7 ms·

I cringe when I see articles such as this, leading research universities will always be superior to "teaching" schools. Not only is conducting quantitative rese

by Kephael 10y ago

I cringe when I see articles such as this, leading research universities will always be superior to "teaching" schools. Not only is conducting quantitative research far more difficult than teaching, the research garners prestige and leads to higher rankings which attracts a more intelligent and ambitious student body. Ultimately the real value of a degree comes from the networking and signaling ability granted by it, I can always learn on my own by working through textbooks or reading journal articles. What I'd really like out of a university experience is to befriend people who will be starting innovative companies or researchers publishing in top journals.

roymurdock 10y ago
I cross-registered for a class at Olin (featured in the article) which turned out to one of the top 3 classes I took in college. We inherited the designs for a portable vegetable grater from 6 previous semesters of work, and iterated further upon its design. We then produced 4 prototype graters and went to Ghana to sell them to rural Cassava farming women who generally have to grate the cassava by hand or use dirty, broken communal graters. We worked closely with the local university and metal shop. By the end of the semester we were ready to hand off plans to get a batch of 10 graters produced on the next trip, and with further plans to get a pilot of 50 produced in Ghana in tandem with Ghanaian engineers and metalsmiths, and had plans to set up an unorthodox supply and distribution chain once the successive groups had secured grant funding. I wouldn't discount the value imparted by a class that throws you into a project with smart people with strong personalities and tells you to figure things out in 3 months before putting your product in front of paying customers. Also, this type of "hands-on" class is generally a capstone that comes after the basic engineering classes that all of the Olin students take freshman and sophomore year. Our professor was a brilliant guy and could have easily just focused on research and churned out great results, but he found it much more fulfilling to be hands on with our project and to guide us through the actual gritty process of creating a product and a business.
avs733 10y ago
There are a series of logical fallacies in this post...to the point that it is nonsense. For starters, what is a "teaching" school? is it the same as a teaching focused university? If so, not only do the faculty at teaching focused produce research of their own, much of which is extremely high quality, but the research often includes undergraduates in far more structured and educationally meaningful ways than occurs in similar programs at R1 type universities. Another...and I'm going to stop after this...why the narrowing to quantitative research? Your incorrect assertion that research is more difficult than education goes against not only what we know about education, but against basic logic itself. Education is immensely more complicated than most research, its just a complication that people chose to ignore (because hey, your education worked sufficiently for you). I have worked with several of the schools mentioned in this article (and if you want to know anything about me check out my prior comments and profile)...you say research universities are superior. On what metric? a lot of Olin students chose Olin over MIT. A lot of Deep Springs students (mentioned lower in the thread) choose it over places like Harvard and Yale. I feel like you might be better off reading some of the responses to your last effort to 'solve' education on HN.
- laughinghan 10y ago
  Your post is nonsense. The grandparent post had no logical fallacies, it was structurally incapable of having logical fallacies, by virtue of not making a deductive argument, just describing a factual belief. The grandparent post stated a belief that research universities are superior to "teaching" schools, and then described ways in which they are superior, with an addendum about what the author really wants out of a university experience. It was an informative post (that I disagree with), but it had no premise, no conclusion, no deduction that could be fallacious. > For starters, what is a "teaching" school? is it the same as a teaching focused university? As you seem well aware, there are many conventional ways including R1 to classify research-focused vs teaching-focused schools, which all broadly agree, especially on the leaders in each category. > why the narrowing to quantitative research? This is an excellent point, and one of the reasons I disagree with grandparent. > Your incorrect assertion that research is more difficult than education goes against [...] basic logic itself. Education is immensely more complicated than most research Seriously, this is not how logic works. "You're wrong" is not a logical fallacy. Regarding the actual point: while there's a case to be made that education is more complicated than research (perhaps even "immensely"), due to the same reasons that social sciences are more complicated than "hard" sciences, it doesn't seem any stronger to me than the case for the reverse. In particular, objectively there's more pay, status, and recognition for quantitative research than education (how many more people have heard of the Nobel Prize than...whatever awards they give out for teaching?), due at least in part to supply and demand, which says something about relative difficulty. > ...you say research universities are superior. On what metric? a lot of Olin students chose Olin over MIT. A lot of Deep Springs students (mentioned lower in the thread) choose it over places like Harvard and Yale. Now you're making an actual point. Good for you.
  - avs733 10y ago
    I am sorry you got downvoted...your post was perfectly reasonable and correct. I didn't mean logical fallacy, poor choice of words at 2am while grumpy.
    - laughinghan 10y ago
sevensor 10y ago
Having worked with R1-educated EEs who didn't know which end of a soldering iron to hold, I've got to disagree with you there. Abstract knowledge and social signaling can get you a job, but they can't make you useful once you're there. Some educators will feed you a line of BS about learning how to learn so that you can learn on the job, but that's very hard to do if you don't have any actual concrete skills. If, as you imply, you're still in school, I'd recommend you learn to be useful before you get out.
choosername 10y ago
>Ultimately the real value of a degree comes from the networking and signaling ability granted by it, Absolutely not. The intrinsic value of studies is learned from the studied material, the knowledge. Sure, in relative terms, a research grant allows much deeper insights, and with it the prestige. A student that takes twice as long learns less relative to the time. But first order in the end, applicable knowledge is counting most. The certificates just prove that.

