Hacker News Reader

Comment by Lucent | Hacker News Reader

45 pointsLucent38 comments

This guy clearly had shitty teachers. Unfortunately, this has caused him to conclude that his bad college experience is a manifestation of a global international conspiracy to suppress his awesomeness. I bet it would shock him to learn that college doesn't really care about him that much.

He doesn't even mention his experience in the essay.

No, he mentions a generalized experience which he puts in the second person and claims is mine. However it's not mine (I breezed through first-year mechanics), so I can only assume it's his.

So your theory is that he's making this all up? No.

Most people here are too hung up on the details. I don't read an essay like this and take away from it, "Boy, the author had shitty teachers!", rather I think, "Yeah, he's right, raw intelligence without perseverance won't allow you to advance far in graduate school."

Actually, I think there's a really, really interesting point hidden in here:

    While technically true, it could also be argued that 
    you should rederive summation if asked to add all integers 
    from one thousand to one million. However, math classes
    never seem to make such unreasonable requests.

Do you remember the first moment, as a child, when you first grokked that two blocks and three blocks was the same number of blocks as four blocks and one block? I don't, but there must have been one. Some time where I looked at my hand, looked at the blocks, looked back at my hand, and suddenly got it. "Five."

What was that, if not a derivation of summation?

I propose that we are teaching physics (and most everything, really) much, much too late.

I found that statement interesting too, specifically because our math courses had us re-derive a PILE of stuff, and I felt much more enlightened after having done that.

Summation, for instance, was derived early on. Same with integration (Fundamental Theorem of Calculus).

One of my most memorable re-derivations was in my 4th calculus class (Sequences, Series, and Differential Equations, if I recall). We ended up taking the Taylor series approximation of sin(x), cos(x), and e^x. As the patterns started to emerge, the professor encouraged us to look at them carefully and start considering what happened when you substituted ix into the approximation for e^x.

This ends up, of course, turning into Euler's formula, e^ix = cos(x) + isin(x). Seeing it with the Taylor series approximations, though, snapped all the pieces together. Up until then, it all seemed like magic (sure, you can talk about vectors and imaginary numbers, but you're just accepting it as true). That derivation fundamentally changed how I look at this stuff.

More on this topic :)

Another really fascinating thing for me was first year "Intro to Electricity". That course was relatively formula based; for example, the voltage across a capacitor is given by Vcap = V0 * (1 - e^(-t/tau)). I had a hell of a time remembering that formula, and suffered for it.

In second year, we started getting more in depth and had a few more tools at our disposal (e.g. the Laplace transform, Integration, light Differential Equations, etc). At that point, the formulas i = C dv/dt and v = L di/dt became fully engrained in my head. We took those, and derived the equations we'd been using in first year. From that point on, I solved every passive circuit using precisely these first principles, and would consistently get the correct answer faster than many of my classmates who were trying to remember big specific formulas. If I needed it for some reason, I could quickly do the integral for a specific circuit to get the closed-form voltages.

1+99 = 100, 2+98=100 etc. So the sum of integers between 1 and 100 is 100*49 + 50. Is this what the author refers to? I believe he has misunderstood the point in that math problem.

I don't remember the derivation off the top of my head, but I suspect the article is referring to the derivation of the formula:

> S(1..n) = (n^2 + n) / 2

This was, if I recall, the very first example of inductive proofs we did at my university.

This article could have been written to not push people's buttons so much, but you've got to admit: there's a significant difference between "weeder" classes and later classes that actually focus on understanding.

Calculus courses are the worst offender I can think of. They're not about imparting you with a complete understanding of the relevant mathematics, but much more about whether you can stomach being made to memorize lots of pattern-matching heuristics to do endless reams of tedious problems. Contrast this with an upper division or graduate course: they're much more focused on concepts, patterns, and understanding. The curriculum even admits this; they have the "advanced calculus" upper-division courses for actually teaching the underlying math.

What a load of rubbish. I suspect that the author has a very highly opinion of his intelligence and failed Physics. Rather than accepting this, he makes up a tall tale about how the way Physics is taught is deliberately made to make people fail.

I highly question the value if this link to Hacker News... I would downvote it if I could.

I don't know if it's deliberate or not, but it seems to me that this is how a decent chunk of curricula have evolved. Although we do not know the actual background of the author, I can share my own anecdotes.

Here's my background: I've got a B.Sc in Electrical Engineering, with a post-degree specialization in Computer Science (essentially, the compsci courses for a 4-year B.Sc, without all of the Arts electives). Yes, this means I passed Physics.

Through high school, I did quite well based entirely on intelligence. I put very little effort into anything, kept an honour roll average the whole time, and partied hard at every opportunity. To be honest, I'm surprised I don't have brain damage, based on some of the stuff I did.

