Jeez... what a damning indictment of today's Universities.
She could just use her publication as a dissertation and be done with it!
It is entirely possible for people to intensely focus on a very, very narrow thing - and ignore everything else. Even to such a degree that they can write a doctorate on it.
But I don't think that's a good excuse to make them forego other curriculum, especially if it is required for other students to take. Schools have a responsibility to educate people to a certain standard, and give them some general breadth.
The purpose of high school is to give you a wide foundation on everything.
The purpose of an undergraduate degree (in math) is to give you a wide foundation (in math).
In a (math) PhD, you are generally hyper-specialized in a very, very narrow area (of math).
Given her achievements, I'd be very surprised if Cairo hasn't already covered the material in an undergrad degree
If a young person is exceptional, do we force them into a liberal arts box? Surely there is value in literature and history. But this one young woman had found her passion. I have to believe that is she found out about something else, she would take that on.
Thankfully the workforce has common sense and will happily snap her up into employment.
Your own experience isn't generally applicable. Although it was a couple decades ago, I still use various things I learned from my non-major classes pretty much daily.
I don't think we need to nanny people who break the mold with extraordinary talents to conform to some generic correct educational sequence. They've proven they know how to make something of themselves and their own ideas should count for more.
I don’t know about you, but exposing these prodigies to some shared classes is not all that bad. Personally I think every student should be forced to take a class on ethics.
How many of the other students disproved 2 conjectures in advanced calculus that were open for decades?
sounds like Phd
I know a few very special schools give undergrads access to brilliant minds in their field, but I also have been told that undergrads at those schools are mostly taught by grad students, so I'm not sure that Ivies provide a lot either, beyond the opportunity to hobnob with the legacies that will be running Goldman Sachs in 20 years.
Even at top universities, very very few freshmen are capable of doing high-quality research immediately. They'd be better served learning the foundations inside and out with a cohort of similarly strong students to challenge them.
Undergrads who do research generally aren't very good at research yet. A major reason is they either lack or don't fully understand the pre-reqs, which they progressively and cumulatively learn during undergrad. A student can be incredibly smart, but acquiring a strong rigorous math background will still take years.
Anyone can try doing research, even undergrads who half-know the foundations. However, trying research doesn't mean you have the background to do great research or to succeed in a postgrad program.
Plenty of people in postgrad programs don't know the foundations. It's ok. You are there to learn.
Completely unfair to expect someone already doing research to slog out 4yrs of classes not furthering their career.
I can see a committed and gifted student being able to get most of the pre-reqs for doctoral studies in America or Canada while in high school.
If you have bright enough undergrads, you change the curriculum for them within their field of expertise, so that they still get the breadth of things outside it while not wasting time with things they know. You let them not take as many classes, take graduate courses, do more research, take more courses from other departments in related areas but with different perspectives, and so on.
When I was an undergrad, in physics, there was a professor in the department who had done his undergrad there and was legendary, as was quietly mentioned in awe, for not taking any undergraduate physics courses while there; the department had let him skip all of them, and instead take graduate courses and do research.
My understanding is that US student loans accrue interest at rates above inflation. They do have repayment plans based on income, but because the interest rate is higher than wage growth, the debt just keeps growing if you're on these plans. They also don't have progressive thresholds like we do and the repayments tend to be higher.
Australia has a similar but less severe problem. Inflation and wage growth are closer together but they aren't the same. Still, the situation in the US seems worse.
We have no idea how many other people would achieve something similar with a similar background. Personally I'd bet almost anything it's a larger number than most people expect.
I'd also be surprised if she doesn't already have a pretty solid background in undergrad-level math.
The irony is she's actually more typical than not. Universities in the past were open to giving unusual talents special treatment.
Historically, the idea that everyone must follow the same path on the same timetable is unusual.
We are livestock for corporations, that's why.
There is no way this could be the “biggest flaw” in higher education today because the number of people possibly impacted is so tiny.
Although I think you’re striking at something that is a real problem with undergraduate degrees today: Many universities have become so watered down and softened that students spend the first 1-2 years doing what they should have been learning in high school.
My friends who still teach at university constantly complain about students arriving for undergrad with very poor writing, communication, and listening skills.
Was she not considered properly conditioned?
> She could just use her publication as a dissertation and be done with it.
I’m not suggesting this person is doing anything fraudulent as she seems quite impressive.
However, educational institutions get constant requests from parents who want their children to skip far ahead before they’re ready. It’s a competitive world and they know that being able to claim a child skipped several grades or even skipped undergrad entirely is a unique and very impressive achievement for the resume. It also theoretically provides a few additional years of earning potential by giving a career head start.
