4 ms·

In regards to self guided study, don't fall into the trap of thinking that because you could do it, everyone else could. This is going to sound really conceite

In regards to self guided study, don't fall into the trap of thinking that because you could do it, everyone else could. This is going to sound really conceited and condescending, but I'm going to write it anyway: I reckon that I could've finished my BSc in Computer Science in probably half the time required. I attended only about 2 weeks of lectures per semester, generally didn't start assignments more than a week before they were due, and didn't study more than about 3 days before the exam. For most people though, that doesn't work. They need to go to lectures, they need to study for a couple of weeks before exams, they need to attend the tutorials. Structured learning and the education system is made for the bottom 95% of the population. Schools spend a lot more time, money, and effort on special education and learning support for less gifted students than they do for the gifted ones. It's different at every school, but I remember that through most of primary school, there were no supplemental learning or other activities for gifted students. I was stuck in the same normal stream as everybody else. It wasn't until I got to high school, where students were streamed into different classes, that I actually got pushed to learn and use my abilities, the top stream was basically pushed a year ahead of all the other students. Even for the normal stream of people though, there are people who will excel in certain areas and struggle in others. But a teacher has a class of 30 students to teach. The education system is made for the masses, we would likely get better educational outcomes from having much smaller class ratios, 10 students per teacher maybe, but nobody has the money to pay that many teachers, and there aren't that many teachers out there. Anyway, my point is that for the HN community, being given a set of learning goals and being told to find a way to learn them would work. For most people, they would flail around and struggle.

