5 ms·

I have a degree in art history and have been applying to graduate school in computer science. I have had ample opportunity to reflect systematically on my choic

by Hyena 15y ago

I have a degree in art history and have been applying to graduate school in computer science. I have had ample opportunity to reflect systematically on my choices in undergrad and what I've done since graduating. While early drafts of personal statements have made claims like "mistake", those drafts never make the cut. No one ever oversold college to me. Liberal arts education went precisely as my professors described, with precisely the economic and social benefits they predicted. No professor, no advisor, no student, no parent, no media outlet ever stated that a liberal arts degree was the path to financial success. At worst, the media has depicted having a college degree as more important than what that degree is in, which remains true. The utility of the paper itself remains quite high. If we have a STEM graduation problem, I place the blame squarely where it belongs: on STEM departments. I watched as engineering majors routinely failed out, destroyed by calculus-based physics in the first year or thermodynamics in the second. Half our ranks in art history were culled from that group; the successful engineers usually had prior background. That learning curve is often too steep given our secondary education system. The courses demand an amount of time inconsistent with the experience of the average student; coming from the right hand of the SAT distribution, they often did not need to put much work into high school. If we want to increase graduation into STEM fields, we need to redesign our education system taking this objective and the preparation of our students into account. It is a failure if the best we can do for $100,000 is turn mediocre hackers into programmers, obsessive tinkerers into engineers.

Homunculiheaded 15y ago
I have an English degree an am wrapping up a CS master's relatively soon (going very part time for essentially free). I've never regretted my English degree, and have actually found that it has provided me a lot of really useful skills working in more technical areas. Not to mention that as you go higher and higher up in the level of classes, the ability to write and communicate becomes increasingly more important. Everyone one I know that has become reasonably successful with an English degree has also added some type of more pragmatic masters on top of it. IMHO this should be how we view liberal arts, a solid base to build more pragmatic skills off of. Additionally I find when you look at great technical minds you usually find a solid knowledge of the humanities along with it (usually not through formal education of course), the term 'quark' is pull from Finnegan's Wake, Feynman was a passionate fan of Tuvan throat singing, the quoted the bhavagad gita after the first successful nuclear bomb test etc. Education definitely needs reform but the simple "less humanities more sciences" formula would do potentially more harm than good.
- Hyena 15y ago
  I think that works well for computer science but possibly not so much for other fields. Comp sci seems unique in that it does not require immense background to get moving, unlike mechanical or chemical engineering. How did the master's go? What was your prior background in comp sci, if any?
  - Homunculiheaded 15y ago
    The master's is going well so far, just 2 more classes and my thesis to go. I did do a fair amount of catch up before i applied, and actually started taking classes just for fun until I realized how much I loved CS. The main classes I took first were: Intro to CS, Discrete Math, Data Structures, Systems and a few more that weren't as core. I also took a compilers course in the program I eventually enrolled in (just at the local state university) which helped a lot with my application, since it had the reputation of being particularly challenging. I taught myself formal languages, programming language theory and few others (it's actually funny because I now teach a section of a plt class even though I've never formally taken one) I agree that CS is easier for non-technical majors to get started in, but really for any field there is only a handful of truly core courses, the rest can be caught up on as you go. The biggest issue with humanities is the lack of math (although as I've played catch up I'm really surprised how many technical people really don't have as strong a background in math as they should.) I would have balked at the idea when I was an undergrad,but I really feel that all college grads should be proficient in calc 1-3, linear algebra, and prob & statistics. If every English major was comfortable with those areas they would have the foundation to go in pretty much any direction they wanted. The cultural separation between 'technical' and 'non-technical' people in general is a huge problem, we need more people that can do both. Really if you want to cut down on the number of people graduating with huge debt and unable to find a job, make college harder. My passion for English undergrad would have been enough to make me push through the math reqs I proposed above, but there were plenty of people in my classes who would have definitely be driven out by them. Knowledge of Shakespeare and Probability are equally important to being 'educated' imho, many college grads have knowledge of neither.
