3 ms·

I don't know that it's grade inflation.. I think it's the fear of being wrong. Look at Moniz (in the article), he bailed on engineering and went to an English/

I don't know that it's grade inflation.. I think it's the fear of being wrong. Look at Moniz (in the article), he bailed on engineering and went to an English/Psych where the classes are "a lot more discussion based." In math, there are right and wrong answers. In physics, there are right and wrong answers. In engineering - where math & science hit the real world - there are "best answers given the requirements" but it's a similar concept. In English & Psychology, not so much. There are points of view, interpretations, theories, speculation, and working models, but there are very few "right answers" and lots of "reasonable interpretations."

ajross 15y ago
Isn't that isomorphic to "math is hard" though? I mean, look: math is hard. It takes a lot more mental effort to solve math problems than it does to read books and do research. That's not to say that insight and hard work aren't important in the humanties, but the barrier is lower. It just plain is. If you're taking a class to learn about 16th century west african colonialism (or whatever other "serious" history class you want), you start at the top of the reading list and work your way through. If you hit a concept or fact you're unfamiliar with, you look it up in your other books or wikipedia. At no point in that process do you stop and realize "Crap, I'm stuck." In math (and the numerate sciences more generally), that's the normal state of things. Math is hard. I think we spend too much time lying to people and telling them that it's easy, and far too little time explaining how much fun it is.
m_myers 15y ago
Funny, my fear of being wrong is what led me to engineering. I didn't like the writing-based classes because I couldn't tell whether I was right before I let anyone else see my work. I'm trying to get over that now.
msbarnett 15y ago
> Look at Moniz (in the article), he bailed on engineering and went to an English/Psych where the classes are "a lot more discussion based." The impression that I got wasn't that he bailed for discussion courses because he was afraid of being wrong, but rather that the discussions in English classes at least gave him some outlet to feel like he was applying what he was learning. There's a very weird death march of lectures for 2-3 years in some engineering programs during which you're expected to cram in a ton of knowledge but given zero opportunity to see how it will be applied in the real world. Compared with my own CS background it looks horrific; if I had been expected to spend my sophomore and junior years doing nothing but sit in lecture halls doing theory courses and "practical" courses in which I memorized syntax for programming languages, or facts about OpenGL, or the ISA of a MIPS CPU, etc without being allowed near a computer to actually build some kind of project using that knowledge, I'd have fucked off into Philosophy or English, too. At least it would have made time for me to make stabs at using what I was learning to do philosophy instead of simply regurgitate facts. But luckily for my future employability, CS isn't so lost to bad pedagogy that it's thrown out most of its practical learning opportunities. My primary take away from this piece, and talking to people who have burned out of physics and engineering programs, has been that a lot of said programs are simply structured in a way almost guaranteed to try the patience of a lot of otherwise bright people who just wanted to feel like they were making progress towards being able to accomplish something more than regurgitate facts on midterms.
- msutherl 15y ago
  I had the misfortune of spending some time in a program like this and switched to fine art promptly. I think it's a copout to say that math is just "too hard". The problem is that engineering and math programs are poorly constructed and taught abysmally. These days I study math and engineering on the side because I can learn more effectively by reading books than sitting through 4 years of slog.
- potatolicious 15y ago
  I can't help but agree. I went through a pretty grueling 4-year engineering program and felt very much the same. The only times I've actually enjoyed the experience was in project-based courses where I can actually go out and build. The rest of engineering is just an endless series of lectures, tutorials, and labs, with little relation to reality. Even when the applicability is obvious, the crushing courseload of your typical engineering program means you can put little of it to real use. In the end I decided my "education" was more important than "school", so I actively sought to minimize the impact of some courses (read: I skipped a lot of classes) so I can give myself time to, well, build things. And thank heavens for that - I could've ended up being just another clueless engineering grad. Head full of theories and zero experience applying any of it. Funnily enough, generally speaking, the people who aced their way through an engineering program were also the ones that spent the least time building things, and at the end of the day are the last people I want working on my team. There are exceptions of course - insanely smart, superhuman people who were able to ace the courses and find time to apply it, but they are exceedingly rare. Whenever a company throws up some high "minimum GPA to be considered" on a job posting I have to chuckle. They are probably filtering out the best candidates.
- caseysoftware 15y ago
  My undergrad in EE is from Rose-Hulman where we spend most of our time focused on applying things to the real world. Every year except freshman, we worked on real projects from local companies, alumni, etc, etc. As a junior, I was assigned to a senior ME project because they needed some understanding from our area. I wasn't the only one drafted either. That term we spec'd out a new workflow for CDs returned to Columbia House (their main facility was in town). I had a prof (that looked like Santa Claus) and told us point blank that the half life of our studies was about 3 years and that his goal wasn't to focus on the facts but to make sure that we learned how to learn.

