7 ms·

You know, I'm getting pretty sick of all of these "doom and gloom" stories about the modern higher education system. Yes, the modern higher education system is

by lambda 15y ago

You know, I'm getting pretty sick of all of these "doom and gloom" stories about the modern higher education system. Yes, the modern higher education system is not ideal. But what, in life, really is? That's not to say that we shouldn't pursue a better system, but we shouldn't give up on a system just because it's not ideal. And with all of these doom and gloom stories, I have yet to see anyone offer an alternative. Yeah, there's a lot of paperwork involved in being a professor, and you get evaluated on criteria that don't quite line up with the ideal for being a great professor. But what would be better? How can we create a better system? And if there's such an obvious better answer, why doesn't someone do it? If there is some obviously better system, I'd love to see it. If such a thing exits, it should be quite competitive with the current higher education system. No one wants to hire incompetent new graduates. No one wants to be one. So we should see something better, something that indicates there is some better way of doing this. Instead, we see a steady stream of technological progress. I can do things that no one could do before, like carrying a device around that allows me to pinpoint my precise location, stream maps down to me, find me directions to wherever I want to go, read those directions aloud in a synthesized voice, all for the price of of 2% of median yearly income (including hardware, software, and the service). And that, of course, is not to mention all of the other things that are available to me. Now, maybe I'm living in a bubble, built by people who got a proper education before all of this grade inflation and other nonsense. But really, this article is complaining about the last 20 years. A large portion of the people who are doing work in technical fields finished school within the last 20 years. And yet, we're still seeing significant progress; we are still living in a world that is tumbling into the future at a high rate. So I want to know two things. For one, why are we still progressing so quickly, despite these apparent problems? How are we managing to innovate, if our educational and academic foundation is so unsound? And for another, what is the solution? What do you propose we do better? If it's so much obviously better, why don't we do it? Or why doesn't someone, somewhere do it, and show significantly better results? I think one reason is that when you are doing work in the top few percent of human ability, you look around and realize how ordinary it is. Even being at the top, everyone has their flaws. No one is perfect. Systems designed to prevent people from cheating also prevent some people from doing amazing work. But overal, it isn't a few geniuses at the level of "Mozart" that we need; it's a lot of people, doing work at a high level, but not what some might consider "genius." If you are immersed in it seems somewhat boring, but when it all adds up, it winds up opening new possibilities that were simply not available 10, 20, or 30 years ago.

HilbertSpace 15y ago
> "But what would be better? How can we create a better system? And if there's such an obvious better answer, why doesn't someone do it?" Here's a simple answer: The better system exists, but people overlook it. As a student, first get a Bachelor's degree. Second, pick a field and be sure have learned it well at at least the Bachelor's level. Do this learning independently if necessary. A Bachelor's degree is supposed to teach you how to do at least this much learning independently. Third, from that learning about the field you selected, learn some more, to 'the next level'. Likely do this independently. Fourth, show up at any one of the better research universities and take the Ph.D. qualifying exams based on what you learned. Fifth, stick around that university and attend some seminars and courses that are introductions to research given by experts in research. Here your work is largely independent. Sixth, pick a research problem and get some good results, independently or nearly so. If there is any doubt about the significance of your research, then publish it. Seventh, submit your research as your Ph.D. dissertation. Congratulations: You are now out of school; you went all the way; you are educated. Done.
- dvse 15y ago
  Also, to save much future grief, the undergraduate degree should be in maths.
- lambda 15y ago
  Hmm. I would love to follow this course of action. Can you point to evidence that schools will allow you to take their qualifying exams and let you get a PhD based on your independent research without being formally enrolled? Also, as far as I can tell, most of the article is complaining about the bachelor's level, which you assume as a given. For those who haven't done that, do you have an alternative for that level?
  - HilbertSpace 15y ago
    I didn't cover getting "enrolled", but usually that won't be much of a problem: Even the top graduate programs are hungry for good students. If you are ready for their qualifying exams when you show up, then SAY SO. And/or submit a stack of nicely done, hard exercises from a well known, challenging text. Then being enrolled and able to take the exams should be routine. For an alternative to the Bachelor's, mostly graduate schools will expect a student to have that degree. But, a graduate school doesn't have to care very much about where a student got a Bachelor's. That is, nearly everyone in serious academics knows that a student who shows up ready for the qualifying exams deserves the credit themselves, that is, the school didn't deserve the credit. The US is awash in relatively inexpensive Bachelor's programs, coast to coast, border to border. There is a hidden point going for a graduate student who can do research: At the top schools, especially Harvard, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, the emphasis in graduate school, for both the profs and the students, is just RESEARCH. In particular, commonly there is no coursework requirement. Princeton has been known to state on their Web site that grad students are expected to prepare for the qualifying exams on their own, that the courses given are for introductions to research, and that there are no courses for preparation for the quals. So, this stuff about independent work to get ready for the quals is mostly what have to do anyway. Some schools publish copies of their old qualifying exams and have lists of references for preparation for the quals. So if you are good with the references and the old exams, then you have a good shot. All those things said, ugrad school is usually more strict about courses, credits, and grades. Still, there may be some full or partial ways around the time and expense of a full ugrad program: First, it may be possible to impress a grad school just with GRE scores. So, if you are well prepared, then see if you can take the GRE without a Bachelor's. Second, the US is also just awash in junior or community colleges. Since their student quality is usually low, they would be thrilled to have a good student with a shot at getting a Ph.D. These colleges are usually just for two years and give only an Associates degree. These colleges are uaually quite inexpensive. But, then, the last two years of a four year program are mostly just in the major subject, anyway. So, a grad school MIGHT be willing to accept just an Associates degree. Third, there is a fairly strong but rarely written principle in US higher education: Really good students are wanted and go for free or nearly so! If you are ready for Ph.D. quals, then the money for a Bachelor's should be no big problem, even at Harvard. And once you get at a really good school, say, Harvard, you mostly won't be held back. E.g., I knew a bright student who at Harvard as a sophmore took a reading course with A. Gleason, right, who solved one of Hilbert's problems. And Gleason never got his Ph.D.: His work was so good Harvard made him a Harvard Fellow and put him on the faculty. James Simons was an ugrad at MIT and in his senior year took a reading course from Singer, right, as in the Atiyah-Singer index theorem -- watch the video of Simon's talk on YouTube or some such. Simons? Right, he is as in the Chern-Simons result (try Wikipedia), was Chair at Stony Brook, started a hedge fund, for some years paid himself $2 billion a year, and, net, is likely the most successful hedge fund guy. Yes, the field where this independent study works best is math. In physics, chemistry, or biology, a ugrad program will typically have a lot of lab work can't do independently and some lecture courses with material difficult to get independently. But math remains the most powerful major, maybe even for physics and biology. Even biology? Look up Eric Lander! But, again, for a really good student, ugrad can be for free or nearly so.

