6 ms·

My degree is in Fine Art, and I thought the class was pointlessly easy. Fix the class in two easy steps: Lecture live, record the lectures. EVERY speaker is mo

by diiq 15y ago

My degree is in Fine Art, and I thought the class was pointlessly easy. Fix the class in two easy steps: Lecture live, record the lectures. EVERY speaker is more effective when they have the feedback of their audience's faces. Expect the members of the public to meet the class' standard, don't shrivel the curriculum to match the public. An applied CS course that doesn't demand programming is bizarre. Flunk everyone if you have to. Grades should perhaps reflect understanding?

CurtHagenlocher 15y ago
I felt similarly dismayed about a machine learning course which doesn't demand knowledge of calculus.
- restofus 15y ago
  I disagree I do not know calculus and would not have done this class if that was the case. I am now implementing ML in my day to day work . Anybody can make ML difficult , the greatness is in making it easy for people to use it and that makes a real world impact IMHO
  - denzil_correa 15y ago
    and I believe this "Anybody can make ML difficult , the greatness is in making it easy for people to use it" is the real deal.
- balloot 15y ago
  Wow. They didn't require knowledge of calculus? I took the actual CS 229 at Stanford and a class that doesn't require calculus at all would only be able to touch on a small fraction of topics. My worry, which is similar to the worry of the student in the linked post, is that these lectures may be devaluing the in-person versions of the course. CS 229 was one of the top 5 hardest classes I have ever taken. I would rather not someone else take it via a dumbed down online lecture and say "I did that too! It wasn't so bad!"
  - nessus42 15y ago
    I took the free class, and have looked at the material for CS 229, and there's no way that I would ever claim that I had mastered CS 229. CS 229 looks to be brutally difficult, and I have an MIT degree. Yes, we had our brutally difficult classes too, but I'm not particulary enthusiastic that some of my MIT classes that were so difficult. I think that I could have learned just as much if I had had more time to sleep. There was one "brutally difficult" class at MIT that I loved, though: Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. It would be nice if all brutally difficult classes came in a less brutal version, though. That level of difficulty is great if you adore the subject matter, as I adored SICP, but if you only like it instead, this type of class can give you a permanent aversion for the material rather than transform you liking into love. I feel that MIT's Signals and Systems did this to me. There's no way that having to do ten pages of algebra (e.g., Laplace transform, inverse Laplace transform, simultaneous equations) to solve a single homework assignment, multiplied by ten for the entire problem set, was ever going to do anything but give me a permanent aversion for the subject matter.
    - balloot 15y ago
      I totally agree. I felt a number of the Master's level CS classes were more like hazings than classes. It was like some professors were most interested in making their particular field of interest seem insanely difficult at the expense of students comprehending the material. Or alternately, some profs were primarily concerned with creating material difficult that most of the students would falter, and it would become clear who the top 3-5 students are. Then they would know who to invite to their research group. Neither of these made for a particularly fun experience. But at the same time, some of the classes had very difficult subject matter and the professors were actually interested in teaching students instead of torturing them. So it wasn't totally a bad experience. I guess there is some value in having these online classes because they motivate professors to make their subject matter more palatable. I just don't want my degree devalued by people who aren't as astute as yourself when it comes to the gap between the online courses and those taken by Stanford students.
      - 15y ago
dantheman 15y ago
I completely disagree, recorded lectures are nowhere as nice as the stuff that kahn and stanford are pushing out.
- diiq 15y ago
  Fair point. I admit that Khan does an incredible job. I believe it [lecturing to a microphone] is an extremely rare and underdeveloped skill. "EVERY" might have been hyperbole. But when the lecturers at hand are professors who have spent decades teaching to a room full of students who become visibly impatient, confused, eager, or antsy --- they should keep doing that. To keep a pleasant rhythm to instruction, many professors tell jokes; I think it's VERY hard to tell a joke to a webcam when you are used to an audience.
denzil_correa 15y ago
If you were looking for recorded lectures, why would you take the CS229A online course? You should take the recorded CS229 course : http://www.academicearth.org/courses/machine-learning http://www.academicearth.org/courses/machine-learning
nessus42 15y ago
I could not disagree more. I have an MIT degree, and I thought it was remarkably refreshing to have the difficult made easy, rather than vice versa. Not that I have huge complaints with my MIT education, but having taken some classes at Harvard too, where the emphasis was sometimes different, I can appreciate that there's often a great deal of value in a class that can draw people in and make them interested, rather than send them fleeing in terror. Personally, I thought that Prof. Ng's lectures where brilliant in their ability to make difficult material completely approachable. I do think that he occasionally would belabor the obvious, but for the intended purpose of the class, I think that it is better that he erred on the side of being too clear, rather than on the side of being opaque.
- diiq 15y ago
  I agree totally. The first two sins of education are making simple things complicated and making complicated things simple. Ng was clear, and that is commendable. My concern was not based on how difficult he made the material he presented seem. I was concerned that he did not present more difficult material. Vocabulary is very important. But in addition to knowing the meanings of words, its important to know why concepts are carved up the way they are. Why divide the world into supervised and unsupervised --- what does carving at that joint win us? Getting people interested is what the first week is for. The other eight, I feel, should try to satisfy the curiosity the first week sparked.
  - nessus42 15y ago
    Vocabulary is very important. But in addition to knowing the meanings of words, its important to know why concepts are carved up the way they are. Why divide the world into supervised and unsupervised --- what does carving at that joint win us? I'm not sure that I get you. Why we have both supervised and unsupervised algorithms was made pretty clear to me in the class. And just what more difficult material would you have liked to seen? The real Stanford class is made more difficult largely by doing lots of difficult math proofs. I emphatically disagree with any assertion that this free class should be so math heavy. What would be the purpose of that for the intended audience? Sure, such work would make fine extra credit, but making effective use of algorithms rarely relies on on a ability to mathematically prove that they have the properties that they do. I think that a big final project, as is required in the real Stanford class, on the other hand, would have a lot of utility for the intended audience. But as that would be impossible to automatically grade, that's a non-starter.

