5 ms·

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 to

by 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.
  - nessus42 15y ago
    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. I can certainly understand this worry, but I don't think you really have to worry too much about this. Those who matter will always know the true value of a Stanford education. It's not quite as good as an MIT education ;) but it's right up there. When I worked at Harvard a few years ago, there was a tempest in a tea pot over Harvard Extension and Hillary Duff. The media got wind that Hillary was taking some distance learning classes via Harvard Extension and referred to her as a "Harvard student". Harvard Extension is an excellent institution, and Harvard should be commended for running it, but it is rather different from Harvard College and Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. Harvard Extension, for instance, has no admissions requirements. They accept everyone, but you can't stay in it unless you get decent grades. In response to the news stories about Hillary, The Crimson published an editorial that was extremely snide about Ms. Duff being a "Harvard (extension) student". This editorial did not make the undergraduate population of Harvard look good. It made them look like a bunch of unsympathetic brats. Sure, it might be a bit annoying if you feel that any ol' person can claim to be a Harvard student when you worked hard your entire life to get into Harvard. On the other hand, when it matters, there is unlikely to be any real confusion, and there is no real devaluation of a Harvard College degree. It is true that some people do through a bit of vagary to pass off their Harvard Extension degree as a Harvard College or Graduate School degree, but when you catch someone in this, it just makes them look rather bad. In summary, I hope that Stanford students don't make the same mistake that the Harvard Crimson made. If I didn't know a bunch of Harvard students personally, the Crimson article would have reinforced a bad taste in my mind about Harvard students in general.
    - waterlesscloud 15y ago
      The classes were presented as being the same as Stanford classes, and in the AI class one of the professors claimed to be surprised that the online students were doing better than the Stanford students. As if the comparison was valid based on the difficulty of the material. You can't make those sorts of claims and at the same time try to protect the reputation of the institution by saying that the online class is not as rigorous as the "real" Stanford class. There's some actual danger in devaluing Stanford's rep here.

by balloot 15y ago

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.
- nessus42 15y ago
  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. I can certainly understand this worry, but I don't think you really have to worry too much about this. Those who matter will always know the true value of a Stanford education. It's not quite as good as an MIT education ;) but it's right up there. When I worked at Harvard a few years ago, there was a tempest in a tea pot over Harvard Extension and Hillary Duff. The media got wind that Hillary was taking some distance learning classes via Harvard Extension and referred to her as a "Harvard student". Harvard Extension is an excellent institution, and Harvard should be commended for running it, but it is rather different from Harvard College and Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. Harvard Extension, for instance, has no admissions requirements. They accept everyone, but you can't stay in it unless you get decent grades. In response to the news stories about Hillary, The Crimson published an editorial that was extremely snide about Ms. Duff being a "Harvard (extension) student". This editorial did not make the undergraduate population of Harvard look good. It made them look like a bunch of unsympathetic brats. Sure, it might be a bit annoying if you feel that any ol' person can claim to be a Harvard student when you worked hard your entire life to get into Harvard. On the other hand, when it matters, there is unlikely to be any real confusion, and there is no real devaluation of a Harvard College degree. It is true that some people do through a bit of vagary to pass off their Harvard Extension degree as a Harvard College or Graduate School degree, but when you catch someone in this, it just makes them look rather bad. In summary, I hope that Stanford students don't make the same mistake that the Harvard Crimson made. If I didn't know a bunch of Harvard students personally, the Crimson article would have reinforced a bad taste in my mind about Harvard students in general.
  - waterlesscloud 15y ago
    The classes were presented as being the same as Stanford classes, and in the AI class one of the professors claimed to be surprised that the online students were doing better than the Stanford students. As if the comparison was valid based on the difficulty of the material. You can't make those sorts of claims and at the same time try to protect the reputation of the institution by saying that the online class is not as rigorous as the "real" Stanford class. There's some actual danger in devaluing Stanford's rep here.