11th grade
xkcd.org
xkcd.org
You know what? Sometimes you have to learn things that you don't think you'll "use in real life". Sometimes you have to learn how to read and write, and make persuasive arguments to something other than a machine. Sometimes you have to eat your vegetables. Sometimes you have to go to bed early, brush your teeth, and pay your bills. Life is full of hardships. Deal with it.
To all the high school kids who are reading this and thinking about dropping out, with visions of startups dancing in your heads: don't. Just don't. If you're truly the brilliant, self-guided whiz-kid that you imagine yourself to be, you'll dispatch with the homework quickly (it's easy, right?), and use the rest of your prodigious free time for more enjoyable tasks. If I could do it, so can you.
As for learning things you won't "use in real life"? I agree, it's good. But I'm sorry, some classes don't just teach you things you won't use - they just don't teach you. How much good will it do you to analyze dozens of books in essays about their arbitrary qualities, eh? Not that much. Maybe English would be more useful if the high schools didn't have to cater to the lowest common denominator. But public schools have to, and the end result is that many classes are slow-paced, repetitive, and thus, boring.
And please. Please, please, please, can you stop considering high school nerds as anti-intellectual, narrow-minded, arrogant idiots? The amount of people who share your view make tolerating being one very difficult at times, especially when your administrators or teachers refuse to comprehend the idea that maybe it is possible for people to learn things on their own and not have to repeat them in class.
I'm sorry if this response sounds feels overly acrid or acidic, but honestly, as a "self-professed nerd", I find your comment extremely insulting, probably because I've had to deal with many people who base their entire opinions of me on such ideas.
You are. I'm talking to the people who see stuff like this, and think about dropping out. Clearly, that set doesn't include all high school kids.
"As for learning things you won't "use in real life"? I agree, it's good. But I'm sorry, some classes don't just teach you things you won't use - they just don't teach you. How much good will it do you to analyze dozens of books in essays about their arbitrary qualities, eh? Not that much."
...and when I was in high school, I said the same stuff. "Why do I have to learn about Keats?" "Why must I write structured essays about James Polk?" "What will I ever gain from knowing the rules to basketball?" "Why can't I just learn more about programming?" On and on.
But you know what? I was an idiot. Back then, I didn't have the perspective to know what was important and what was unimportant (for that matter, I'm still learning what to value). Had people let me study whatever I wanted to study in the 10th grade, I would have missed out on exposure to a lot of stuff that I find very valuable today. I would have turned out to be a very one-dimensional person.
Try not to find this advice condescending, and see it for what it is: one nerdy guy who has been there, telling you that you don't know everything, and don't have enough experience to make good judgments about what knowledge is valuable in life. In the meantime, you can learn something from every situation -- just so long as you want to learn.
Though I might disagree with you on specifics, I agree that it's important not to restrict yourself to a limited set of things. I guess I was slightly annoyed mainly due to the fact that a few of my school admins sound very similar, except they don't bother to take the time to explain their views in a less condescending sounding way.
That said, there are parts of high school that I'd give money to experience just one more time. And of all of the people I know, I don't think anyone has ever said that they wished they'd paid less attention in school. Good luck with it.
I attended college prep high schools and was a 3.9+ GPA student, took many AP courses, etc. I ate the dog food. But at the end of the 11th grade I decided I was through, and left early for college en route to a PhD in CS. Looking back, I am disappointed at myself for being so focused on the main curriculum -- the only activities that I am proud of now were ones done outside of it.
I think the flaw in your argument is that you assume that ignoring school yields narrow mindedness. It does not have to be so. For example, in my spare time I developed a web site of a well-known physicist that was eventually reviewed by the Scientific American. I can understand how someone would consider that narrow, but it required me not only to read physics and hack HTML (this was the mid-90s), but also to write essays, develop design skills, and become comfortable holding my ground in discussions with people far my senior who wanted the site changed in one way or another. These were all invaluable skills that I learned, really internalized, only because I pursued something that I considered important. With the exception of one class, that never happened at school.
That being said, I agree that in order to get a PhD one needs a certain level of tolerance of inane work. But that tolerance should be extended only to activities that stand in the way of accomplishing some goal that is important to you. To people reading this board a high school diploma is irrelevant, so I think most schoolwork does not achieve any particular goal for them.
And what makes you think the people designing your high school curriculum knew any better or that teaching you important things was even their goal?
I think with a little guidance from well educated people I could have spent my high school years learning a hell of a lot more important things than my school wanted me to.
I agree with your advice that dropping out of HS should be discouraged, but mostly just because it'd hurt you later if you didn't have a decent grasp of reading/writing/math and a diploma to get past the stigma of not having one.
I don't think they knew for sure, but they had a hell of a lot better idea about what was important than I did, at the time. And in retrospect, they weren't too far off.
Most people who teach and design high school curricula are incredibly dedicated people, who want you to learn. They certainly aren't doing it for the money and fame.
You can find corruption in any sufficiently large system. It doesn't mean that the system is inherently corrupt.
The insinuation here borders on slander.
How much time did you spend asking your instructors for more interesting work to do? Did you ask them about why they chose the curriculum they did? Whether there were better choices? For advice on guiding your personal learning process?
If so, you might have a case to make here (but only for your specific teachers, not the entire profession). If not, you malign your teachers without enough evidence to back your accusations.