by diiq 15y ago

CurtHagenlocher 15y ago

I felt similarly dismayed about a machine learning course which doesn't demand knowledge of calculus.

restofus 15y ago
I disagree I do not know calculus and would not have done this class if that was the case. I am now implementing ML in my day to day work . Anybody can make ML difficult , the greatness is in making it easy for people to use it and that makes a real world impact IMHO
- denzil_correa 15y ago
  and I believe this "Anybody can make ML difficult , the greatness is in making it easy for people to use it" is the real deal.
balloot 15y ago
Wow. They didn't require knowledge of calculus? I took the actual CS 229 at Stanford and a class that doesn't require calculus at all would only be able to touch on a small fraction of topics. My worry, which is similar to the worry of the student in the linked post, is that these lectures may be devaluing the in-person versions of the course. CS 229 was one of the top 5 hardest classes I have ever taken. I would rather not someone else take it via a dumbed down online lecture and say "I did that too! It wasn't so bad!"
- nessus42 15y ago
  I took the free class, and have looked at the material for CS 229, and there's no way that I would ever claim that I had mastered CS 229. CS 229 looks to be brutally difficult, and I have an MIT degree. Yes, we had our brutally difficult classes too, but I'm not particulary enthusiastic that some of my MIT classes that were so difficult. I think that I could have learned just as much if I had had more time to sleep. There was one "brutally difficult" class at MIT that I loved, though: Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. It would be nice if all brutally difficult classes came in a less brutal version, though. That level of difficulty is great if you adore the subject matter, as I adored SICP, but if you only like it instead, this type of class can give you a permanent aversion for the material rather than transform you liking into love. I feel that MIT's Signals and Systems did this to me. There's no way that having to do ten pages of algebra (e.g., Laplace transform, inverse Laplace transform, simultaneous equations) to solve a single homework assignment, multiplied by ten for the entire problem set, was ever going to do anything but give me a permanent aversion for the subject matter.
  - balloot 15y ago
    I totally agree. I felt a number of the Master's level CS classes were more like hazings than classes. It was like some professors were most interested in making their particular field of interest seem insanely difficult at the expense of students comprehending the material. Or alternately, some profs were primarily concerned with creating material difficult that most of the students would falter, and it would become clear who the top 3-5 students are. Then they would know who to invite to their research group. Neither of these made for a particularly fun experience. But at the same time, some of the classes had very difficult subject matter and the professors were actually interested in teaching students instead of torturing them. So it wasn't totally a bad experience. I guess there is some value in having these online classes because they motivate professors to make their subject matter more palatable. I just don't want my degree devalued by people who aren't as astute as yourself when it comes to the gap between the online courses and those taken by Stanford students.
    - 15y ago

dantheman 15y ago

I completely disagree, recorded lectures are nowhere as nice as the stuff that kahn and stanford are pushing out.

diiq 15y ago
Fair point. I admit that Khan does an incredible job. I believe it [lecturing to a microphone] is an extremely rare and underdeveloped skill. "EVERY" might have been hyperbole. But when the lecturers at hand are professors who have spent decades teaching to a room full of students who become visibly impatient, confused, eager, or antsy --- they should keep doing that. To keep a pleasant rhythm to instruction, many professors tell jokes; I think it's VERY hard to tell a joke to a webcam when you are used to an audience.

denzil_correa 15y ago

If you were looking for recorded lectures, why would you take the CS229A online course? You should take the recorded CS229 course : http://www.academicearth.org/courses/machine-learning http://www.academicearth.org/courses/machine-learning

nessus42 15y ago

I could not disagree more. I have an MIT degree, and I thought it was remarkably refreshing to have the difficult made easy, rather than vice versa. Not that I have huge complaints with my MIT education, but having taken some classes at Harvard too, where the emphasis was sometimes different, I can appreciate that there's often a great deal of value in a class that can draw people in and make them interested, rather than send them fleeing in terror. Personally, I thought that Prof. Ng's lectures where brilliant in their ability to make difficult material completely approachable. I do think that he occasionally would belabor the obvious, but for the intended purpose of the class, I think that it is better that he erred on the side of being too clear, rather than on the side of being opaque.

diiq 15y ago
I agree totally. The first two sins of education are making simple things complicated and making complicated things simple. Ng was clear, and that is commendable. My concern was not based on how difficult he made the material he presented seem. I was concerned that he did not present more difficult material. Vocabulary is very important. But in addition to knowing the meanings of words, its important to know why concepts are carved up the way they are. Why divide the world into supervised and unsupervised --- what does carving at that joint win us? Getting people interested is what the first week is for. The other eight, I feel, should try to satisfy the curiosity the first week sparked.
- nessus42 15y ago
  Vocabulary is very important. But in addition to knowing the meanings of words, its important to know why concepts are carved up the way they are. Why divide the world into supervised and unsupervised --- what does carving at that joint win us? I'm not sure that I get you. Why we have both supervised and unsupervised algorithms was made pretty clear to me in the class. And just what more difficult material would you have liked to seen? The real Stanford class is made more difficult largely by doing lots of difficult math proofs. I emphatically disagree with any assertion that this free class should be so math heavy. What would be the purpose of that for the intended audience? Sure, such work would make fine extra credit, but making effective use of algorithms rarely relies on on a ability to mathematically prove that they have the properties that they do. I think that a big final project, as is required in the real Stanford class, on the other hand, would have a lot of utility for the intended audience. But as that would be impossible to automatically grade, that's a non-starter.