forapurpose 8y ago
> for the HN community, being given a set of learning goals and being told to find a way to learn them would work It depends very much on what you are learning. Even in computer science, much of what there is to learn - and most of the important things - can't be found in the book. Personal advice by an expert on technique, concepts, and perhaps most crucially, on what you don't know that you don't know, is invaluable. Also, a university has computer resources that no student can match. Then imagine chemistry, history, drawing, etc. If you only mean passing courses in one field - that's vocational training, and passing courses is only a proxy measurement anyway. You're missing out on a lot if you think that's education.
- leetcrew 8y ago
  > Also, a university has computer resources that no student can match. this probably only matters for graduate+ level studies and perhaps a couple upper level electives for undergrads. in my whole time as an undergrad (at a well-regarded regional school), i only used our HPC cluster once for a trivial parallelism project in my algorithms class. the vast majority of my school projects required the compute resources of a 10 year old laptop, anyway. having paid experts on staff that are required to hold office hours and field questions is a much more compelling advantage of university imo.
mitchdoogle 8y ago
The Truth is you don't know how you might have turned out in a different system. Perhaps you excelled because of the system, and not in spite of it.
memebox3v 8y ago
I agree. I think I could have done my degree in a year. Didnt go to any lectures, do any coursework or workshops, learnt the material in a month before the exams. Got 1st class marks (although pulled down to a 2.1 because i didnt do coursework). I used to think everyone could do this if they wanted and that the school/university system was absolutely terrible. Turns out, I'm very bright, who knew? Point is: Most people are not like this, they need the structure, they need the help.
- didibus 8y ago
  How many hours was spent on that month prior per given exam prep? Did you have any prior exposure to comp sci? Had programmed before? Had spent a lot of time on math? Read about comp sci, blogs, articles, books? What does 1st class marks pulled down to a 2 mean? How qualified do you feel you are now compared to your coworkers who followed a more traditional style? Do you think you could have done this one month prior exam cramming 12 months in a row with equal success and without losing the motivation to keep it going?
  - michaelt 8y ago
    What does 1st class marks pulled down to a 2 mean? He means "I got a B+ overall, but I got an A+ on everything I turned in, I just didn't turn in some graded assignments" and his degree was graded using the British classification system [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_undergraduate_degree_classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_undergraduate_degree_c...
    - walshemj 8y ago
      Seems a bit silly to blow of the course work and not get a first - also not a terribly good indicator that they will adapt well to the workplace. Obvs if its a former Polly the difference between a first and a 2.1 isn't as important as an Oxbridge First.
- throwaway3924 8y ago
  Same here. I studied for an EE degree in a very demanding university. Learning exclusively from books proved to be more effective. > Most people are not like this, they need the structure, they need the help. Only because they've been educated to be passive learners! For centuries, aristocrats could afford large family libraries and were very self-directed in their studies. Today we expect scholars and researchers to be avid readers and able to find their own sources. There is no evidence that the remaining 95% is born without the ability to learn from books. (No, IQ is not very relevant here.)
ZeroGravitas 8y ago
Like with 'learning styles', it's easy to assume that lectures help others even though I personally found them stupid and pointless but the research is fairly consistent that they're worse than other options. And now we have cheap video recording, I'd imagine that live lectures are even worse. They're just "the way it's always been done" not an attempt to meet the learning needs of the majority of students. I'd guess that applies to most other stuff that could be tweaked based on svience to benefit all students, rather than pit "gifted" against everyone else.
- toomanybeersies 8y ago
  Live lectures have the advantage that you can ask questions. However, nobody wants to ask questions (except mature students) as they don't want to hold up the lecture. Most of my lectures at university were recorded. Whenever I watched them online I'd speed them up 1.3x, so a 1 hour lecture would only take 45 minutes, with no negative effects, I could speed them up even faster, but I had to pay more attention and sometimes rewind. Unfortunately, some lecturers didn't record their lectures, it was their choice, which seems sort of silly and discriminatory to those students who couldn't make it in for whatever reason (illness, anxiety, etc...). I personally see no reason why for a lot of subjects we couldn't have online lectures, where we could sit in the comfort of our bedroom, and ask any questions to the lecturer online.
didibus 8y ago
> I reckon that I could've finished my BSc in Computer Science in probably half the time required. I attended only about 2 weeks of lectures per semester, generally didn't start assignments more than a week before they were due, and didn't study more than about 3 days before the exam. Something seems to be missing from your reasoning. What were you doing the rest of the time and beforehand? Are you sure it didn't involve computer science related activities? This would mean no reading blogs, HN, programming, no math puzzles, and also no toying with advanced computer use like IT related things. That's the first requirement, otherwise you already spent a lot of time and effort learning comp sci. The other requirement I see for your reasoning to hold true, is that none of the downtime in between courses, exams and assignments was needed for your brain to process the info and absorb it, to relax and be ready for the next mental effort, and for your motivation to keep up and not get bored or distracted. There's also a third implicit, were you actually good and knowledgeable in comp sci, or just successful at passing your university's curriculum? If we suggest changing the system, we want it to produce equally or better qualified individuals. You mention that you've not followed the traditional route, and went at your own pace, which involved short bursts and big downtimes in between (presumably). Did this actually made you a better comp sci practitioner?
- toomanybeersies 8y ago
  To be honest, in my time in between I was largely drinking and working in a restaurant.

forapurpose 8y ago

> for the HN community, being given a set of learning goals and being told to find a way to learn them would work It depends very much on what you are learning. Even in computer science, much of what there is to learn - and most of the important things - can't be found in the book. Personal advice by an expert on technique, concepts, and perhaps most crucially, on what you don't know that you don't know, is invaluable. Also, a university has computer resources that no student can match. Then imagine chemistry, history, drawing, etc. If you only mean passing courses in one field - that's vocational training, and passing courses is only a proxy measurement anyway. You're missing out on a lot if you think that's education.

leetcrew 8y ago
> Also, a university has computer resources that no student can match. this probably only matters for graduate+ level studies and perhaps a couple upper level electives for undergrads. in my whole time as an undergrad (at a well-regarded regional school), i only used our HPC cluster once for a trivial parallelism project in my algorithms class. the vast majority of my school projects required the compute resources of a 10 year old laptop, anyway. having paid experts on staff that are required to hold office hours and field questions is a much more compelling advantage of university imo.

mitchdoogle 8y ago

The Truth is you don't know how you might have turned out in a different system. Perhaps you excelled because of the system, and not in spite of it.

