Hacker News Reader

Why can't the books be able to teach about "how" as well? I'm from a mediocre country where I went to the best CS college and 99% of the things I learned there was from powerpoint presentations, pdf scripts or books full of math exercises. I still got into FAMANG as my first full time job and so did many other people from there. I just never saw the value in our professors. They mostly repeated stuff from text books, had 10 year old lab assignments and similar exams for 20 years. And I don't think it's that bad. It teaches you enough of the basics for average programming job or as basis for you to expand into what's more interesting to you specifically. The only thing missing was cool projects like having your college develop GHC or stuff like that.

Point being, I think college professors overestimate their impact a bit when regarding bachelors/masters topics. All that is too basic to really need some expert domain knowledge and is knowledge which hasn't really changed that much the last 20 years. SVM's were invented in the 90s. Linear algebra some time before that. The rest is industry or postdoc stuff.

I get the "teaching" part but if you are "teaching" a room of 50 student's it isn't really that different from watching a youtube video for them.

You need positive teaching and negative teaching. Positive teaches how, negative teaches how not to. Without negative teaching people will accumulate a lot of bad or right out wrong beliefs and patterns as they study. A book cannot provide negative teaching, it can only teach you how to do things.

I would humbly submit that you aren't using very good books. I read all my text books during my CS degree, and there was plenty of negative teaching in there. A well written book or tutorial covers common pitfalls and equips you to recognize bad as well as good.

I do think there is a ton of value in getting feedback from a professor or colleague, but you can get pretty far with a book.

I’m reminded of Ben Eater’s tutorials on YouTube. Even though he knows what he’s writing won’t work, he writes the naive form and acts confused when it doesn’t work. Then he explains why it didn’t work. Compare that to basically every tutorial that just says “do this” without explaining why.

As an assistant prof in CS:

- books can partially teach you the "how" and also partially the "why".

- at university, you are being taught how to teach yourself, not necessarily how to perform practical things. Age of the exercise is therefore less relevant.

- ideally, teaching a room full of 50 students is easy better than an online class with 50, which easily should beat a video. Not all classes are like this which is a shame.

> ...at university, you are being taught how to teach yourself, not necessarily how to perform practical things.

vs getting a self-taught junior role early and not being $100k in debt?

$100k in debt may be typical for the US. In several countries in the EU, you'd pay much, much less.

It is not typical for the US either. Average is something like $30K. It's a lot but it's not $100K.

Where are people going to college (in the US) for $30k after 4 years (community colleges excluded)?

https://www.affordablecolleges.com/rankings/public-schools-f...

Very few students borrow, or at least need to borrow, 100% of the cost of attendance.

What is really meant by “being taught how to teach yourself” or “learning to learn”?

Why does this have to be done in a university setting? Is this explicitly conveyed or is this an outcome of going through classes and it’s what it takes to succeed?

Personally, when I was studying at a pretty strong university in terms of global rankings, I didn’t really “learn to learn” from the classes. The most helpful to me was Cal Newport’s blog (from his grad student days), Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange soft questions, hn discussions about learning and studying, and office hours when I explicitly asked Profs how they study, learn, and solve problems.

When I took what I learned from those sources and stopped going to class to instead work through the textbook/course material at my own pace, my grades improved significantly. If I am able to get an “A” without going to class, does that mean the Prof / university successfully taught me the material or whatever lesson(s) were to be learned?

Sorry for the rant, but I feel the default shouldn’t be to go through higher education to learn to learn. (I’m not saying you are saying that.) So, how can these lessons be made available more widely available?

Most people don’t spend tens of thousands of dollars on education to be better citizen of the world. They want to support their habit of needing food and shelter.

I’m doing a CS degree now, mostly lower level classes now. I find that teaching well does make a difference. Interestingly, when my professors use slides provided to them by the textbook company, I generally find it much harder to be engaged by watching their lecture. Compare to professors who make custom material and truly have some skill in presenting it.

Professors who choose to use the full suite of textbook, plus textbook provided slides, plus electronic auto graded homework might save themselves some time, but definitely are less effective educators, in my limited experiences.

Just to add another anecdote: I'm also a CS professor at a well-known state university. We are free to choose whatever books we want for classes. To the best of my knowledge, these choices are not even reviewed. We are also free to use no textbook and just hand out lecture notes or whatever.

This lack of restriction does lead to the professor using a book they wrote themselves. So to take their class, you need to buy their book as well. I understand why they do that, but it just feels wrong. Obviously there’s some textbooks written by teachers that are quite amazing (The Art of Electronics for example), but not all are like that.

Just to add, there is a flip side to this. As a grad student who did research and TA work, I've actually discussed this with fellow grad students and professors in the past and it comes down to the following...

A professor would rather spend their time teaching students and finding the best existing book (less expensive if possible, but better quality is more important) so they can use it for teaching.

I'm sure there are professors who have been thinking of writing their own textbook and getting students to buy them ... the downside is apparently writing technical books and textbooks earns less than minimum wage, and that's if you are lucky because of the way revenue split works with textbooks. So they have to charge exorbitant rates on the textbooks to make even a little bit of money. So most professors don't bother and instead use an existing good quality textbook. Not to say there aren't others who would try to write and sell their own.

> the large problem is the university expects you to use books from well known publishers

Interesting, and disturbing.

I am a math professor at a US state university, and thankfully I haven't observed any of this at all. For lower-level classes such as calculus we all use the same book, decided upon by the department as a whole, but when teaching upper-level classes I generally choose as I see fit.

I am curious, what form does this expectation/pressure take? At my university, if administrators tried to do this, my colleagues (at least the tenure-track/tenured ones) would briefly chuckle, delete the email, and not remember it five minutes later.

I do not worry about the loss of social constructs like university per se.

To a large extent it’s a political institution, with outdated historical baubles forced upon it (administrative nightmare).

We’re at a hinge point in social evolution where perhaps a university is generally unnecessary.

Accurate information discovery, storage, and retrieval is what a university was built for conceptually.

It’s a matter of human history it is mired in old political speech and social construct. Not necessity to execute its purpose.

You have skills to teach people. Teach them. Dispose of the pretense of teaching “in politically normalized settings”.

Go teach. Really historically you’re teaching people who paid the political price. How free.

Those publishers are so predatory and user-hostile, I wonder if they will actually be able to restrain themselves long enough to establish a market. As it is, very few people are stupid enough to buy a "textbook" that comes with auto-self-destruct DRM that renders it unusable at the end of the semester.

Of course many college kids are just kids fresh out of highschool with no financial skills or haggling skills so I guess I take back what I said about there not being enough dumb-dumbs to fuel a market for DRM "textbooks". People do still take out loans to finance their English major, after all.

The auto-self-destruct DRM isn't the textbook, it's the mandatory online quizzes provided by the publishers that require an active login. If you don't pay ~$60+ for the login, which only lasts a semester, you can't take the quizzes. If you can't take the quizzes, you fail the class.

They make limited access "textbooks" too.

Maybe it is a better way to learn independently, with regular, e.g. monthly or quarterly check-ins with an experienced mentor?

Would solve quite a few problems altogether - people getting more independent and following their interests. You would still have competition, but that would be moderated by actual needs, both in the private and public sector.

Not sure an end to the classic higher-ed system would be a bad thing.