I remember two teachers specifically, who were ecstatic to have a student who actually gave a damn about learning. One affectionately (and jokingly) called me his "disciple." They went out of their way to find experiments for me to do in the course of applying for my state's summer science school. They found ways to help me learn more about computers and programming.
If you just blew your teachers off and did not even engage them about how they could help you learn, the blame falls more on you than them.
The English teachers were told what books to teach. The math teachers had the books picked out for them. The AP teachers had a strict test for which to prepare us. Foreign language teachers likely had the most flexibility in retrospect. The science teachers didn't have enough money to do much more than teach to the book. (Some of them did an admirable job none the less.)
Mind you, the teachers liked me. I didn't complain about the grades, asked questions, and was engaged with the learning process. That doesn't mean I don't regret dropping out after the sophomore year (1995) like I almost did and go to the community college. I regret not getting my associates and cashing in at the end of the boom so that I could have gone back to college in my time.
So I dropped out early and went straight to college. No one cares what you did in high school. No one ever asks.
I don't know what kind of HS teaches about Keats but It did not appear in my enriched English classes (between normal and honors); 5 paragraph essays did, though. The few highlights of high school were the calculus class I had to fight tooth and nail to get into and of course programming. But I didn't just want to learn more about programming I also wanted to learn more about automata, AI, security and so on.
I also do appreciate the finer arts. I went to New Mexico Tech and learned a great deal of engineering but also humanities. It was only then that it was presented in a rigorus manner. What do you think will appeal to "nerds" like us? Memorizing a list of kings and dates? Or learning about the strategics and logistics of geo-politics?
As for your "life is full of hardships" quip, as if that tells me anything, that's a great story. It really is.
So yeah, high school sucked for me sometimes, too. But I think the difference is this:
"The only way to get a "challenging" education was to jump through a bunch of hoops, such as joining Key Club, marching band, AP everything, extracurricular this and that, all of it just a way of padding a college resume."
Ya know what? I did a lot of that stuff because I enjoyed it. I didn't pad my resume by playing in the band; I absolutely loved to play (still do). And I took the AP classes because I learned more. I'll give you that Key Club kind of sucked, but then again, I never really joined -- I was too busy with the debate team and the newspaper. And my knowledge of Keats? Occasionally useful on trivia nights down at the bar.
You can see these things as hoops, or you can see them as opportunities. I'd rather know the guy who does the latter.
I guess then you are one of the few who liked things like debate team, key club, the school newspaper, or other clubs. I didn't. I would wager that a large number of people don't, either. Yet we're forced to sit through it and be told that if we don't like it we are being arrogant or that it is bad.
I'm sorry if I just can't see the value of spending hours and hours of my youth putting together the school newspaper that no one reads, or the joys of blowing on an instrument that no one likes listening to but if you do, that's fantastic. I don't think you're bad or different for liking them.
But I don't like them or cared to spend time on them. And that doesn't make me a bad arrogant person. It just means I had different goals.
Though, I must admit, we really could have skipped the day of learning how to fold a formal letter in three folds, what the platen was, the carriage shift, etc...
Others have already addressed Typing, including the Mighty Steve Yegge, so I won't dwell on that.
Home Economics just requires the right attitude. Like me and my friends would move everything from one drawer to another when the teacher wasn't looking, just to mess with her head. We would experiment and sneak ingredients into dishes that the recipe did not call for. We would beg for the right to make the Kool Aid (insert Steve Jobs joke here). The teacher was mostly a good sport, maybe because we were a bunch of guys being good sports about taking in a Home Ec class and having fun with it (in our admittedly immature way) instead of whining and complaining about it.
I actually am very intellectual. I kind of want to drop out, but that doesn't meant I have any intentions of doing so. I know that learning to write and such will be useful once in awhile in my adult life. And more importantly, I know that good grades will get me into a good college (and hopefully also get me a good scholarship).
I'm #1 class rank at the 42nd-highest-ranked public HS in the US. So just because nerds like coding more than school and wish they could trade school for coding doesn't make us all unintellectual
I still think going to school and college is the right decision for well over 99% of students, but I think it's a big mistake to treat formal education as a one-size-fits-all panacea.
Anyway, I was classified as Exceptionally Gifted (IQ 160+?) / Learning Disabled which basically meant they had no idea what to do with me. I did the whole state science, math, and chess thing so I spent time around people who where focused and intelligent in high school most of the extreme cases seemed broken. I don't feel that having children jump through more and harder hoops leads to a happy healthy life. I would have have loved a shorter more focused school day, but I don't see the value of trying to cram more facts into high school. Adding a course in investing, speed reading, or other useful skills would have been nice.
PS: I don't know if I fear success, but I don't know how I could have coped if I was profoundly gifted and everyone around me had seemed even dumber.
Also, do you meet more people than you would statistically expect who are around your level? Another interesting claim the article makes is some researchers say there are more exceptionally gifted people than their statistical distribution would predict. Since the IQ metric is based on assuming a normal distribution in the population, such a result would mean IQ scores are not accurate.
It seems to be easy to get it wrong. Even the author of the article, who studies giftedness professionally, made such mistake (she tells that IQ 190 to IQ 130 is like IQ 130 to IQ 70).
What's that supposed to mean? The meaning of IQ 190 is that it is 6 standard deviations from the mean (rarity around 1 in billion), while both IQ 130 and 70 are 2 standard deviations from the mean (rarity around 1 in 50).
