10 ms·

> What really surprised me was the core principle at British unversities - "don't assume prior knowledge of anything". The rationale is that you want to give 1

> What really surprised me was the core principle at British unversities - "don't assume prior knowledge of anything". The rationale is that you want to give 18 year olds the opportunity to pick a field of study that they're excited about now rather than forcing them to choose something based on what kind of education their parents thought proper for them six years ago. If a single "intro to programming" course and a slightly easier first math course can onboard smart students who otherwise would be hopelessly lost, and the only downside is that a couple of better-prepared students feel a bit bored, that's a small price to pay.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Dahoon 6y ago
That is just an excuse. You could easily take an "intro to programming" before trying to get into the school. All it does is lower the bar of entry and you can only teach so much in the time given so it will ultimately take time away in the other end.
- salty_biscuits 6y ago
  What's wrong with a low bar to tertiary education? It lets disadvantaged kids get in and catch up. As long as the standards are high by the end everything is fine right?
  - michaelt 6y ago
    In theory? Nothing at all. In practice, some see the fact many tech employers give coding tests to people with CS degrees as a sign the standards at the end aren't as consistently high as one might hope.
    - CalChris 6y ago
      It works in practice as well. That is what junior college is all about. About a third of Berkeley graduates came from JCs. Transferring in at the JC level is competitive and hard and getting out is always hard.
    - scaryclam 6y ago
      CS isn't programming, so I don't think it's unreasonable to make sure a candidate from a CS background has the basics down.
    - dan-robertson 6y ago
      This is a stupid argument. Is one to suppose that the brain teasers that were popular in interviews 15 years ago implied that universities weren’t teaching people to be clever or something? I think a lot of interviewing style is fashion driven. Also computer science isn’t necessarily about actually coding anyway. It’s mostly about algorithms and structure and complexity. Similarly, anyone who knows anything about university mathematics courses does not expect fresh graduates to be particularly good at arithmetic
      - dgb23 6y ago
        The difference is that programming is an essential craft. Algorithms are fundamental here, but it seems like teaching „structure and complexity“ equals to teaching paradigms that where en vogue a generation ago. This kind of knowledge is distracting, pretentious and even harmful.
        Loulybob 6y ago
        On the other hand, I find it hard to imagine you can make a multiple year degree out of just programming. Hence why the best courses will have a mix of both practical and theory.
  - _0ffh 6y ago
    Nothing, if you let people who do not want to waste time (and tuition fees!) on repeating basic stuff skip ahead.
    - mpodlasin 6y ago
      I also studied CS on polish university and I feel we had the best of both worlds: Initial programming courses were electives, where you could choose between more basic or more advanced "intro to programming" course. Basic had python, while advanced had c and c++. Similarly logic classes were in basic and advanced groups and it was easy to choose the group you want and switch groups during course. In fact, I was the guy who came for CS degree after never doing great at math or CS in high school and it reaaaaaally helped me to get up to speed with the others.
    - ozim 6y ago
      If those people who do not waste time are so smart why they have to be hold by the hand and given curriculum? (tuition fees you can count as means for getting a diploma, but also if someone is soo smart, why does he need a diploma anyway?) What I imagine really smart person would do is: go to people giving the course for additional work or talk with them to show where they are at. Skip classes, read something else while in a class. Take advantage of knowledge to not care about the course curriculum and do his own research. But that is my idea and maybe people who think their time is wasted could be a bit more humble and learn to work with other people.
      - literallycancer 6y ago
        In principle, yeah. Read something else in class -- better to just skip it then. It is not uncommon for people to skip lectures and just do the exam. >If those people who do not waste time are so smart why they have to be hold by the hand and given curriculum? There's a culture of "rules apply to everyone" and people are not used to asking for special treatment. So if you don't make it super obvious, people will assume they can't ask for adjustments. Also, no tuition so weaker incentive to get your money's worth.
        6y ago
  - Avamander 6y ago
    In my experience, it's like being sabotaged. If one has a previous interest in the subject but is forced to complete all the same courses it gets very very tedious. Akin to being forced to fill middle school worksheets - you can do it, but it takes time and is just mind-numbing.
    - mrscottson 6y ago
      I think US universities are forced to cover things again due to a failure in the K-12 system of schooling that precedes it, and the lack of adequate testing to weed out ill prepared individuals. In many countries, these kids would probably not get into college in the first place due to failing preparatory tests. In the US there are many financial incentives to pull in as many kids as possible and that may cause a lowering of barriers. An observation in the maths, many countries in Asia cover calculus at the middle school level and continue into high school, in the US I noticed many public schools categorize calculus as an advanced (sometimes elective) high school subject.
