3 ms·

I agree with his sentiment for the most part. The reason I imagine hiring managers prefer those with university degrees is that without knowing other informati

by Yhippa 15y ago

I agree with his sentiment for the most part. The reason I imagine hiring managers prefer those with university degrees is that without knowing other information they have some idea that such a person has those coping mechanisms to deal with the rigors of university. This is of course not perfect but when you're looking at a stack of resumes I imagine this has to be a differentiator. FTA: "Why not make the problems harder and let students use every possible tool or resource to solve them? Even students singularly focused on learning for its own value would get so much more out of the experience." From my own experience my open book exams in Physics were ridiculously difficult. We would use all sorts of tricks to cram as many equations onto the double-sided piece of paper we were allotted. I feel if you agree to an open book exam the difficulty of the exam can (and should) increase dramatically. Be careful what you wish for ;-)

jeffdechambeau 15y ago
Real life is pretty hard too. We let so many people into university that difficulty almost necessarily has to drop in order to keep enrollment numbers up. Did your school push you nearly hard enough?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- Yhippa 15y ago
  Of course real life is difficult. My point was regarding open-book exams.
endtime 15y ago
> I feel if you agree to an open book exam the difficulty of the exam can (and should) increase dramatically. Be careful what you wish for ;-) Most exams at Stanford CS are open book/open notes. I much preferred this to my undergrad experience of having to memorize stuff.
mr_mngr 15y ago
I prefer college graduates who finished at the top of their class. This is not because I believe they have meaningfully more domain expertise (though they sometimes do), or that they're exceptionally brilliant (though they sometimes are). It's because to graduate with high honors you have to make give dozens of people what they wanted to see; this despite the fact that sometimes you weren't interested, sometimes they were unclear about what they wanted, and sometimes they were terrible teachers. If you graduate at the top of your class, I know you have a proven ability to identify what people want, and find a way to give it to them. And THAT is what I care about.
redthrowaway 15y ago
Open-book exams should be ridiculously difficult, as they are intended to test understanding rather than rote memorization. Anyone can memorize a formula; figuring out when and how to use it is what the class should be teaching. Similarly, in a programming class, the exam should not be testing whether or not you've memorized the Java boilerplate code. Sure, if you use it enough you will memorize it, but that's not what makes a good programmer. Either provide the boilerplate or let the students look it up; the focus should be on solving the problem.
reledi 15y ago
> my open book exams in Physics were ridiculously difficult. We would use all sorts of tricks to cram as many equations onto the double-sided piece of paper we were allotted. Doesn't sound like it was an open book exam if you were just allowed a cheat sheet.

by Yhippa 15y ago

jeffdechambeau 15y ago

Real life is pretty hard too. We let so many people into university that difficulty almost necessarily has to drop in order to keep enrollment numbers up. Did your school push you nearly hard enough?

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
Yhippa 15y ago
Of course real life is difficult. My point was regarding open-book exams.

endtime 15y ago

> I feel if you agree to an open book exam the difficulty of the exam can (and should) increase dramatically. Be careful what you wish for ;-) Most exams at Stanford CS are open book/open notes. I much preferred this to my undergrad experience of having to memorize stuff.

mr_mngr 15y ago

I prefer college graduates who finished at the top of their class. This is not because I believe they have meaningfully more domain expertise (though they sometimes do), or that they're exceptionally brilliant (though they sometimes are). It's because to graduate with high honors you have to make give dozens of people what they wanted to see; this despite the fact that sometimes you weren't interested, sometimes they were unclear about what they wanted, and sometimes they were terrible teachers. If you graduate at the top of your class, I know you have a proven ability to identify what people want, and find a way to give it to them. And THAT is what I care about.

redthrowaway 15y ago

Open-book exams should be ridiculously difficult, as they are intended to test understanding rather than rote memorization. Anyone can memorize a formula; figuring out when and how to use it is what the class should be teaching. Similarly, in a programming class, the exam should not be testing whether or not you've memorized the Java boilerplate code. Sure, if you use it enough you will memorize it, but that's not what makes a good programmer. Either provide the boilerplate or let the students look it up; the focus should be on solving the problem.

reledi 15y ago

> my open book exams in Physics were ridiculously difficult. We would use all sorts of tricks to cram as many equations onto the double-sided piece of paper we were allotted. Doesn't sound like it was an open book exam if you were just allowed a cheat sheet.