PS: It's not really completely accurate, but you can treat a 6 year old and a 12 year old with the same mental age in about the same way and see similar types of responses.
To respond to your original question, I have a hunch that intelligence variance (as opposed to IQ) is indeed quantitative.
It kind of make sense. Intelligence seems to correlate positively with simple stuff, like reaction speed or short term memory span.
Qualitative differences may arise as consequence of applying different "processing power" throughout your life.
For the first order effects, you can imagine that if you don't have enough "CPU-minutes", for some problems you simply time out.
For the higher order effects, it's like compound interest. For example, as written in the article, smarter kids start to speak and read sooner, thus they acquire more information and they also acquire it at higher rate. And as we know from financial compound interests, even tiny initial amounts can balloon into huge sums given enough time.
At any rate, is there quantitative metric for intelligence?
Simplified view: people solve a test with a number of questions. They are getting ordered by how many questions they get right.
Tests are constructed to produce Gaussian distribution of numbers of correct answers. Some questions are easy, almost everybody can solve them. Some questions are difficult, almost nobody can solve them. There should be progressively less and less people getting more questions right.
But in reality, it's not a perfect Gaussian distribution. There are some numbers of questions that have more people getting them right than would be predicted by normal distribution.
Now, about quantitativeness. We could get somehow quantitative metric, if questions would simple and uniform in structure, for example test composed just of "how fast you can multiply x-digit numbers" task, or test solely composed of "how fast you can arrange pieces into a particular shape" task.
But it's not like this. There are different tests, some of which have several thematically different sections. Even inside one section, questions do differ a lot (for example, some shapes are harder to compose of primitive elements, how would you quantify this difficulty?).
To further complicate matters, usually completely different tests are used for different intelligence ranges.
And we are not even speaking about normalizations. Your rank is computed just for your age group. For the same raw score, you get extra points if you are younger or older than the optimal age.
If I remember well, there is a fast ramp up of raw scores till 18 years, followed by a slow decline afterwards (rate of decline is slower for more intelligent people).
And then there are national/race differences. And Flynn effect. It's much more messy than it looks.
http://www.amazon.com/Measurement-Psychology-Critical-Histor...
by Joel Michell. IQ scores definitely do not, as bd correctly points out, constitute an interval scale. They are not measurements.
A reasonable analogy might be replacing a 200hp engine with a 300hp engine in the same car. For a wide range of day to day things they only change is their acceleration. However, at higher speeds increased drag comes into play. So the harder the task the longer it takes them to get there. Untill they just can't keep up. For some things there is little noticable difference but othertimes it's striking.
A good example might be an Algebra II homework mistake. We where doing 2 equations 2 unknowns in class which was simple and the homework was the end of chapter quiz. Well I sat down and the first 4 questions where like that but the next set had 3 equations and 3 unknowns and a few seconds later I figured out how to do that. It's seemed odd that the homework had something new but it was easy enough so moving on. The next day I realized I had not been paying attention and did the next chapters assignment. It took the teacher two weeks to get to that point. I remember thinking what are most of these people just dumb?
A more extream example: A few years before that my had an agument with my 3 year older sister and ended up doing some of her math homework. I do recall her say ok yea this is easy. She skipped 8th grade and was the salutatorian and took AP calculus so it's not like so was slow behind or anything it was just obvious based on the questions.
As to the statistics I don't think think there is much point in measuring IQ's over 150 or so. It's not that people don't become smarter, but it's harder to find how generally intelligent someone is. Plenty of people can solve an Rubik's Cube in under 45 seconds, but how long would it take them the first time they saw one? There are plenty of mental leaps that are easy after you have seen them, but they take can take a long time to show up and 3 people might each solve a different one first. According to several people I was 3 before I spoke my first word, but my first words where "Please pass the butter" so how do you measure that?
I don't grant your premise. There's busywork in everything, and I never found high school to be worse than anything that has come later in life. We've all got to wait in the same line at the supermarket.
When I read nerd complaints about formal education, I get the feeling that the prevailing sentiment is one of entitlement: "if I have to do anything I don't like to do, then the system is broken." Smart kids seem to have this sense of entitlement worse than many people -- probably because they're so easily bored.
Trouble is, you're always going to have to live and work with people who are slower than you are. You can skip out on high school in an attempt to avoid it, take college classes early, rush into graduate school, whatever. Eventually, however, you run smack into the wall of society, and you've got to work within its framework. The ability to persevere through busywork is an extremely valuable skill in that context.
So I learned how important busy work was without actually doing it. In life looking for ways to avoid busy work has helped my advance. Teaching people that they need to waste their time stops being useful when you start measuring people on their performance not how they got there. The real reason teachers grade easy assignments is to let people who work hard, but have no idea what there doing pass.
PS: IMO busywork is why few high school valedictorians do anything interesting or meaningful with their lives. If doing well in high school correlated with doing well in life people might start caring about their performance.
1) Do the work. It's easy, so you'll do it quickly and get a high grade. Then you can ask for more challenging work (or just do something more interesting).
2) Don't do the work. Instead, complain about the inanity of the class and the idiocy of the teacher. You'll get a bad grade, and a bad reputation, too.
There are times to recognize busywork for what it is and eliminate it (i.e. where you benefit other people by eliminating it), and times to just suck it up and do it (i.e. where you can't change it and/or don't benefit enough other people by trying). Part of the art of being successful is knowing how to discriminate between the two scenarios, and how to respond accordingly (i.e. diplomatically).