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    The total amount of a study program is limited, if you spend a year on repeating the basic concepts, that's a huge part of your "learning time budget" that you're not not able to devote on learning more advanced topics.
- azernik 6y ago
  UC Berkeley (where I did my CS degree) follows this model after admission. There's CS61A, an introductory class for people with some math/computers background, and CS3, an introduction for people coming in with no background. Successful and interested CS3 students are then funnelled into CS61A.
  - CalChris 6y ago
    Yes but minus the math; what math there was in 61A was easy. 61A didn't really expect much prerequisite either, but then it took off quickly. A lot of work but not intellectually very hard. It was then taught in Scheme which no one knew. Scheme is an elegant language which we never used again. SICP was the course text which no one ever read. What I really remember was EE40 taking like a week to explain Ohm's Law. I thought, Ok, I think I've got this class. But then it just went exponential and then the prof just dumped a bunch of chapters on us at the end that he didn't cover and said that'll be on the final. EE40 covered about a third of 105. EE40 just had an insane amount of material and labs. FWIW, I think 16A+B covers better material than EE40 did although I have a soft spot in my heart for what was EE20. BTW, Calculus 1A at Berkeley, if you didn't take AP Calculus in high school, was brutal. Pointlessly so, since most math in non-math courses was pretty straightforward. But all the freshman courses at Berkeley were hard. You either got up to speed or you got out. Upper division was even harder, but you were prepared by then.
    - azernik 6y ago
      61A was easy in terms of math, but hard in terms of everything else. Every student I met who had never programmed before taking 61A found it intellectually quite challenging, both before and after the switch to Python; even without math, thinking in terms of computation and execution is not natural. Given that second-hand experience, I found the excision of all of SICP's math from the curriculum to be quite a good choice, as adding advanced math as another prerequisite would have raised the barrier to entry even higher. (Side note: your description of EE40 sounds like a professor who didn't schedule well, not intentional difficulty.)
      - 6y ago
- stdbrouw 6y ago
  Let's say lowering the bar has the result of making two courses absolutely useless for you, because you've already mastered everything there is to know about them. And let's say your typical bachelor's degree includes 30 or more courses. The time "taken away" from you is around 5%. Time that surely you could spend by studying for the other courses a little bit more diligently, by solving all the optional homework exercises, by going the extra mile for projects. That said, if after your undergraduate degree you are unsatisfied by the amount of stuff you've learned thus far, there's an easy solution: continue on and pursue a master's degree.
  - Avamander 6y ago
    In my case it was first two semesters. Being forced to write what are basically hello worlds what you wrote six years ago was so asinine.
- dwighttk 6y ago
  Some universities will let you skip intro courses by passing a test.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Dahoon 6y ago

That is just an excuse. You could easily take an "intro to programming" before trying to get into the school. All it does is lower the bar of entry and you can only teach so much in the time given so it will ultimately take time away in the other end.

salty_biscuits 6y ago
What's wrong with a low bar to tertiary education? It lets disadvantaged kids get in and catch up. As long as the standards are high by the end everything is fine right?
- michaelt 6y ago
  In theory? Nothing at all. In practice, some see the fact many tech employers give coding tests to people with CS degrees as a sign the standards at the end aren't as consistently high as one might hope.
  - CalChris 6y ago
    It works in practice as well. That is what junior college is all about. About a third of Berkeley graduates came from JCs. Transferring in at the JC level is competitive and hard and getting out is always hard.
  - scaryclam 6y ago
    CS isn't programming, so I don't think it's unreasonable to make sure a candidate from a CS background has the basics down.
  - dan-robertson 6y ago
    This is a stupid argument. Is one to suppose that the brain teasers that were popular in interviews 15 years ago implied that universities weren’t teaching people to be clever or something? I think a lot of interviewing style is fashion driven. Also computer science isn’t necessarily about actually coding anyway. It’s mostly about algorithms and structure and complexity. Similarly, anyone who knows anything about university mathematics courses does not expect fresh graduates to be particularly good at arithmetic
    - dgb23 6y ago
      The difference is that programming is an essential craft. Algorithms are fundamental here, but it seems like teaching „structure and complexity“ equals to teaching paradigms that where en vogue a generation ago. This kind of knowledge is distracting, pretentious and even harmful.
      - Loulybob 6y ago
        On the other hand, I find it hard to imagine you can make a multiple year degree out of just programming. Hence why the best courses will have a mix of both practical and theory.
- _0ffh 6y ago
  Nothing, if you let people who do not want to waste time (and tuition fees!) on repeating basic stuff skip ahead.