I get to Engineering school and things start to change. Now, I'm nowhere near the top of my class. As I was used to in high school, I'd plan an hour to finish an assignment. I'd get nowhere. Just like the OP's story, I felt like I was running into brick walls all the time. Physics (statics, in particular), was a total disaster... At Christmas, I got my marks back and ended up with a 51% in Statics. Brutal. "How can this be? I'm smart! I'm the guy helping other people with their homework! This doesn't make sense."

That's when I started to realize that hard work was the element I was missing. I turned down the partying a fair bit, and started to actually put time and effort into things. The following semester, 71% in Dynamics. Not a stellar mark, but a significant improvement.

The biggest problem I had through my University career was that I had no problem putting time and effort into things that I was interested in, but courses that I wasn't overly fond of ended up in the mid-60% range. My transcript is a strange mixture of 90%+ marks and ~65% marks. Designing a simple CPU on an FGPA? Awesome! Let's do this! Sink hours and hours into it and end up with a 97% in the class, with a functional CPU coming out the other side. Calculating the torque in an electric motor? Fuck that. 60%.

I don't think I ever really managed to get over the hump of "I can do well in any of these courses, if I put time and hard work into them".

This is why it's important to remember who the college consumer is (you) and what the product you're buying is (not grades, but knowledge).

Of course it's not that way for all. Many students are buying a diploma and/or access to certain networks of people. That's fine, but for the average state school attendee, they'd be far better off taking their time in college, not worrying about grades, and asking to take a course again for free if they didn't learn enough the first time.

I think the tale's point isn't that the way physics is taught is deliberately made to make people fail, but that the failures it leads to are features, not bugs. I think he might have a point in that. The whole premise of the essay is that

> Naturally intelligent people are quite worthless if they’re undisciplined.

Someone who thinks so wouldn't have a very high opinion of his intelligence.

I've personally experienced the set of circumstances he describes many times in school, so I don't think it's rubbish. In fact I switched from engineering to math specifically because I could better get by on raw intelligence rather than rote memorization or suffering through boring textbooks.

I've heard that the value of a college degree to potential employers is as proof that a candidate can finish, follow through or endure, so many times now that I accept it as fact.

This started out looking like it was going to be an interesting critique of how undergraduate physics is taught, but it got weird at the end.

There is a certain truth to the fact that the physics courses for engineering and life science students often aren't that good. They often do consist of a bunch of repeated relatively simple problems that students can get through by memorizing how to do each particular problem class (inclined plane, projectile motion, weights and springs) rather than by deeply understanding the physical principles involved. So many times, I've had conversations like this with students I've been teaching:

"Waah, I can't remember the equations for projectile motion!"

"Well neither can I, can't you derive 'em as you go?"

Then he goes off on his weird conspiracy theory, though, about how physics classes are deliberately designed to stop smart people from succeeding (!!?!!). In fact the sort of course he describes:

What if the curriculum gave you the tools and information to really understand the subject to the point that solving problems was truly a side effect of that understanding? What would that change? Who would succeed; who would fail?

does, in fact, exist. It's called "Physics" rather than "Physics for engineers" or "Physics for life sciences", and it's really hard. Actually it's quite easy, if you're smart, at the first year level, but gets very hard towards the third-year level. If that's what he wanted, that's the course he should have taken, not whatever Physics for Vegetables course they happened to offer at UT Knoxville.

Seriously though, the author's worldview is seriously flawed if he thinks that physics courses are designed by The Man in order to keep a lid on the brilliant-but-lazy. Physics courses are designed by physics professors, and while we may have our flaws, we're definitely not part of a conspiracy to destroy the brilliant-but-lazy; especially since most of us fell into the brilliant-but-lazy category ourselves.

tl;dr:

If survey classes actually connected the dots, it would promote intelligent students without challenging them to persevere, and ultimately favor the development of bright but undisciplined generalists.

---

While I relate to some of the cynicism of the essay, I think this is an emergent sociological phenomenon rather than something that the designers of curricula necessarily intend to do. Sure, there's a need to weed out students who can't hack it later due to a lack of intelligence or persistence, but the idea that course designers set out to build people into student-drones who blindly memorize information because "that's what society needs" is hogwash. This is a result of a need to serve a broad range of students with a limited supply of teaching talent.

I'm confident most college departments would love to get highly intelligent students intensely interested in their field of study. Showing them how to connect all the dots could open a window towards a genuine love for the field at hand, turning a jaded generalist into a dedicated scholar. While persistence may still be an issue with some of these students, showing them how amazing and connected a field can be could encourage them to specialize in this fascinating study. Few things inspire as much persistence as deep fascination. The crappy survey classes probably do more harm than good in turning away potentially excellent students from the material.

I doubt the author is seriously suggesting a secret cabal of academic administrators meets to "build people into student-drones who blindly memorize information."

From my reading, he is suggesting that academia has evolved this way over time, due to the greater culture of the, as DFW would put it, "day to day trenches of adult life."