The problem with student complaints about high school curricula, is that they clearly land in category two. Your bad experience with 9th grade geometry doesn't mean that the learning 9th grade geometry is wrong -- it means that you had a bad 9th grad geometry teacher, or that you brushed him the wrong way, or some combination of the two. And in that situation, you can suck it up, and do the work you need to do to get an A, or you can complain and get a bad grade.
Life is full of these situations. Complaining about the unfairness of the situation is not the correct response.
That's my method. If I have a 100% in CS, what's the point of doing all the pointless busywork? Just relax for a month until your grade drops to a 92%, then you have to start working a bit.
3) Do the minimum required to stay eligible for sports as an underclassman and then drop out once I was old enough to do so legally.
I've never regretted the decision since.
Citation needed.
Is it really true that valedictorians perform worse than students with lower class rank, by any objective metric?
It's not that they do poorly but they are under represented when compared to others of similar intelligence when you look at CEO's and other top positions.
PS: Find the number of US precedents that where valedictorians in high school.
s/high school/corporate life/
Some of the same social structures apply to both, as well.
The cartoon applies to my comment, as well. "The way we've always done it" can be a mercilessly rote and inefficient path. The bit of Perl I picked up (along with a hodgepodge of regex, SQL, VBA -- I know, but I had to use the tools at hand -- and whatnot) boiled a five person department down to one person, all the while handling significantly increased complexity with greatly improved accuracy.
If I hadn't taken the initiative and taught myself, none of it would have happened.
Of course, the ex-jock brought in from the outside to CEO, and his team whacked it, anyway. Just like high school.
But I walked away with a better skill set, to a better job.
I kept the department afloat. I should have bailed, but personally it wasn't a good time for a transition.
I'd hate for my work to result in others being laid off. In a prior position, I spent a lot of time mentoring and defending a replacement, giving her time to get up to speed.
I also spent a lot of time volunteering my "kung fu" to acquaintances in other departments. Saving an accountant two days' work sorting manually through borked phone records, via a couple of minute Excel hack, provided a certain satisfaction.
There's so much emphasis on "competition" as well as "the way". (All the more ironic for all the "corporate speak" espoused regarding "cooperation".) I'd rather grow people while appreciating their differences, and hoping for some of the same in return.
To try to tie this back to "11th grade", it would be nice if "the Perl hacker" didn't so often have to feel themself quite so the outsider. Or maybe that trait is orthogonal fro the "Perl/hacker" trait? Seems to be a fairly strong correlation.
I also got more from trying to automate Linux than I ever did in those non-practical Logo and Pascal exercises. My school had no concept of task-based learning.
It's mostly under control now.
Anti-intellectual is the wrong term. Anti-system or anti-academia would be better. The nerds you refer to generally believe strongly in learning and becoming smarter (indeed, knowledge and intelligence are measures by which many nerds brag) but not so strongly in the system of academia, "qualifications" and systems of education.
For starters, it's ridiculous to think that a person supposedly capable of learning what is taught by the system is incapable of learning how to accurately identify inefficiencies and failures in the system. This ought to be an acknowledged fact in any system that claims to respect it's students or has any faith in their ability to succeed.
Furthermore, it would be downright ignorant to suggest that these inefficiencies didn't exist. They are widely acknowledged as existing in the quality of the curriculum, the teaching, the educational environment, the materials, and in the bureaucracy which surrounds it all. Schools have problems. It's absurd to think that the very people for whose benefit this is all said to exist should simply grin and bear them. In fact, I can't think of a more dangerous attitude to instill in the workers and voters of the next generation than "deal with it". Likewise, giving them the idea that learning is supposed to involve large amounts of pain and hardship is absolutely counterproductive to the goal of education.
Learning is not a hardship. It can be a challenge, sometimes a very large one, but by and large it is an autotelic activity that people are born quite enamored of, and I believe depicting it as an unfortunate fact of life for the sake of making people tolerate their own suffering is "short-sighted nonsense" that most often puts people off of the whole activity. That students find their schooling a hardship worth avoiding ("Math is hard, let's go shopping!") has considerably less to do with the nature of the subject itself or immaturity on the part of the student than it does the excision of most of what is pleasant and motivating about learning in favor of imposing artificial constraints and quantifiable metrics of dubious meaning.
That it is entirely possible to graduate from school as an oaf and ignoramus is indicative of a problem, and for those that both detect that and are not motivated by the extrinsic rewards on offer, it renders the value of obtaining those rewards dubious. In short, if you care about learning more than you care about graduating, modern public high school may not be a good place for you. It may even be harmful.
It's not uncommon for highly intelligent students with passionate interests and a willingness to expend great effort in pursuit of those interests to have an inordinately difficult time with the work they're assigned, being unmoved by the extremely abstract and distant goal of graduation or the threat of punishment so often delivered to underachievers. Those that "deal with it" may wind up with poor or highly inconsistent academic records, which further erodes what value the experience might have had toward achieving their goals by constraining their options for higher education. I think it's a terrible shame that we tell these students that they are wasting their talents, while simultaneously requiring that the majority of their time and attention during the years of their lives where they are most capable of developing those talents be devoted to a system which is at best inefficient and at worst actively damaging.
Make no mistake--I would agree that given the circumstances of inexperience, lack of leverage, and an education system that is at times ferociously resistant to dissent, it can be extremely difficult for a person in that position to make such a large decision with a high degree of confidence, and that errors in judgement are not rare. But I also think that anyone attempting to make it through life without risking such errors is best advised to kill themselves post-haste.