  - mpodlasin 6y ago
    I also studied CS on polish university and I feel we had the best of both worlds: Initial programming courses were electives, where you could choose between more basic or more advanced "intro to programming" course. Basic had python, while advanced had c and c++. Similarly logic classes were in basic and advanced groups and it was easy to choose the group you want and switch groups during course. In fact, I was the guy who came for CS degree after never doing great at math or CS in high school and it reaaaaaally helped me to get up to speed with the others.
  - ozim 6y ago
    If those people who do not waste time are so smart why they have to be hold by the hand and given curriculum? (tuition fees you can count as means for getting a diploma, but also if someone is soo smart, why does he need a diploma anyway?) What I imagine really smart person would do is: go to people giving the course for additional work or talk with them to show where they are at. Skip classes, read something else while in a class. Take advantage of knowledge to not care about the course curriculum and do his own research. But that is my idea and maybe people who think their time is wasted could be a bit more humble and learn to work with other people.
    - literallycancer 6y ago
      In principle, yeah. Read something else in class -- better to just skip it then. It is not uncommon for people to skip lectures and just do the exam. >If those people who do not waste time are so smart why they have to be hold by the hand and given curriculum? There's a culture of "rules apply to everyone" and people are not used to asking for special treatment. So if you don't make it super obvious, people will assume they can't ask for adjustments. Also, no tuition so weaker incentive to get your money's worth.
      - 6y ago
- Avamander 6y ago
  In my experience, it's like being sabotaged. If one has a previous interest in the subject but is forced to complete all the same courses it gets very very tedious. Akin to being forced to fill middle school worksheets - you can do it, but it takes time and is just mind-numbing.
  - mrscottson 6y ago
    I think US universities are forced to cover things again due to a failure in the K-12 system of schooling that precedes it, and the lack of adequate testing to weed out ill prepared individuals. In many countries, these kids would probably not get into college in the first place due to failing preparatory tests. In the US there are many financial incentives to pull in as many kids as possible and that may cause a lowering of barriers. An observation in the maths, many countries in Asia cover calculus at the middle school level and continue into high school, in the US I noticed many public schools categorize calculus as an advanced (sometimes elective) high school subject.
- PeterisP 6y ago
  The total amount of a study program is limited, if you spend a year on repeating the basic concepts, that's a huge part of your "learning time budget" that you're not not able to devote on learning more advanced topics.
azernik 6y ago
UC Berkeley (where I did my CS degree) follows this model after admission. There's CS61A, an introductory class for people with some math/computers background, and CS3, an introduction for people coming in with no background. Successful and interested CS3 students are then funnelled into CS61A.
- CalChris 6y ago
  Yes but minus the math; what math there was in 61A was easy. 61A didn't really expect much prerequisite either, but then it took off quickly. A lot of work but not intellectually very hard. It was then taught in Scheme which no one knew. Scheme is an elegant language which we never used again. SICP was the course text which no one ever read. What I really remember was EE40 taking like a week to explain Ohm's Law. I thought, Ok, I think I've got this class. But then it just went exponential and then the prof just dumped a bunch of chapters on us at the end that he didn't cover and said that'll be on the final. EE40 covered about a third of 105. EE40 just had an insane amount of material and labs. FWIW, I think 16A+B covers better material than EE40 did although I have a soft spot in my heart for what was EE20. BTW, Calculus 1A at Berkeley, if you didn't take AP Calculus in high school, was brutal. Pointlessly so, since most math in non-math courses was pretty straightforward. But all the freshman courses at Berkeley were hard. You either got up to speed or you got out. Upper division was even harder, but you were prepared by then.
  - azernik 6y ago
    61A was easy in terms of math, but hard in terms of everything else. Every student I met who had never programmed before taking 61A found it intellectually quite challenging, both before and after the switch to Python; even without math, thinking in terms of computation and execution is not natural. Given that second-hand experience, I found the excision of all of SICP's math from the curriculum to be quite a good choice, as adding advanced math as another prerequisite would have raised the barrier to entry even higher. (Side note: your description of EE40 sounds like a professor who didn't schedule well, not intentional difficulty.)
    - 6y ago
stdbrouw 6y ago
Let's say lowering the bar has the result of making two courses absolutely useless for you, because you've already mastered everything there is to know about them. And let's say your typical bachelor's degree includes 30 or more courses. The time "taken away" from you is around 5%. Time that surely you could spend by studying for the other courses a little bit more diligently, by solving all the optional homework exercises, by going the extra mile for projects. That said, if after your undergraduate degree you are unsatisfied by the amount of stuff you've learned thus far, there's an easy solution: continue on and pursue a master's degree.
- Avamander 6y ago
  In my case it was first two semesters. Being forced to write what are basically hello worlds what you wrote six years ago was so asinine.
dwighttk 6y ago
Some universities will let you skip intro courses by passing a test.