. I'm not sure you meant it that way, but it looks quite narcissistic. Not only the kind of people who operate like you push humankind towards progress.
>
>We all know stories of lousy-student rise to genius. John Backus, Thomas Alva Edison, Einstein... You know why? Because they're spectacular stories. There have been plenty of geniuses who also happened to be good students, but nobody cares for that detail because it's expected and therefore uninformative.
>
>And if anyone is pissed about the quality of higher education in the US, they'll have to move to Mars. US has the best in the world.
>
>
>Andrei

My cat said that might be true.

== Quote from dsimcha (dsimcha@yahoo.com)'s article
> == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound1@digitalmars.com)'s article
> > Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > > If there's one thing my
> > > school experience taught me, it's that teachers are only interested in
> > > focusing on the low-to-mid-range students.
> > That wasn't my college experience at all (Caltech). I was a
> > low-to-mid-range student there
> ...Which kind of proves the point that the way knowledge/learning in college is measured is pretty flawed in that it doesn't predict who will be successful afterword.  I just finished undergrad a couple years ago and I feel that the kinds of multiple choice exams you get in huge lecture-based classes are good at testing rote memorization and superficial understanding and the ability to get inside the professor's head, where as what's important is the ability to take your knowledge and apply it to something useful or use it to create more knowledge.

I definitely would try to avoid universities where multiple-choice tests are the norm
(oddly, I've heard that UC Berkeley falls into this category, and as a result it's also
apparently a haven for cheaters).  I went back to finish my undergrad degree recently
and despite being at a large state school the classes were all a reasonable size and
the grades derived from a combination of homework and actual problem-solving
quizzes and exams.  Now a prospective employer may not know or care what format
your classes followed, but I'd personally put more stock in a degree that was obtained
from as few multiple-choice tests as possible.

== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org)'s article
>
> We all know stories of lousy-student rise to genius. John Backus, Thomas Alva Edison, Einstein... You know why? Because they're spectacular stories. There have been plenty of geniuses who also happened to be good students, but nobody cares for that detail because it's expected and therefore uninformative.

And some of the stories are just that: stories.  Here's a quote from Michael Shara, a curator at the New York Museum of Natural History's exhibit dedicated to Einstein:

    "This myth that Einstein was a mediocre student is definitely not true," says
    Shara. "He was highly inquisitive; asked questions all the time. And we have his
    report card. You see that he was an excellent student — straight A's, of course,
    in physics and trigonometry and geometry.

But then people also believe that Lemmings commit mass suicide periodically to control overpopulation, so it seems that people are more interested in false but compelling stories than true but boring ones :-)

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Georg Wrede wrote:
>> dsimcha wrote:
>>> == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound1@digitalmars.com)'s article
>>>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>>> If there's one thing my
>>>>> school experience taught me, it's that teachers are only interested in
>>>>> focusing on the low-to-mid-range students.
>>>> That wasn't my college experience at all (Caltech). I was a
>>>> low-to-mid-range student there
>>>
>>> ...Which kind of proves the point that the way knowledge/learning in college is
>>> measured is pretty flawed in that it doesn't predict who will be successful
>>> afterword.  I just finished undergrad a couple years ago and I feel that the kinds
>>> of multiple choice exams you get in huge lecture-based classes are good at testing
>>> rote memorization and superficial understanding and the ability to get inside the
>>> professor's head, where as what's important is the ability to take your knowledge
>>> and apply it to something useful or use it to create more knowledge.
>>
>> Yes, one gets the impression that those who do well in exams simply store the stuff in another way in their head. Feels like they've developed methods to store it for easy retrieval and rote memorization, instead of ever trying to internalize the essence of it. (Sure, some kids can manage both, but I wasn't one of them.)
>>
>> But then, 20 years afterward, ask the three starry eyed ones, what the price will be if there is first a 10% price hike and then you get a 10% rebate. Since they can't remember the formula by heart anymore, they're at a loss with this one. But what does it matter, they've got good secure jobs, a nice family and a car as good as their neighbor.
>>
>> OTOH, to make things really happen, we need the other kind of guys. Those of us who want to understand. They're the ones who advance the state of the art, and without that, we'd still be traveling on steam trains. I just wish there were more schools and pedagogic knowledge (and good teachers, of course) to make things interesting and fun for us others. But without that, many students get by with so-so grades, having invested only 10% of their effort into it. I know I did. What a waste.
> 
> I don't buy 10% of this, after another 10% rebate. I'm not sure you meant it that way, but it looks quite narcissistic. Not only the kind of people who operate like you push humankind towards progress.
> 
> We all know stories of lousy-student rise to genius. John Backus, Thomas Alva Edison, Einstein... You know why? Because they're spectacular stories. There have been plenty of geniuses who also happened to be good students, but nobody cares for that detail because it's expected and therefore uninformative.
> 
> And if anyone is pissed about the quality of higher education in the US, they'll have to move to Mars. US has the best in the world.

I was talking about lower education. Finland may top the world today in lower education quality, but it sure wasn't like that where I went to school (45 years ago).

But I agree, higher education in the US is the top, no question.