Deciding to drop out is not a decision that should be made lightly or without a sufficiently better alternative readily available, but to dismiss the option entirely on the grounds that suffering is inevitable is foolish and arbitrary.
You probably don't want to hear this, but even straight-A students are bored by some of what they learn. The difference is that the straight-A students have learned to persevere through boredom, while the smart-but-underperforming students often haven't. It's a useful filter, and the people who discriminate against the latter group aren't simply being capricious.
(For the record: I was always one of the latter group. I'm coming at this from the dirty side of the filter.)
I was the stereotype for this comic: in 11th grade I got cold-called by a recruiter who didn't know my age, but saw my resume after seeing my post on a LUG mailing list. I took the job (a jr. sys admin position) essentially drove the grades for most of my classes (except two, where I got A's -- that I'll mention later) down to D or C level.
Sounds like a typical anti-intellectual nerd: barely passing classes just to skip out after lunch to go work a sys-admin job and code Perl, right? Well, out of the two A's the first A was fairly easy to guess: AP Computer Science. The second A was AP US History (complete with a 5 on the exam, highest grade in the class, excellently written essays).
Senior year wasn't much different (except s/Computer Science/Calculus/ and s/US History/Biology/). In the end my GPA wasn't good enough to compete in freshman admissions so I ended up enrolling in a community college. I ended up getting a near 4.0 gpa there and transfering to a to a private university after just a year.
To transfer I needed to write a personal statement. I wrote it on my whole experience: of getting poor grades in most courses, but enjoying the AP program and taking on "adult" work while still a school student.
In community college and university I took courses in philosophy, history, political science and literature all in addition to my major courses.
After college I only interviewed at two search engines and only for mid to senior level positions. I'd think most of my class mates who worried about having a 4.5 (yes, that's possible with AP courses) GPA in high school, Key Clubs and sports teams weren't nearly that lucky (the CS majors amongst them are likely still stuck trying to make their way out of doing QA/support or writing business logic in Java), nor did they end up developing as broadly interested in the intellectual sphere (choosing to concentrate on making their transcripts look good vs. on learning).
That's my story but it's not the only one like this. There are plenty of nerds who may be poor performers in high school but who are very well rounded intellectually and who ultimately end up shining in college (they get in by hacking" their way in: either through extra-curricular like robotics teams [only extra-curricular that I really regret not joining in high school; one member of that team ended up at a UC school with a 1.7 gpa] or by transferring from a community college, or through a alumni recommendation from a boss/coworker).
Problem is: high school instruction generally is poor, teachers coming from bottom of the college class or as a "last resort" option for not getting into med-school/grad-school (while there are many great exceptions, e.g. my calculus and AP US history teachers being the ones who influenced my the most); it's easy to cram one's way into college (and high schools are pressured to become cram schools) and there's too much emphasis on mentally dull labour (physical education classes, sports, busy work) in school.
I agree with one thing: don't drop out of HS to work (I didn't) -- either for yourself or for someone else. Also, don't drop out of college to work for someone else. Do, however, consider doing your senior and junior years of high school at a community college (another regret I have: not taking advantage of such a program offered by our HS/CC district).
Call me crazy, but I still think being able to make Dan Rather say "wild and wooly Nazi war criminals hooked on drugs and drinking binges bug out on fire" is more important and valuable than any essay I could have written about symbolism in Huckleberry Finn.
The problem is, learning Perl allowed you to essentially get a fish for a day. Perl is not going to last. What you learned was essentially how to get a Rube Goldberg contraption to do what you wanted.
The symbolism in Huck Finn, however, is eternal. You can then read any great book, or look at any work of art, and understand it at a better level. What you've done is learned how to fish for yourself.
Putting extra effort into high school English can be totally worth it, but it is a personal preference that shouldn't be pushed on the unwilling.
Learning Perl isn't value-less, but it doesn't compare on any scale to trying "to acquire the understanding" of Huck Finn.
I agree about acquired tastes; I've had a few myself. But people run away when something's pushed on them too harshly. Sometimes the cool assignments are the ones with a list of options (say, choose two from this list). It's an independent choice but still related to the material.
Would it be fair to ask you to prove your understanding and appreciation of Bob Marley by asking you to write an essay on him and then judge that essay based on whether it's contents matched up with what other people before you have said? It doesn't seem like that would help you understand if you didn't. It also takes away your own authority on whether your appreciation of the work is valid, which isn't educational at all.
I think your comment highlights the fact that it's normal to not "get" everything, too. That's something that seems to be disregarded in the curriculum, where everyone is supposed to get everything equally at the same time. If someone were to tell you their favorite albums were Kind of Blue, A Love Supreme, Legend, Pet Sounds, Thriller, Dark Side of The Moon, and Revolver, you wouldn't consider them a paragon of refinement so much as a liar. And yet, we're expecting something like that out of students by testing them this way.
And so it seems to me that anyone capable of completing the assignment will have succeeded in little other than demonstrating how unnecessary it was for them to do it, and those that can't produce passing results will have gained no better understanding in the process of their failure.
The weight is in fact so biased to the side of redundancy that students routinely compose satisfactory essays without having read the book or understood it's symbolism or learned any skill but deception. And what does that say about the value of the assignment?
