6 ms·
Stanford has also dumbed down its undergrad CS major, removing all of the old engineering requirements that tended to filter out the SJW types. Edit: seems the
by aliston 7y ago
Stanford has also dumbed down its undergrad CS major, removing all of the old engineering requirements that tended to filter out the SJW types.
Edit: seems the downvoters don’t like what I have to say, but that doesn’t make it less true. Compare the graduation requirements for CS at Stanford from a few years ago to now - no compilers or os, no multivariable calculus, no pointers. They literally eliminated all the hard classes. As a result, the degree has become more liberal arts focused and the makeup of the class has changed in sync. I’d guess more than 50% of cs majors at Stanford we’re asian and foreign born just a few years ago - folks who you generally don’t see leading direct action protests.
- likhuva 7y ago>> seems the downvoters don’t like what I have to say, but that doesn’t make it less true. Except that it isn't true. A quick look at https://cs.stanford.edu/degrees/ug/Requirements.shtml https://cs.stanford.edu/degrees/ug/Requirements.shtml paints a completely diffrent picture.
- aliston 7y agoPlease point out where something I said isn’t accurate.
- likhuva 7y ago>> no compilers or os, no multivariable calculus, no pointers. Stanford still requires cs students to take classes that cover the material above (except compilers which can be taken as a specialization)
- aliston 7y agoThat’s just not true - they all became depth electives or not required at all. OS is 140. Not required. Multi var calculus is math 51. Not required. As you note, compilers is not required. They also removed the EE hardware class in favor of a mishmash of core cs classes that are easier.
- jdashg 7y agoIt depends on the track. HCI for instance doesn't require those, but other tracks do. CS isn't just about printing software engineers.
- manfredo 7y agoStanford did indeed make some changes that I feel did significantly impact the rigor of the courses. Most notably, CS106 (A, B and X) and 107 all introduced team assignments, but the assignments themselves largely did not change. So you have twice the workforce for each assignment. I feel like this also meant that when a pair consisted of two people of different levels of skill the quicker student finds and fixes most bugs, thereby depriving the weaker student from developing debugging skills. Without pair programming the latter would eventually develop those skills but it would take longer and require more assistance from section leaders. I think it's a bit crude to say it's been "dumbed down" but it is not entirely untrue. Also I don't think this has anything to do with "SJWs", these changes were directly prompted by staffing shortages.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ineedasername 7y agoI see no connection between a person being a so-called "SJW" and an inability to perform more rigorous engineering work. I have no idea where you draw that connection from.
- i_am_nomad 7y agoStatistics and observation, probably.
- ineedasername 7y agoAnecdote & bias is more likely
- magashna 7y agoInclusivity at the expense of merit.
- mitfahrener 7y agoNo worries. Us non-wokies will vote you up :)
- tayo42 7y agosounds like they are aligning the degree with the realities of a programing career. did calculus really make you a better software engineer? Most development happens at such a high level that not knowing OS and compilers probably can get most people by. How much of development is made up of frontend js programmers, mobile developers, web developers writing php/wordpress stuff. If you do want to be good at it, it is a specialty. If you do want to do science, there are still masters and phd programs. Undergrad is job prep for most people and colleges are doing a disservice by pretending it's not.
- sp527 7y ago> Undergrad is job prep for most people and colleges are doing a disservice by pretending it's not. This is a completely inverted way to frame it. Higher education shouldn't be perverted by the whims of the labor market. Universities don't need to change their curriculums. Companies need to change their hiring standards.
- mellowdream 7y agoIf only higher education weren't already perverted by the realities of greed and incompetent bureaucracy leading to our little student debt problem inconveniencing a handful of students in the country /s
- sp527 7y agoThis is very a bold straw man.
- skgoa 7y agoIt shouldn't be, but for most people entering into it, becoming highly desirable on the job/employee market is the chief motivator. If a university doesn't cater to that demand, the students will go elsewhere.
- sp527 7y agoI don't disagree. And maybe students should go elsewhere. Maybe our society should rethink what qualifications it seeks of prospective entrants to the labor force. What should not change, however, is the fundamental nature of academia. That model is inviolate and has propelled much progress in our species' collective knowledge. In fact, I think the hijacking of higher education as an assembly line to furnish credentials wholesale is an unforgivable adulteration of that institution.
- gaze 7y agoYou’re literally just calling SJWs stupid in a roundabout way.
- wnmurphy 7y agoYou may be getting downvoted for applying a derogatory term commonly used to dismiss anyone with a conscience, and the privilege to actually exercise it.
- captainredbeard 7y agoHmm, sounds like the argument used to justify social conservatives who attempted to impose their conscience / morals on the others...
- wnmurphy 7y agoYou can speak up for what you believe in without imposing it on others, you know.
- raxxorrax 7y agoI don't like forced moralization as much as the next one but I think this is a bad development. Before computer science becoming something you could study, it was mostly bundled with philosophy in my country. That isn't just about chugging two beers and talking about the state of the world. Arguments are carefully crafted and (logical) consistency is valued that could for one help you with in your field and additionally allows you to look beyond the horizon on a lot of issues.
- spamizbad 7y agoStanford's admission rate has been dropping over the last decade, so I highly doubt newer students are any less qualified or capable. In fact, I'd argue the opposite: The median student slated to graduate in 2023 is likely smarter and harder-working than median student who graduated in 2003.
- manfredo 7y agoNot necessarily, a dropping admissions rate can be experienced even if the performance requirements remain the same and the number of unqualified applicants increases.
- spamizbad 7y agoUnlikely given that Stanford has long been considered by the public to be a name-brand tier-1 school for decades.
- manfredo 7y ago"for decades" that's somewhat debatable. Stanford has been renowned locally in California and along much of the west coast for decades. Its nation-wide renown and worldwide renown are more recent. Stanford started to see large growth in the matriculation rate and number of applicants in the mid to late 2000s and really kicking off in the 2010s. One year, I think in 2009, there was unexpectedly high matriculation to such an extent that freshman had to sleep in cots for a few weeks. It's been a good University for a while, but I think it's reputation as an institution on par with Harvard or Princeton, or OxBridge is maybe 10-15 years old.
- qntty 7y agoYou're really flattening the diversity of people with a political consciousness. "Social justice" isn't the be-all end-all goal of politics.