4 ms·
Didn't go to grad school for this stuff, but I did study it in undergrad. I wrote dozens of papers like this, and they always got great marks. For me, the reas
by adpoe 10y ago
Didn't go to grad school for this stuff, but I did study it in undergrad. I wrote dozens of papers like this, and they always got great marks.
For me, the reason I did it was simple: if you want good grades/academic-approval in this field... writing like that works!
I do think there is signaling going on--if your paper has the 'gestalt' of what a 'good paper' looks like, then you get an A. Because you 'get it'.
Similar signaling happens in all fields though, including software. For instance, when you're looking at a coder's website/github/resume, there are certain things hiring committees look for before passing on to the next level of the hiring process.
It's the same thing, I think. But the ultimate cause is most likely laziness. We use gestalt evaluation as a way to make quick judgments about whether a person understands our field. If they do--that means we don't have to read/evaluate that closely, and it's less effort for us.
Like all behaviors that are reinforced, there is motivation to encourage from both sides. Everyone wins on the deal.
- kuschku 10y ago> Everyone wins on the deal. Except those who are new to the field, yet still have worthwhile contributions. They are shut out. Removing this bullshit signaling and standards is what we've been trying to do in academics for decades, to allow even children from lower class families to actively contribute without any disadvantage to their peers. Yet, now you're saying that this signaling is a "win-win situation"?
- adpoe 10y agoIn a sarcastic way, yes. Obviously it's a problem that self-propagates and creates new problems. But it works for the "people in power"; those who wield influence in the literary field.
- kuschku 10y agoAh, okay. I might have missed the sarcasm - obviously, with me being already sceptical of the person who'd write such a thing, I interpreted the text in a different way.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- JonnieCache 10y ago>I interpreted the text in a different way. Maybe you should write a paper :)
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- algesten 10y agoBut if we apply that thought to computer science. Would you argue we'd better stick to using Basic, because the concepts are easier than say Haskell? Those new to the field would not appreciate why something is immutable and monadic, they are shut out. (Doesn't mean they can't churn out a simple form in VB). It's not reasonable to hold everyone hostage to the least common denominator. That only foster mediocrity. Thankfully computer science has not suffered much from this, and I don't think social sciences should be held back either.
- kuschku 10y agoActually, that's exactly what we do. If you publish an algorithm in a paper, it's acceptable to do it in any language, pseudocode, as flowchart, structogram, etc. I've seen papers describing algorithms in Scheme, Haskell, but also in python before.
- algesten 10y agoThere's a difference. You wouldn't expect some random person off the street to understand this algorithm even when expressed in simplified pseudocode. Similarly there's no reason to expect a random person off the street to understand the language of a modern philosophical book. Each field of study (social sciences and computer sciences) has its own domain specific language and concepts that requires some work to get your head around.
- kuschku 10y agoEvery child that finished high school would be expected to be able to understand any such book with only their own knowledge and an encyclopedia, though.
- foldr 10y agoThere speaks someone who's never done any teaching. Trust me, you would be amazed by what people who have finished high school can fail to understand.