As a writing exercise the typical English essay may have marginal value, but significantly less than it would were the style subject matter not always so constrained to literary criticism, a genre which does not carry over well into others. The end product itself is practically worthless--the symbolism is as you said eternal and available to all at any time by reading the book. The only demand for English essays comes from people attempting to shirk creating their own.
I really don't think it's crazy for someone confident in their ability to succeed at such a task to regard it as less important than the challenge of developing a new skill and a tangible end product that is new to the world. I mightn't have have had the words to justify it at the time, but I certainly did feel that I was doing the right thing.
Perl not lasting is irrelevant. Perl was just the medium. Programming was the task, the art, that I got my practice in by wrangling that contraption. And it was practice I would not have gotten if I had relied on external rewards as motivation.
What does it mean when freshmen are assigned things like 1984 and Brave New World, Lord of the Flies and Les Misérables for sophomores, The Catcher in the Rye for juniors, and Catch-22 for seniors?
All are great books, worth reading, and worth assigning as the object of study, but it's sad that the curriculum is so focused on shallow analysis.
Reading some of these comments, I suspect that the amount of homework has gone up, and that is the reason for much of the frustration. Not just that there is busy work, but the sheer quantity of busy work.
My kids are going to a Catholic elementary school, and a parent who transferred to their school from the public school said that the amount of homework is much less in the Catholic school, and her kids actually like school now. Frankly, I find the idea of lots of homework in elementary school bullshit. I don't believe elementary kids really benefit from multiple hours of homework every night, and believe that it could lead to burnout by middle school. My son in 1st grade gets homework, but it seems more to get him comfortable with the idea, rather than to consume 2 more hours that he could spend doing other things, including reading things that personally interest him.
That puts a lot of the complaints here in a different perspective for me. If there is so much homework that it doesn't leave time for Perl hacking, that's a big fail on the part of the school system.
Don't even think about dropping out of high school to do a startup. Statistically, you have a ~99% chance (okay, I just made up that number) of failing and then you'll just be a high school dropout. Stay in school, and do something on the side.
There will always be opportunities for cool startups in the future, and probably after you finish college, you'll be much better equipped to go after those opportunities.
One of the best things my family ever did for me was allowing me to take a year off high school to try to start my own software company. After that I never went back but if it hadn't of worked out the worst that would have happened is I'd be a year behind.
The one good thing about a high school degree is that it's easier to get into a university program later on if you want to. I'd love to go to university now to study a couple things I'm really interested in but have had difficulty getting far.
Also don't underestimate the college experience in shaping your life. I was lucky that when I was starting my career I was surrounded by students and lived with them and did the same things as them so I got some of the experience but I'll always regret not having the full 4 years of college life.
Turn on noprocrast and get back to hacking. The constraint of school is useful, in that in terms of productivity, feeling like you don't have enough time is better than feeling like you have plenty of time. You just have to learn how to make the most of the time that you do have--which isn't easy or intuitive--because you'll need that skill no matter what you do later.
You're physiologically addicted to this, if you drop out of school, you'll have a lot of company in all the other people who are addicted to other things that give them those moments of pleasure.
They could probably teach the K12 material in half the time if they tried.
But no good things last forever.
http://garfieldminusgarfield.net/
http://marmadukeexplained.blogspot.com/
Great arguments for transformative fair use if you ever need them.
But Garfield wasn't terrible. Go back and read the first five or six years of Garfield; at the time, it was a breath of fresh air.
Seriously, High School is 1300 hours of 'busy work'? Or just memorising lists of facts?
The equivalent period of my education in the UK could in no way be described in this way.
It's not really this bad, is it? It's just people dissing studying things they don't want to study, right?
Lots of people remember some specific quote a teacher said that effected their life in some way. The quote I remember from this teacher was "I don't know and I don't care, I'm just here to get a paycheck".
It seemed daunting faced with yet another 4 years of school, college, and I had fantasies about dropping out in the middle when a business starts to take off. But the first 1/12 went by in the blink of an eye, so this is looking actually doable. Plus, many at this age would much rather be in college than working a boring job, so it would be short-sighted to run away from such an appealing community.
http://markbao.com (old, somewhat crappy stuff there, new stuff http://files.markbao.com/newstuff.jpg)
I'm not thinking about dropping out, though. The risk is too great to just drop out and work on startups. I'm trying to make the most out of my little time left as a teenager socially and educationally (albeit the subject matter is relatively less useful than I'd like), go to college with a business focus (if I can get in with my low-ball GPA), and see where it goes from there.
I'm mostly in the startup game now to make connections, understand a foundation of startup business and entrepreneurship, and then move on in the future with that knowledge as an advantage.
For any other high school people on HN: there are three laws to follow when you're attending a strict-time institution like HS:
- Bust your ass.
- Manage your time correctly.
- Being under 18 doesn't make you special if you don't do special things. i.e.,
have credentials and work to back yourself up, and forget about age for a bit.
In fact, school gives you an interesting time constraint and advantage. 37signals, who used to be a consultancy, had just 10 hours a week to work on Basecamp. And you know what they did? They busted their ass. And what came out of it was how to use time efficiently, embracing constraints. (Source http://www.37signals.com/svn/archives2/constraints_breed_bre...)