losvedir 15y ago
I completely agree with this: > That learning curve is often too steep given our secondary education system . . . we need to redesign our education system taking this objective and the preparation of our students into account. However, I vehemently disagree with this: > If we want to increase graduation into STEM fields . . . I place the blame squarely where it belongs: on STEM departments No, no, no, no, no! This would be a microcosm of the very issue we're talking about. "Graduation rate" is meaningless. We want to increase the population who are STEM-literate. Like it or not, physics is calculus-based. Thermodynamics is important. And, certainly, by the time people are adults and have gone through over a decade of education, it should be within reach. I don't blame the STEM departments at all, and would be aghast if they started churning out STEM-lite graduates as the result of some misguided new policy to increase graduation rates.
- Hyena 15y ago
  You quote me inaccurately where you disagree, I actually said: >If we have a STEM graduation problem, I place the blame squarely where it belongs: on STEM departments. And then proceed to state that we need a redesign. The comment was already too long, so I left out any detail about what that would be. I have in mind a long-cycle plan that culminates in a master's in 5-6 years, using early semesters to bring people up to the workload level and spending the additional time gained getting fundamentals (calculus, thermo, statistics, structure of computer programs, etc.) right. We can then proceed with the 4+2 or 5 year models often used in architecture.
  - losvedir 15y ago
    I apologize for misquoting you. I think your solution sounds like a reasonable way for universities to allow students to recover from a poor high school education. As I type that, I realize that's important. My concern is it draws out the education period of someone's life even further. I'm looking at this from the perspective that people should have a solid grasp of calculus and the other fundamentals you mention in high school. Currently many do not. One solution is to fix the problem at the university by giving students extra time to learn the fundamentals there. The other solution is to find a way for students to learn them back in high school. What happens in your plan if someone still doesn't learn the fundamentals when they're given the extra semesters in your long-cycle plan? Are they dropped from the program? Are they given extra tutoring? Why can't these things happen earlier, and if so, isn't that similar to the system we have now?
flomo 15y ago
This was certainly the case back when I was studying engineering. The introductory classes were "sink or swim" and graded on a steep curve. The net effect was "Let's take the students with the highest math/science test scores and encourage half of them to drop out of STEM programs." Meanwhile, most liberal arts coursework began with "a gentle introduction to X". I did well in the math/science classes, but the workload was enormous, and everyone recognized that the non-STEM students were having a more enjoyable time.
overgryphon 15y ago
STEM education isn't for everyone. At my college, they've made it too easy- I know someone graduating with a CS degree who couldn't accurately state the purpose of a compiler. The people I know who actually dropped out were too discouraged by failing one class early on in college. We need a system where retaking a class is considered as normal rather than as a failure. Failing a class you didn't understand so you retake it is infinitely better than passing a class without understanding core concepts. Physics is calculus-based, and to teach it otherwise is to provide a lacking education. GPA isn't important- the point of an education is to learn and develop skills. What I find more problematic than STEM drop-out rates is the attitude of many liberal arts students that math is something you can either do or can't do. Math is something learned, studied, and often requires a bit of a struggle to understand. Saying "I'm incapable of math" without ever having tried is delusional.
- Hyena 15y ago
  The irony of STEM education, especially engineering, is that the people who design the curriculum would not think an acceptable end user outcome is "if it fails, buy another and try again". They would redesign it until you got the desired result consistently.

