5 ms·

> theory of computation, recursion theory and type theory and PL, compilers, complexity theory and algorithms, advanced data structures, concurrency and distrib

> theory of computation, recursion theory and type theory and PL, compilers, complexity theory and algorithms, advanced data structures, concurrency and distributed systems etc All of those are fairly basic topics that most people can pick up in an afternoon or two. ... I think these are fairly rational claims that I am making Um... no. Not fairly rational claims at all.

gravypod 11y ago
When I get into my classes at my university I get the textbook, read into the book a little and say "ok, I remember learning about this from X, Y, and Z project I've worked on". I then go on to goof off in every class, as I am doing right this moment. Nothing I have learned is of substance in my algorithms, computer science, or programming classes that I did not already know before I enrolled. I'm bored, and I want to learn something new. I'm holding out for some 300 & 400 level courses, but from what I hear the courses I am looking forward to on operating systems is nothing more than "This is how you open a file in C" and the data structures classes I look forward to is basically "this is how you define a tree and how you traverse a tree".
- brodawg 11y ago
  Well, maybe if you listened in class you would realize the benefit of what they're trying to teach you. If you really think you can understand complexity theory, algorithms, and advanced data structures in "an afternoon or two", I think about 90% of it went right over your head.
  - gravypod 11y ago
    I don't mean you can understand the full depth of each topic in an afternoon or two, I mean at a working level you could get an understanding of the topic.
    - brodawg 11y ago
      I still disagree entirely. You can understand one or two basic algorithms in an afternoon.
- solipsism 11y ago
  Understanding the material from the lower level courses in whatever university you attend in an afternoon is not even remotely comparable to picking up any of those topics fully in an afternoon. Are you under the impression that after you've been through your 200-level algorithms course you've now exhausted the topic and have nothing left to learn? If you haven't even taken 300 and 400 level courses, how would you know whether "the university environment... is adverse to the development of good CS knowledge"? If that's the case, you should probably drop out of school and save some money. Just start submitting some research papers now! Your lack of a PhD won't matter once you've shown everyone how fully you know each topic.
  - gravypod 11y ago
    If you read my reply to "brodawg" I agree, I say "I don't mean you can understand the full depth of each topic in an afternoon or two, I mean at a working level you could get an understanding of the topic". I don't mean to imply that someone should be teaching courses after an afternoon of flipping through a textbook. That being said, do you need to have a PhD to be a good computer scientist? Most of the skills needed are basic analytical abilities. Sure, someone might not know all the terms that we use and might even think some of the ways we talk about problems are flat out wrong, but it is those individuals who truly leave a mark. I'd argue that the best in our field have just been random people who have stumbled in and said "This looks cool, let me see what I can do with this". Here is a list of people who, in my opinion, fit this category. * Donald Knuth - Do I even need to describe him? (Is a PhD in Mathematics, not CS) * Brian Wilson Kernighan - The Practice of Programming, The C Programming language, The Unix Programming Environment (All books), and first Hello World * John Carmack - Or even him (Dropped out after the 2nd year) * Douglas Crockford - JSON * Carl Sassenrath - REBOL * Bram Cohen - BitTorrent * Michael Widenius - MySQL AB and MariaDB * Larry Wall - Perl I'd love to see you sarcastically mock these people for not having the correct pedigree to even approach understanding our field. I know for certain that since he dropped out of college and does not have a degree in CS John Carmack has no valuable input to give when discussing optimization or algorithms. I don't know honestly. All I can say is that someone can definitely succeed as a computer scientist if they do not have a degree in computer science, and I don't think publishing papers has anything to do with professing your knowledge (mainly my gripe is with how corrupt and obtuse that entire system is). What I do know is that it is extremely unlikely that I will get a job if I don't get a piece of paper from a place that promises it will teach me something.
- nommm-nommm 11y ago
  Sounds like you need to transfer to a better university.
- twothamendment 11y ago
  Been there, done that. I remember sitting in a database class an being excited that we were covering a topic I didn't know - normalization. Then I realized that I had already learned it through experience at work, I just didn't have a name for it. I just thought I was taking a crappy schema and turning it into something I'd like to use. I knew that there are times denormalization can be good in the right places, but I wouldn't have known what to call it. I learned stuff in school, just not often and it wasn't due to HN - I didn't have that option back then. I had a few great classes - some with only a dozen people and great professors. A shout out to other people 12 people who might remember - "Horses are pretty".
  - gravypod 11y ago
    I've had those experiences too. I'd say that the teacher that I am TAing with, who was my teacher for the corse, is actually one of the best educators I've ever had the pleasure of meeting. I also have met a few teachers in other classes that have been very inspiring. I just feel that there is something lacking. I wan't something a little more.