memebox3v 8y ago

I agree. I think I could have done my degree in a year. Didnt go to any lectures, do any coursework or workshops, learnt the material in a month before the exams. Got 1st class marks (although pulled down to a 2.1 because i didnt do coursework). I used to think everyone could do this if they wanted and that the school/university system was absolutely terrible. Turns out, I'm very bright, who knew? Point is: Most people are not like this, they need the structure, they need the help.

didibus 8y ago
How many hours was spent on that month prior per given exam prep? Did you have any prior exposure to comp sci? Had programmed before? Had spent a lot of time on math? Read about comp sci, blogs, articles, books? What does 1st class marks pulled down to a 2 mean? How qualified do you feel you are now compared to your coworkers who followed a more traditional style? Do you think you could have done this one month prior exam cramming 12 months in a row with equal success and without losing the motivation to keep it going?
- michaelt 8y ago
  What does 1st class marks pulled down to a 2 mean? He means "I got a B+ overall, but I got an A+ on everything I turned in, I just didn't turn in some graded assignments" and his degree was graded using the British classification system [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_undergraduate_degree_classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_undergraduate_degree_c...
  - walshemj 8y ago
    Seems a bit silly to blow of the course work and not get a first - also not a terribly good indicator that they will adapt well to the workplace. Obvs if its a former Polly the difference between a first and a 2.1 isn't as important as an Oxbridge First.
throwaway3924 8y ago
Same here. I studied for an EE degree in a very demanding university. Learning exclusively from books proved to be more effective. > Most people are not like this, they need the structure, they need the help. Only because they've been educated to be passive learners! For centuries, aristocrats could afford large family libraries and were very self-directed in their studies. Today we expect scholars and researchers to be avid readers and able to find their own sources. There is no evidence that the remaining 95% is born without the ability to learn from books. (No, IQ is not very relevant here.)

ZeroGravitas 8y ago

Like with 'learning styles', it's easy to assume that lectures help others even though I personally found them stupid and pointless but the research is fairly consistent that they're worse than other options. And now we have cheap video recording, I'd imagine that live lectures are even worse. They're just "the way it's always been done" not an attempt to meet the learning needs of the majority of students. I'd guess that applies to most other stuff that could be tweaked based on svience to benefit all students, rather than pit "gifted" against everyone else.

toomanybeersies 8y ago
Live lectures have the advantage that you can ask questions. However, nobody wants to ask questions (except mature students) as they don't want to hold up the lecture. Most of my lectures at university were recorded. Whenever I watched them online I'd speed them up 1.3x, so a 1 hour lecture would only take 45 minutes, with no negative effects, I could speed them up even faster, but I had to pay more attention and sometimes rewind. Unfortunately, some lecturers didn't record their lectures, it was their choice, which seems sort of silly and discriminatory to those students who couldn't make it in for whatever reason (illness, anxiety, etc...). I personally see no reason why for a lot of subjects we couldn't have online lectures, where we could sit in the comfort of our bedroom, and ask any questions to the lecturer online.

didibus 8y ago

> I reckon that I could've finished my BSc in Computer Science in probably half the time required. I attended only about 2 weeks of lectures per semester, generally didn't start assignments more than a week before they were due, and didn't study more than about 3 days before the exam. Something seems to be missing from your reasoning. What were you doing the rest of the time and beforehand? Are you sure it didn't involve computer science related activities? This would mean no reading blogs, HN, programming, no math puzzles, and also no toying with advanced computer use like IT related things. That's the first requirement, otherwise you already spent a lot of time and effort learning comp sci. The other requirement I see for your reasoning to hold true, is that none of the downtime in between courses, exams and assignments was needed for your brain to process the info and absorb it, to relax and be ready for the next mental effort, and for your motivation to keep up and not get bored or distracted. There's also a third implicit, were you actually good and knowledgeable in comp sci, or just successful at passing your university's curriculum? If we suggest changing the system, we want it to produce equally or better qualified individuals. You mention that you've not followed the traditional route, and went at your own pace, which involved short bursts and big downtimes in between (presumably). Did this actually made you a better comp sci practitioner?

toomanybeersies 8y ago
To be honest, in my time in between I was largely drinking and working in a restaurant.