And with the last one, don't get arrogant because "ZOMG, I CODED AN APP, @web2personality WRITE ABOUT ME BECAUSE IM UNDER 18." You're not special if you're under 18. You've developed an application, and you've developed coding skills a few years before people generally do. What separates you from the general young entrepreneur press and YOU is a few years. Don't kid yourself into thinking you're all special because you can code @app, because in the long run, without actual skills and knowledge you're hurting yourself. There are some people who put on the façade of "Wow, you're a high school entrepreneur, that's so awesome. So what do you do?" but see through that and it's not really genuine most of the time. It took me a bit of time to figure out that nobody really gives much of a shit, so learn that. That's what I've noticed and stand by–your mileage may vary.
(I'm always glad to meet new high school entrepreneurs and people in general. My contact details are in my profile.)
Never sell yourself short (i.e. "most likely") and don't form preconceptions of things because those are often self-fulfilling. Even if you do end up creating software, some of the most interesting coding work is solving specific challenges no-one else runs into because it is specific to a problem you and no-one else has. Find problems that interest you and you'll be driven to learn ways to handle them.
I think college will be a great and eye-opening experience, which is why I'm not dropping out before college.
By the way, 你好。 I'm a native of China, born in Harbin, China.
Be careful about deciding this too early, and clinging to that decision too long.
When I was in 11th grade, my passion was electric guitar, and I was sure I wanted to be a rock star when I grew up. I have completely the wrong temperament to be a rock star, no stage presence to speak of, and a shitty sense of rhythm. But I really liked playing guitar, and of course it was the cool thing to do. I ended up learning a bunch of licks and building my own electric guitar as a senior project, but I'm no rock star.
When I was in 12th grade, I was sure I wanted to be a theoretical physicist. I'd taken a couple college honors courses in high school and doubled the class average, so I thought it was only natural. But once I got up to thermodynamics and quantum mechanics and had to spend 20 hours a week in the lab, I found I didn't really have the passion for physics. Staying in the physics major once I'd realized that my passion was for computers was probably the worst mistake of my life.
If you'd told me any time in the past 10 years that I'd end up working for a company with 20,000 employees, I'd've laughed incredulously in your face. I've wanted to do startups since I was about 19, and the idea of working in corporateland has been anathema since I was about 13. Yet here I am, excited about starting at Google, and I figure I'll at least give it a chance and see how it is.
If you're really passionate about entrepreneurship now, do it - now. But try some other stuff in college, and don't be afraid to switch your focus to them if it looks like that's really where your passion lies. Even if it means abandoning significant skills in entrepreneurship. There's essentially no risk to trying things out in college.
What's different? Not too much. I now have corporations begging me to drop out and work full time, and some really cool jobs lined up for when I'm done. The biggest tip I can give you is this: don't fuck up. You will at some point think that you are awesome and you can drop out of college - don't. Also, if you focus too much on work, business and software without an equal amount of partying and social activity with it, you will feel empty and eventually burn out - a lot of self-management is required here, because if this happens you either persevere in a depressed state, or take a break for a few weeks as you should.
While I'm certainly not "old" yet I've been told myself thousands of times by trusted people both in my family and in the world of work that I'm way too young to take things too seriously. When I'd take this at face value I would think they just didn't understand my passion, my craving to do this fun, exhilarating work. It wasn't until the Christmas party of one of the companies I worked that I understood, as me as my boss spoke for ages in a completely plastered state. There are things out there that are fun, exciting and new that you simply haven't experienced yet, and you couldn't understand how enjoyable they are without at least giving them a shot. This is akin to deciding which programming language is best after only trying one.
Luckily for me, I have been maintaining a balance - or rather, been threatened by my girlfriend of 3 years to maintain a balance "or else", however I can see how easy it would be to grow up too young and miss out on so much. There is no other time in our lives where we have the opportunity to learn, travel or try new things with such little holding us back in terms of responsibility or finances, so we must do these things too!
Don't quit HS/College early, and keep your passion; but the number one rule is maintain balance. Anyone who will hire you now based on your knowledge, work ethic and passion will absolutely hire you 3 years down the track, full-time. Any smart employer would. You will get tempting offers over the period in which you study, but you need to put yourself first, and have not only the degree you get from college, but the experience.
Also, protip: People will complement you over the next few years, over and over again. You will feel on top of the world, and then you will begin to feel superior. Don't. Most of the time this is a test, and you need to stay modest.
Also, I'm not sure how you can really create quality small business collaboration tools without having been in the working world. Just an observation.
Making $10B is not a very admirable life goal: http://markbao.com/lifegoals . Not to mention that $10B will be today's $200M in fifteen years.
Good luck with what you're doing, and be sure to focus.
>These sites are simply fluff.
The sites on there are pretty old, which is why I linked a newer list (incl http://ramamia.com) The third isn't an open site, fourth and fifth just experiments.
>Also, I'm not sure how you can really create quality small business collaboration tools without having been in the working world. Just an observation.
You're right, though I'm not really saying AOD is the best in the world while there are many more. It was something I wanted to manage my work, and it worked for me. Hopefully it helps others. If it doesn't, then so be it.
>Making $10B is not a very admirable life goal: http://markbao.com/lifegoals . Not to mention that $10B will be today's $200M in fifteen years.
It's a goal and an aspiration, that I'd like to meet. Care to elaborate on why it's not an admirable goal?
Again, thanks.
It smells like rank materialism when put in those terms.
That way people can see something infinitely more important: you have a detailed map of what you want to do and where you want to go within certain timeframes. Though, it's important to know that they aren't stone-set, and should be revised at least twice a year.