gravypod 11y ago

When I get into my classes at my university I get the textbook, read into the book a little and say "ok, I remember learning about this from X, Y, and Z project I've worked on". I then go on to goof off in every class, as I am doing right this moment. Nothing I have learned is of substance in my algorithms, computer science, or programming classes that I did not already know before I enrolled. I'm bored, and I want to learn something new. I'm holding out for some 300 & 400 level courses, but from what I hear the courses I am looking forward to on operating systems is nothing more than "This is how you open a file in C" and the data structures classes I look forward to is basically "this is how you define a tree and how you traverse a tree".

brodawg 11y ago
Well, maybe if you listened in class you would realize the benefit of what they're trying to teach you. If you really think you can understand complexity theory, algorithms, and advanced data structures in "an afternoon or two", I think about 90% of it went right over your head.
- gravypod 11y ago
  I don't mean you can understand the full depth of each topic in an afternoon or two, I mean at a working level you could get an understanding of the topic.
  - brodawg 11y ago
    I still disagree entirely. You can understand one or two basic algorithms in an afternoon.
solipsism 11y ago
Understanding the material from the lower level courses in whatever university you attend in an afternoon is not even remotely comparable to picking up any of those topics fully in an afternoon. Are you under the impression that after you've been through your 200-level algorithms course you've now exhausted the topic and have nothing left to learn? If you haven't even taken 300 and 400 level courses, how would you know whether "the university environment... is adverse to the development of good CS knowledge"? If that's the case, you should probably drop out of school and save some money. Just start submitting some research papers now! Your lack of a PhD won't matter once you've shown everyone how fully you know each topic.
- gravypod 11y ago
  If you read my reply to "brodawg" I agree, I say "I don't mean you can understand the full depth of each topic in an afternoon or two, I mean at a working level you could get an understanding of the topic". I don't mean to imply that someone should be teaching courses after an afternoon of flipping through a textbook. That being said, do you need to have a PhD to be a good computer scientist? Most of the skills needed are basic analytical abilities. Sure, someone might not know all the terms that we use and might even think some of the ways we talk about problems are flat out wrong, but it is those individuals who truly leave a mark. I'd argue that the best in our field have just been random people who have stumbled in and said "This looks cool, let me see what I can do with this". Here is a list of people who, in my opinion, fit this category. * Donald Knuth - Do I even need to describe him? (Is a PhD in Mathematics, not CS) * Brian Wilson Kernighan - The Practice of Programming, The C Programming language, The Unix Programming Environment (All books), and first Hello World * John Carmack - Or even him (Dropped out after the 2nd year) * Douglas Crockford - JSON * Carl Sassenrath - REBOL * Bram Cohen - BitTorrent * Michael Widenius - MySQL AB and MariaDB * Larry Wall - Perl I'd love to see you sarcastically mock these people for not having the correct pedigree to even approach understanding our field. I know for certain that since he dropped out of college and does not have a degree in CS John Carmack has no valuable input to give when discussing optimization or algorithms. I don't know honestly. All I can say is that someone can definitely succeed as a computer scientist if they do not have a degree in computer science, and I don't think publishing papers has anything to do with professing your knowledge (mainly my gripe is with how corrupt and obtuse that entire system is). What I do know is that it is extremely unlikely that I will get a job if I don't get a piece of paper from a place that promises it will teach me something.
nommm-nommm 11y ago
Sounds like you need to transfer to a better university.
twothamendment 11y ago
Been there, done that. I remember sitting in a database class an being excited that we were covering a topic I didn't know - normalization. Then I realized that I had already learned it through experience at work, I just didn't have a name for it. I just thought I was taking a crappy schema and turning it into something I'd like to use. I knew that there are times denormalization can be good in the right places, but I wouldn't have known what to call it. I learned stuff in school, just not often and it wasn't due to HN - I didn't have that option back then. I had a few great classes - some with only a dozen people and great professors. A shout out to other people 12 people who might remember - "Horses are pretty".
- gravypod 11y ago
  I've had those experiences too. I'd say that the teacher that I am TAing with, who was my teacher for the corse, is actually one of the best educators I've ever had the pleasure of meeting. I also have met a few teachers in other classes that have been very inspiring. I just feel that there is something lacking. I wan't something a little more.