by Hyena 15y ago

Homunculiheaded 15y ago

I have an English degree an am wrapping up a CS master's relatively soon (going very part time for essentially free). I've never regretted my English degree, and have actually found that it has provided me a lot of really useful skills working in more technical areas. Not to mention that as you go higher and higher up in the level of classes, the ability to write and communicate becomes increasingly more important. Everyone one I know that has become reasonably successful with an English degree has also added some type of more pragmatic masters on top of it. IMHO this should be how we view liberal arts, a solid base to build more pragmatic skills off of. Additionally I find when you look at great technical minds you usually find a solid knowledge of the humanities along with it (usually not through formal education of course), the term 'quark' is pull from Finnegan's Wake, Feynman was a passionate fan of Tuvan throat singing, the quoted the bhavagad gita after the first successful nuclear bomb test etc. Education definitely needs reform but the simple "less humanities more sciences" formula would do potentially more harm than good.

Hyena 15y ago
I think that works well for computer science but possibly not so much for other fields. Comp sci seems unique in that it does not require immense background to get moving, unlike mechanical or chemical engineering. How did the master's go? What was your prior background in comp sci, if any?
- Homunculiheaded 15y ago
  The master's is going well so far, just 2 more classes and my thesis to go. I did do a fair amount of catch up before i applied, and actually started taking classes just for fun until I realized how much I loved CS. The main classes I took first were: Intro to CS, Discrete Math, Data Structures, Systems and a few more that weren't as core. I also took a compilers course in the program I eventually enrolled in (just at the local state university) which helped a lot with my application, since it had the reputation of being particularly challenging. I taught myself formal languages, programming language theory and few others (it's actually funny because I now teach a section of a plt class even though I've never formally taken one) I agree that CS is easier for non-technical majors to get started in, but really for any field there is only a handful of truly core courses, the rest can be caught up on as you go. The biggest issue with humanities is the lack of math (although as I've played catch up I'm really surprised how many technical people really don't have as strong a background in math as they should.) I would have balked at the idea when I was an undergrad,but I really feel that all college grads should be proficient in calc 1-3, linear algebra, and prob & statistics. If every English major was comfortable with those areas they would have the foundation to go in pretty much any direction they wanted. The cultural separation between 'technical' and 'non-technical' people in general is a huge problem, we need more people that can do both. Really if you want to cut down on the number of people graduating with huge debt and unable to find a job, make college harder. My passion for English undergrad would have been enough to make me push through the math reqs I proposed above, but there were plenty of people in my classes who would have definitely be driven out by them. Knowledge of Shakespeare and Probability are equally important to being 'educated' imho, many college grads have knowledge of neither.

losvedir 15y ago

I completely agree with this: > That learning curve is often too steep given our secondary education system . . . we need to redesign our education system taking this objective and the preparation of our students into account. However, I vehemently disagree with this: > If we want to increase graduation into STEM fields . . . I place the blame squarely where it belongs: on STEM departments No, no, no, no, no! This would be a microcosm of the very issue we're talking about. "Graduation rate" is meaningless. We want to increase the population who are STEM-literate. Like it or not, physics is calculus-based. Thermodynamics is important. And, certainly, by the time people are adults and have gone through over a decade of education, it should be within reach. I don't blame the STEM departments at all, and would be aghast if they started churning out STEM-lite graduates as the result of some misguided new policy to increase graduation rates.

Hyena 15y ago
You quote me inaccurately where you disagree, I actually said: >If we have a STEM graduation problem, I place the blame squarely where it belongs: on STEM departments. And then proceed to state that we need a redesign. The comment was already too long, so I left out any detail about what that would be. I have in mind a long-cycle plan that culminates in a master's in 5-6 years, using early semesters to bring people up to the workload level and spending the additional time gained getting fundamentals (calculus, thermo, statistics, structure of computer programs, etc.) right. We can then proceed with the 4+2 or 5 year models often used in architecture.
- losvedir 15y ago
  I apologize for misquoting you. I think your solution sounds like a reasonable way for universities to allow students to recover from a poor high school education. As I type that, I realize that's important. My concern is it draws out the education period of someone's life even further. I'm looking at this from the perspective that people should have a solid grasp of calculus and the other fundamentals you mention in high school. Currently many do not. One solution is to fix the problem at the university by giving students extra time to learn the fundamentals there. The other solution is to find a way for students to learn them back in high school. What happens in your plan if someone still doesn't learn the fundamentals when they're given the extra semesters in your long-cycle plan? Are they dropped from the program? Are they given extra tutoring? Why can't these things happen earlier, and if so, isn't that similar to the system we have now?

flomo 15y ago

This was certainly the case back when I was studying engineering. The introductory classes were "sink or swim" and graded on a steep curve. The net effect was "Let's take the students with the highest math/science test scores and encourage half of them to drop out of STEM programs." Meanwhile, most liberal arts coursework began with "a gentle introduction to X". I did well in the math/science classes, but the workload was enormous, and everyone recognized that the non-STEM students were having a more enjoyable time.

overgryphon 15y ago

STEM education isn't for everyone. At my college, they've made it too easy- I know someone graduating with a CS degree who couldn't accurately state the purpose of a compiler. The people I know who actually dropped out were too discouraged by failing one class early on in college. We need a system where retaking a class is considered as normal rather than as a failure. Failing a class you didn't understand so you retake it is infinitely better than passing a class without understanding core concepts. Physics is calculus-based, and to teach it otherwise is to provide a lacking education. GPA isn't important- the point of an education is to learn and develop skills. What I find more problematic than STEM drop-out rates is the attitude of many liberal arts students that math is something you can either do or can't do. Math is something learned, studied, and often requires a bit of a struggle to understand. Saying "I'm incapable of math" without ever having tried is delusional.

Hyena 15y ago
The irony of STEM education, especially engineering, is that the people who design the curriculum would not think an acceptable end user outcome is "if it fails, buy another and try again". They would redesign it until you got the desired result consistently.