by Kephael 10y ago

roymurdock 10y ago

I cross-registered for a class at Olin (featured in the article) which turned out to one of the top 3 classes I took in college. We inherited the designs for a portable vegetable grater from 6 previous semesters of work, and iterated further upon its design. We then produced 4 prototype graters and went to Ghana to sell them to rural Cassava farming women who generally have to grate the cassava by hand or use dirty, broken communal graters. We worked closely with the local university and metal shop. By the end of the semester we were ready to hand off plans to get a batch of 10 graters produced on the next trip, and with further plans to get a pilot of 50 produced in Ghana in tandem with Ghanaian engineers and metalsmiths, and had plans to set up an unorthodox supply and distribution chain once the successive groups had secured grant funding. I wouldn't discount the value imparted by a class that throws you into a project with smart people with strong personalities and tells you to figure things out in 3 months before putting your product in front of paying customers. Also, this type of "hands-on" class is generally a capstone that comes after the basic engineering classes that all of the Olin students take freshman and sophomore year. Our professor was a brilliant guy and could have easily just focused on research and churned out great results, but he found it much more fulfilling to be hands on with our project and to guide us through the actual gritty process of creating a product and a business.

avs733 10y ago

There are a series of logical fallacies in this post...to the point that it is nonsense. For starters, what is a "teaching" school? is it the same as a teaching focused university? If so, not only do the faculty at teaching focused produce research of their own, much of which is extremely high quality, but the research often includes undergraduates in far more structured and educationally meaningful ways than occurs in similar programs at R1 type universities. Another...and I'm going to stop after this...why the narrowing to quantitative research? Your incorrect assertion that research is more difficult than education goes against not only what we know about education, but against basic logic itself. Education is immensely more complicated than most research, its just a complication that people chose to ignore (because hey, your education worked sufficiently for you). I have worked with several of the schools mentioned in this article (and if you want to know anything about me check out my prior comments and profile)...you say research universities are superior. On what metric? a lot of Olin students chose Olin over MIT. A lot of Deep Springs students (mentioned lower in the thread) choose it over places like Harvard and Yale. I feel like you might be better off reading some of the responses to your last effort to 'solve' education on HN.

laughinghan 10y ago
Your post is nonsense. The grandparent post had no logical fallacies, it was structurally incapable of having logical fallacies, by virtue of not making a deductive argument, just describing a factual belief. The grandparent post stated a belief that research universities are superior to "teaching" schools, and then described ways in which they are superior, with an addendum about what the author really wants out of a university experience. It was an informative post (that I disagree with), but it had no premise, no conclusion, no deduction that could be fallacious. > For starters, what is a "teaching" school? is it the same as a teaching focused university? As you seem well aware, there are many conventional ways including R1 to classify research-focused vs teaching-focused schools, which all broadly agree, especially on the leaders in each category. > why the narrowing to quantitative research? This is an excellent point, and one of the reasons I disagree with grandparent. > Your incorrect assertion that research is more difficult than education goes against [...] basic logic itself. Education is immensely more complicated than most research Seriously, this is not how logic works. "You're wrong" is not a logical fallacy. Regarding the actual point: while there's a case to be made that education is more complicated than research (perhaps even "immensely"), due to the same reasons that social sciences are more complicated than "hard" sciences, it doesn't seem any stronger to me than the case for the reverse. In particular, objectively there's more pay, status, and recognition for quantitative research than education (how many more people have heard of the Nobel Prize than...whatever awards they give out for teaching?), due at least in part to supply and demand, which says something about relative difficulty. > ...you say research universities are superior. On what metric? a lot of Olin students chose Olin over MIT. A lot of Deep Springs students (mentioned lower in the thread) choose it over places like Harvard and Yale. Now you're making an actual point. Good for you.
- avs733 10y ago
  I am sorry you got downvoted...your post was perfectly reasonable and correct. I didn't mean logical fallacy, poor choice of words at 2am while grumpy.
  - laughinghan 10y ago

sevensor 10y ago

Having worked with R1-educated EEs who didn't know which end of a soldering iron to hold, I've got to disagree with you there. Abstract knowledge and social signaling can get you a job, but they can't make you useful once you're there. Some educators will feed you a line of BS about learning how to learn so that you can learn on the job, but that's very hard to do if you don't have any actual concrete skills. If, as you imply, you're still in school, I'd recommend you learn to be useful before you get out.

choosername 10y ago

>Ultimately the real value of a degree comes from the networking and signaling ability granted by it, Absolutely not. The intrinsic value of studies is learned from the studied material, the knowledge. Sure, in relative terms, a research grant allows much deeper insights, and with it the prestige. A student that takes twice as long learns less relative to the time. But first order in the end, applicable knowledge is counting most. The certificates just prove that.