Furthermore, the world would probably be better of if the 15% of people who take physics 1 have a deep understanding and appreciation for how it all fits together. I've met more than a few artists and english majors that are capable of connecting those dots. Unfortunately, it seems, the dots are just actively hidden from them.

This is why college is specifically designed to thwart the intelligent. It is entirely crafted to keep those naturally intelligent from succeeding in proportion to their intelligence. Instead, the curriculum encourages those who persevere.

Funny, life tends to reward those who persevere too.

Which he then goes on to say.

I couldn't get past:

"One can make endless arguments as to why history texts are spectacularly bland."

Of course, many history texts are bland - but so are books on many subjects. And the best history texts I find some of the most fascinating things to read...

Exactly. Typically, the curriculum for history is made to match some political agenda (even if you'd claim that it's not so, it is in fact always so with the history taught in schools). Making it adhering to the agenda necessary results in some awkward perspectives or unbalanced attention to really relevant or really interesting events.

To quote Bertha von Suttner in "Lay Down Your Arms," 1889:

"Speaking generally it is history which, as our youth are instructed, is the chief source of the admiration of war. From thence it is stamped on the childish mind that the Lord of armies is constantly decreeing battles, that these are, as it were, the vehicle upon which the destiny of nations is carried on through the ages ; that they are the fulfilment of an inevitable law of nature and must always occur from time to time like storms at sea or earthquakes ; that terror and woe are indeed connected with them ; but the latter is fully counterpoised, for the commonwealth by the importance of the results, for individuals by the blaze of glory which may be won in them, or even by the consciousness of the fulfilment of the most elevated duty. Can there be a more glorious death than that on the field of honour, a nobler immortality than that of the hero? All this comes out clear and unanimous in all school-books "readings for the use of schools," where, besides the formal history, which is only represented as a concatenation of military events, even the separate tales and poems always manage to tell only of heroic deeds of arms. This is a part of the patriotic system of education. Since out of every scholar a defender of his country has to be formed, therefore the enthusiasm even of the child must be aroused for this its first duty as a citizen; his spirit must be hardened against the natural horror which the terrors of war might awaken, by passing over as quickly as possible the story of the most fearful massacres and butcheries as of something quite common and necessary, and laying meanwhile all possible stress on the ideal side of this ancient national custom; and it is in this way they have succeeded in forming a race eager for battle and delighting in war."

Living in a country that arguably defines itself in terms of a war fought and won 700 years ago I am, in my skeptical old age, rather appalled at the level of indoctrination we received under the cover of historical eduction.

Not to mention the odd fact that my long-standing interest in history led to a much more recent fascination with geology...

Similarly the idea that history is merely memorisation, as if we had access to perfect information about the past which we can completely understand despite our entirely different context.

Interesting idea, but I'm with Napoleon on this one

"Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence"

Fair enough. Not a great article, but I would love to highjack the discussion toward the question of why we have "weed out" courses in the sciences? The incentive system for science programs seems to be "increase our reputation by maximizing the percentage of graduates accepted at top PhD programs." So, the intent is to keep the number of science graduates to an absolute minimum, at least until it is time to write an op-ed piece decrying the lack of math and science literacy in the population.

Does anyone have any thoughts on how to reconcile getting the small percentage of top students ready for careers in research and academia without the necessity of culling non-gifted students that find it interesting?

Maybe creating educational institutions that taught courses on those topics but wouldn't give degrees? That way, the only incentive to study would be the students interest.

How does your flippent conclusion that "incompetence" is the cause of failure in the hypothetical student from the essay, rather than lack of perseverance, move the conversation forward?

This is nothing but an unsupported conspiracy theory wrapped in a long-winded rant.

The author seems to be under the assumption that you can only learn what is taught to you. As a college student myself, I read from various texts + the internet to tie classes and concepts together. If lecture sucks, I find a more interesting way to learn. Nobody is forced to only learn from a single source.

This is how engineering education was explained to me:

1st year: Well-defined problems, well-defined answers

2nd year: Less-defined problems (labs)

3rd year: Harder problems where part of it is defining what the problem is, more labs

4th year: A vague problem like design a plant to process X and produce Y

I believe the purpose of engineering education is to teach you effective problem solving. Yes, you learn a variety of common methods but really, engineering is about creative problem solving with constraints

If you cannot make it past physics or chemistry, you do not make it to the true problem solving curriculum.

While I highly doubt his conspiracy theory, my experience has been similar. Exams measure mindless problem solving by memorized pattern matching instead of understanding. Instead of a coherent understanding you need to memorize how to solve a few problems, as the exam will ask minor variations of homework or book problems. Even with a lot of intelligence and understanding you realistically won't be able to come up with the answers to them without having seen the solution to a very similar problem before.

What course is that, though? Vegetable physics?

I doubt that physicists care who would pass the physics class but for those who have understood physics.

downvote!

This is why they invented the word "drivel"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com