by lambda 15y ago

HilbertSpace 15y ago

> "But what would be better? How can we create a better system? And if there's such an obvious better answer, why doesn't someone do it?" Here's a simple answer: The better system exists, but people overlook it. As a student, first get a Bachelor's degree. Second, pick a field and be sure have learned it well at at least the Bachelor's level. Do this learning independently if necessary. A Bachelor's degree is supposed to teach you how to do at least this much learning independently. Third, from that learning about the field you selected, learn some more, to 'the next level'. Likely do this independently. Fourth, show up at any one of the better research universities and take the Ph.D. qualifying exams based on what you learned. Fifth, stick around that university and attend some seminars and courses that are introductions to research given by experts in research. Here your work is largely independent. Sixth, pick a research problem and get some good results, independently or nearly so. If there is any doubt about the significance of your research, then publish it. Seventh, submit your research as your Ph.D. dissertation. Congratulations: You are now out of school; you went all the way; you are educated. Done.

dvse 15y ago
Also, to save much future grief, the undergraduate degree should be in maths.
lambda 15y ago
Hmm. I would love to follow this course of action. Can you point to evidence that schools will allow you to take their qualifying exams and let you get a PhD based on your independent research without being formally enrolled? Also, as far as I can tell, most of the article is complaining about the bachelor's level, which you assume as a given. For those who haven't done that, do you have an alternative for that level?
- HilbertSpace 15y ago
  I didn't cover getting "enrolled", but usually that won't be much of a problem: Even the top graduate programs are hungry for good students. If you are ready for their qualifying exams when you show up, then SAY SO. And/or submit a stack of nicely done, hard exercises from a well known, challenging text. Then being enrolled and able to take the exams should be routine. For an alternative to the Bachelor's, mostly graduate schools will expect a student to have that degree. But, a graduate school doesn't have to care very much about where a student got a Bachelor's. That is, nearly everyone in serious academics knows that a student who shows up ready for the qualifying exams deserves the credit themselves, that is, the school didn't deserve the credit. The US is awash in relatively inexpensive Bachelor's programs, coast to coast, border to border. There is a hidden point going for a graduate student who can do research: At the top schools, especially Harvard, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, the emphasis in graduate school, for both the profs and the students, is just RESEARCH. In particular, commonly there is no coursework requirement. Princeton has been known to state on their Web site that grad students are expected to prepare for the qualifying exams on their own, that the courses given are for introductions to research, and that there are no courses for preparation for the quals. So, this stuff about independent work to get ready for the quals is mostly what have to do anyway. Some schools publish copies of their old qualifying exams and have lists of references for preparation for the quals. So if you are good with the references and the old exams, then you have a good shot. All those things said, ugrad school is usually more strict about courses, credits, and grades. Still, there may be some full or partial ways around the time and expense of a full ugrad program: First, it may be possible to impress a grad school just with GRE scores. So, if you are well prepared, then see if you can take the GRE without a Bachelor's. Second, the US is also just awash in junior or community colleges. Since their student quality is usually low, they would be thrilled to have a good student with a shot at getting a Ph.D. These colleges are usually just for two years and give only an Associates degree. These colleges are uaually quite inexpensive. But, then, the last two years of a four year program are mostly just in the major subject, anyway. So, a grad school MIGHT be willing to accept just an Associates degree. Third, there is a fairly strong but rarely written principle in US higher education: Really good students are wanted and go for free or nearly so! If you are ready for Ph.D. quals, then the money for a Bachelor's should be no big problem, even at Harvard. And once you get at a really good school, say, Harvard, you mostly won't be held back. E.g., I knew a bright student who at Harvard as a sophmore took a reading course with A. Gleason, right, who solved one of Hilbert's problems. And Gleason never got his Ph.D.: His work was so good Harvard made him a Harvard Fellow and put him on the faculty. James Simons was an ugrad at MIT and in his senior year took a reading course from Singer, right, as in the Atiyah-Singer index theorem -- watch the video of Simon's talk on YouTube or some such. Simons? Right, he is as in the Chern-Simons result (try Wikipedia), was Chair at Stony Brook, started a hedge fund, for some years paid himself $2 billion a year, and, net, is likely the most successful hedge fund guy. Yes, the field where this independent study works best is math. In physics, chemistry, or biology, a ugrad program will typically have a lot of lab work can't do independently and some lecture courses with material difficult to get independently. But math remains the most powerful major, maybe even for physics and biology. Even biology? Look up Eric Lander! But, again, for a really good student, ugrad can be for free or nearly so.