I see nothing wrong with this aspiration. I wish the best.
It's useless. It's like the cartoon with two academics standing in front a black board filled with equations, and in big letters right in the middle it says "then a miracle occurs."
http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php
Having $10B net worth in no way gives you any guidance whatsoever what to work on today, tomorrow, or next week. It is not informative enough. A goal like "make something people want" might guide you in actually making those actionable decisions and give you a better shot at making $10B than having "make $10B" itself as the goal.
$10bn is an admirable aspiration, but it's not quite a goal (or even a stretch goal). Usually I see the aspiration as the end of the race, and the goals as the individual, clearly-defined steps taken to reach the finish line. In the case of gaining a $10bn net worth, chances are there's going to be a ton of goals along the way =) The whole SMART acronym for goals really is useful here:
http://www.ehow.com/how_2313828_write-smart-goals.html
Most importantly though, don't ever confuse net worth with self worth.
Yeah, that's a part of what I'd like to accomplish. The more I get my name out, the more people I meet. I'm also saying (in the spiel/rant) that it's not the ONLY thing that one should be doing.
>$10bn is an admirable aspiration, but it's not quite a goal (or even a stretch goal). Usually I see the aspiration as the end of the race, and the goals as the individual, clearly-defined steps taken to reach the finish line.
Thanks. You're right—my fault for confusing the two :)
p.s. Poolify -- you have to change the name. Poo-la-fi is how I read it.
Poolify was an experiment.
It's a process, still figuring things out. My newest does have plans for the aforementioned.
Anyway, good job.
Try to follow KISS more. Back when gas first started to go over 99 cents, gas stations couldn't charge that much because the computers in the pump only had cents. They would have to buy a new $200 computer to do it. However, my grandfather's friend came up with a simple circuit for $5 to let the owner's charge $1+ and he made millions selling the little things. As a kid, little local companies will share lots of operational details with you because they don't find you a threat. You could use that knowledge to serve the market using your skills. I usually started on something simple like setting up computers to gain trust before moving up to more valuable work.
History: Very little stuck.
English: I guess I got a lot of practice writing. But at no point did we ever discuss useful things like how to write clearly and effectively. Instead we spent 5 years deconstructing literature, a process which consists of skimming over half the text and then making up flowery rubbish.
Geography: Simple physical geography. Weather, volcanoes etc
Science: Actually quite a lot. My science teachers seem to have done a fairly good job.
Maths: Nothing. Whilst I passed all my exams I didn't really understand anything and left school incapable of constructing simple proofs. I now have a masters in maths so its not like I didn't have the ability either, but most of my first year at university was spent correcting misconceptions I had gained at school.
Computing: After 7 years of school I knew roughly how a computer worked but still couldn't write a simple program.
Now that doesn't strike me as 7 years worth of education. Most of the counter-arguments on this page seem to come down to the necessity of learning things you don't want to learn. The problem is that I didn't. I, like most people, cannot be made to learn something by fear of examination. It has to be made interesting or useful otherwise I will memorise it, write it down in an exam and promptly forget it.
The problem with school education is that it's just not very efficient. I don't think that there's some grand conspiracy to keep the downtrodden masses in their place. It's just that our theories and methods of education are out of date and ineffective. Schools have worked more or less the same way since the 17th century.
Even in university I went to lectures where I spent 4 hours every morning for 6 days a week imitating a human photocopier. Mass lectures don't make sense in the modern age. It would be far more effective to just video the top lecturers and let the rest spend their time actually talking to the students, rather than at them.
I could rant as well about education being taken over by exams. How often at school did you practice working in groups, collaborating on joint essays, learning to function in a team? I would guess almost never. Because it makes it too difficult to grade an individuals contribution. Did you ever do original research or experiments? Were you given free rein to choose projects? Did you ever see an exam question that made you stop and think? It sometimes seems like the entire education system is built around the fear of cheating.
I know its easy to sit around and complain. Its certainly a popular thing to do in geek circles. But we have to recognise that there is a problem in order to fix it.
Progress is being made, slowly. The rise of open courseware means that educational materials are no longer being treated as commodities that universities have to protect and keep secret. Once its out in the open artificial selection will take hold and material will begin to improve. The best lecturers now have audiences of tens of thousands rather than just a single room.
(I actually build a AIM bot in Perl when I was in High School, so don't judge me -- I can be nerdy too)
Coding at night Sleeping at school :p
Hoeworks? I thought they dont give any after 8th grade..
I always thought the whole sleeping at school thing was pretty lame. I can't say I haven't nodded off a few times, but it seems disrespectful to your teacher and peers. Although, it is a pretty funny break from material when the teacher creatively awakens or badgers the offender. (Or, best of all, let's them sleep through to the next period and awake to utter confusion.)
I remember my college freshman year class where every writing assignment could not exceed a single page. The professor's explanation: "You have spent several years learning how to put more things into your writing. Now you will learn to take things out." It was a very important lesson in writing concisely.
Not that this reflects your case, but it reminded me of this and thought I'd share.
Then I got a job [still in 10th grade] writing a robot for some woman in Canada. This was fundamentally a huge thing, because it opened my eyes to the possibility that I, despite my lack of formal credentials, could generate income based on my skillset.
Honestly I haven't touched perl in years, and now most of my hacking is in PHP/JavaScript, and honestly I'm happy that I don't have to deal with perl anymore...but it definitely gives me some cred.
Llama book 4 lyfe!