ajross 15y ago

Isn't that isomorphic to "math is hard" though? I mean, look: math is hard. It takes a lot more mental effort to solve math problems than it does to read books and do research. That's not to say that insight and hard work aren't important in the humanties, but the barrier is lower. It just plain is. If you're taking a class to learn about 16th century west african colonialism (or whatever other "serious" history class you want), you start at the top of the reading list and work your way through. If you hit a concept or fact you're unfamiliar with, you look it up in your other books or wikipedia. At no point in that process do you stop and realize "Crap, I'm stuck." In math (and the numerate sciences more generally), that's the normal state of things. Math is hard. I think we spend too much time lying to people and telling them that it's easy, and far too little time explaining how much fun it is.

m_myers 15y ago

Funny, my fear of being wrong is what led me to engineering. I didn't like the writing-based classes because I couldn't tell whether I was right before I let anyone else see my work. I'm trying to get over that now.

msbarnett 15y ago

> Look at Moniz (in the article), he bailed on engineering and went to an English/Psych where the classes are "a lot more discussion based." The impression that I got wasn't that he bailed for discussion courses because he was afraid of being wrong, but rather that the discussions in English classes at least gave him some outlet to feel like he was applying what he was learning. There's a very weird death march of lectures for 2-3 years in some engineering programs during which you're expected to cram in a ton of knowledge but given zero opportunity to see how it will be applied in the real world. Compared with my own CS background it looks horrific; if I had been expected to spend my sophomore and junior years doing nothing but sit in lecture halls doing theory courses and "practical" courses in which I memorized syntax for programming languages, or facts about OpenGL, or the ISA of a MIPS CPU, etc without being allowed near a computer to actually build some kind of project using that knowledge, I'd have fucked off into Philosophy or English, too. At least it would have made time for me to make stabs at using what I was learning to do philosophy instead of simply regurgitate facts. But luckily for my future employability, CS isn't so lost to bad pedagogy that it's thrown out most of its practical learning opportunities. My primary take away from this piece, and talking to people who have burned out of physics and engineering programs, has been that a lot of said programs are simply structured in a way almost guaranteed to try the patience of a lot of otherwise bright people who just wanted to feel like they were making progress towards being able to accomplish something more than regurgitate facts on midterms.

msutherl 15y ago
I had the misfortune of spending some time in a program like this and switched to fine art promptly. I think it's a copout to say that math is just "too hard". The problem is that engineering and math programs are poorly constructed and taught abysmally. These days I study math and engineering on the side because I can learn more effectively by reading books than sitting through 4 years of slog.
potatolicious 15y ago
I can't help but agree. I went through a pretty grueling 4-year engineering program and felt very much the same. The only times I've actually enjoyed the experience was in project-based courses where I can actually go out and build. The rest of engineering is just an endless series of lectures, tutorials, and labs, with little relation to reality. Even when the applicability is obvious, the crushing courseload of your typical engineering program means you can put little of it to real use. In the end I decided my "education" was more important than "school", so I actively sought to minimize the impact of some courses (read: I skipped a lot of classes) so I can give myself time to, well, build things. And thank heavens for that - I could've ended up being just another clueless engineering grad. Head full of theories and zero experience applying any of it. Funnily enough, generally speaking, the people who aced their way through an engineering program were also the ones that spent the least time building things, and at the end of the day are the last people I want working on my team. There are exceptions of course - insanely smart, superhuman people who were able to ace the courses and find time to apply it, but they are exceedingly rare. Whenever a company throws up some high "minimum GPA to be considered" on a job posting I have to chuckle. They are probably filtering out the best candidates.
caseysoftware 15y ago
My undergrad in EE is from Rose-Hulman where we spend most of our time focused on applying things to the real world. Every year except freshman, we worked on real projects from local companies, alumni, etc, etc. As a junior, I was assigned to a senior ME project because they needed some understanding from our area. I wasn't the only one drafted either. That term we spec'd out a new workflow for CDs returned to Columbia House (their main facility was in town). I had a prof (that looked like Santa Claus) and told us point blank that the half life of our studies was about 3 years and that his goal wasn't to focus on the facts but to make sure that we learned how to learn.