4 ms·

1. Professors, TAs, and graders aren't judged on their ability to answer students' questions. They are judged on many other things: attending conferences, publ

1. Professors, TAs, and graders aren't judged on their ability to answer students' questions. They are judged on many other things: attending conferences, publishing research, writing their dissertation. They prioritize accordingly. 2. The courses with the highest attrition rates are always the 100-level weed-out classes taught in 500-person lecture halls. At my school, a 40% drop rate in Intro CS was normal and 60% wasn't unheard-of. Were the drop-outs all too dumb to learn programming? Did some of them have trouble getting their questions answered? Nobody lost as much sleep over those questions as they did over their thesis defense. See #1. 3. Most student questions are about BS that's irrelevant to learning. What's on the test? Do we have to read all of chapter 7? Why did you take ten points off on problem four? What font and spacing do you want me to use on the write-up? I agree that formal education can change a student's world when it's done right. I don't think our current system rises to meet that standard very often. In part that's because it's easy to ignore real problems by thinking about the ideal. University education can be better than it is now, and competition from less formal learning can help it get there.

scott_s 16y ago
I am aware of, and have commented myself, on the priorities that professors have at a research University. That, however, is orthogonal to the issue of: are teachers themselves unnecessary?
- mnemonicsloth 16y ago
  I apologize for being unclear. Late night, complicated issue. I should have just said we have empirical evidence that teachers themselves aren't that necessary. At the bottleneck where most failures happen -- lecture hall weed-out classes -- students have essentially the same non-relationship with profs that they have with lecturers on YouTube. But even supposing universities are 30% better, internet learning is a classic disruptive technology. Old players in the market are too big to innovate. The new technology looks like a toy. It's lightweight and flexible. It's $200k cheaper. New players will emerge to capture some of that savings in exchange for removing some of the inefficiencies. Eventually they reach feature parity with the old guard, but with a lower price point, etc. etc. The worst case is Worse Is Better. I'm bullish.
yummyfajitas 16y ago
At my school, a 40% drop rate in Intro CS was normal and 60% wasn't unheard-of. Were the drop-outs all too dumb to learn programming? Mostly, yes. Intro courses just aren't that hard. Anyone who has even a prayer of surviving in the real world should be able to get through them even if their questions go unanswered and the TA doesn't like them.
- mnemonicsloth 16y ago
  Students have crappy incentives too. They know school is going to take four years. They can work twice as hard, impress their profs, and maybe get slightly better recommendation letters. Or not. The lack of a clear relationship between effort and reward is the ultimate cause of the haplessness they exhibit. Take away the structure and they might just start taking responsibility for themselves.
Tangurena 16y ago
> Were the drop-outs all too dumb to learn programming? Having tutored some of them - who all changed majors after the "flunk out" courses - the answer is a qualified Yes. I wouldn't call them stupid, but I would say that they just couldn't "get it". Just like some programmers cannot "get" pointers, many people just don't have what it takes to program. Many people wanted to be a developer because it pays well. When they got into the introductory classes, they found that they didn't "get" it - and for the folks who dropped the class and changed majors - they could not get it. I'm not saying that programming is some magical career where rainbows flow out of unicorn's rear ends.
- mnemonicsloth 16y ago
  You're willing to question the ability of these students by saying "they couldn't get it." You haven't examined the possibility that you couldn't teach it. I don't want to question your intelligence here. I'm sincerely interested in your answer to the question: how do you know it's the one and not the other? Here's some historical perspective. Before he became "The Great," Alexander's father Philip arranged for the young man to be tutored by Aristotle, who was already a world-famous academic. Philip was famous as well, for having his political enemies flayed or boiled alive. Imagine Aristotle saying to Philip, "Your son Alexander is a very bright young man. If he would only apply himself. B-"

scott_s 16y ago

I am aware of, and have commented myself, on the priorities that professors have at a research University. That, however, is orthogonal to the issue of: are teachers themselves unnecessary?

mnemonicsloth 16y ago
I apologize for being unclear. Late night, complicated issue. I should have just said we have empirical evidence that teachers themselves aren't that necessary. At the bottleneck where most failures happen -- lecture hall weed-out classes -- students have essentially the same non-relationship with profs that they have with lecturers on YouTube. But even supposing universities are 30% better, internet learning is a classic disruptive technology. Old players in the market are too big to innovate. The new technology looks like a toy. It's lightweight and flexible. It's $200k cheaper. New players will emerge to capture some of that savings in exchange for removing some of the inefficiencies. Eventually they reach feature parity with the old guard, but with a lower price point, etc. etc. The worst case is Worse Is Better. I'm bullish.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

At my school, a 40% drop rate in Intro CS was normal and 60% wasn't unheard-of. Were the drop-outs all too dumb to learn programming? Mostly, yes. Intro courses just aren't that hard. Anyone who has even a prayer of surviving in the real world should be able to get through them even if their questions go unanswered and the TA doesn't like them.

mnemonicsloth 16y ago
Students have crappy incentives too. They know school is going to take four years. They can work twice as hard, impress their profs, and maybe get slightly better recommendation letters. Or not. The lack of a clear relationship between effort and reward is the ultimate cause of the haplessness they exhibit. Take away the structure and they might just start taking responsibility for themselves.

Tangurena 16y ago

> Were the drop-outs all too dumb to learn programming? Having tutored some of them - who all changed majors after the "flunk out" courses - the answer is a qualified Yes. I wouldn't call them stupid, but I would say that they just couldn't "get it". Just like some programmers cannot "get" pointers, many people just don't have what it takes to program. Many people wanted to be a developer because it pays well. When they got into the introductory classes, they found that they didn't "get" it - and for the folks who dropped the class and changed majors - they could not get it. I'm not saying that programming is some magical career where rainbows flow out of unicorn's rear ends.

mnemonicsloth 16y ago
You're willing to question the ability of these students by saying "they couldn't get it." You haven't examined the possibility that you couldn't teach it. I don't want to question your intelligence here. I'm sincerely interested in your answer to the question: how do you know it's the one and not the other? Here's some historical perspective. Before he became "The Great," Alexander's father Philip arranged for the young man to be tutored by Aristotle, who was already a world-famous academic. Philip was famous as well, for having his political enemies flayed or boiled alive. Imagine Aristotle saying to Philip, "Your son Alexander is a very bright young man. If he would only apply himself. B-"