The first problem is that many of these parents (again, no accusations for this specific case) see this and want to make it happen for their child at any cost. There are some wild stories about parents trying to cheat their kids forward or falsifying their accomplishments to try to skip grades.
The secondary problem is that it can be hard on kids to be thrust forward so far past their peers. I had several friends who skipped a grade in middle school and most of them didn’t have a great experience for social reasons. Skipping undergrad altogether would thrust someone into a foreign world with a lot of baseline expectations and norms that they hadn’t yet learned, combined with no peers their age to discuss it with.
It creates a high chance for burnout or failure, which could leave them worse off than when they started.
That’s why the recommendation is generally to do undergrad at a challenging institution that allows students some upward mobility in specific areas where they’re ahead. No reasonable undergrad program is going to have this person taking Algebra 101, but there are a lot of opportunities for them to jump right into advanced programs and go deep and broad.
The purpose of a PhD is not writing a dissertation. It is a research school, and I'm sure she could still learn a thing or two about research (and teaching).
University (for folks serious about continuing in academia after) is (obviously) about making sure you have the same base knowledge as everyone else, but also for you to come to terms with how academia actually works, who the bad players are, who the good players are, and who you need to know to get shit to happen for you. So in that sense, most Universities going "no" is literally the most accurate reflection of what life's going to be like on a continuous basis on the inside.
Many Master’s programs require Bachelor’s as a prerequisite for admission, and some of the others include a Bachelor’s at some point, but not all do. (The same is true of the Ph.D. and the stereotypically preceding degrees, and also of some professional degrees and Bachelor’s degrees.)
I disagree that she should skip the general education.
The subjects such as English composition, she should be allowed to test out of if she is already a good writer.
This is a common STEM view, but it is inherently wrong. IMHO it dates back to the unfortunate divide between science and the liberal arts, whereas both were once considered a single field, now days there is disdain and mistrust between the two sides.
The point of history classes isn't to memorize the dates of wars, is it to understand the motivations of humans, it is to understand how the world we lived in has been shaped throughout time, and it is to learn how to do, and understand, research about the history of a place.
The point of English classes isn't just to get good at writing, it is to get good at various types of writing, it is to learn how to read different forms of literature, and it is to have a guided tour through a chosen selection of literature to hopefully develop one's character and thoughtfulness.
One of the most valuable classes I ever took at University was the Art Of Listening To Music. We started off around 500ad or so and went forward through time up until about 1920. We learned the vocabulary of music, how to sit down and listen to a piece of music and describe what we were hearing. After I was done with the class I went from appreciating a handfuls of genres of music to appreciating music itself no matter the genre. It was a 3 credit guaranteed A class that had enriched my life by an enormous amount.
If you really love your major, then the point of going to university was NOT your major, odds are you would've studied that field with or without the school. (Barring fields that require large capital investments, chemistry, physics, playing with an entire orchestra, building airplanes, etc) The point is everything else.
In reality, no one eats healthy food, everyone eats fast food hamburgers all day. Just look at the sales numbers of fast food / junk food VS organic lunch salad bars!
Except, that isn't true. Some people eat junk food all day, and some people choose to eat healthy. Obviously in America we have a bit of a bias, but just looking at averages doesn't give a complete picture.
> The ones that are known that the teacher doesn't take attendance are heavily desired.
Almost none of my university classes took attendance. Why would they? We were paying to be there, if we wanted to waste our money, it wasn't the university's problem.
> So most departments offer enormous 1 level classes with 200 students taught with minimal rigor
Reading books and writing essay's doesn't require rigor, the learning is in the doing. I put in honest work to learn and I got honest feedback from my 100 and 200 level professors, which was all I expected.
> And on top of that the frats all keep collections of graded tests from every class for years past
Almost none of my GE classes used multiple choice tests. They were typically essay tests, written in class.
I should note I did my GE requirements at a local community college, where class sizes averaged ~20-30 students, professors had office hours, and I think I only saw a TA once.
> This isn't education. This isn't worth six figures.
The price is too high yes, but a university is place to go where you can dedicate yourself fully to learning, hopefully w/o other outside worries (sky high tuition ruins that...). What a person chooses to do with that time is up to them.
Now one can argue that the worth of a degree is lessened by students who didn't actually learn all that much also being in possession of one. That is a closely related, but separate topic.
That said, the poster I was originally replying to was indirectly advocating for not caring about one's GE classes, and I was replying that one should indeed care, because those classes are incredibly important!
I also benefited tremendously from such a class. I would recommend it to anyone interested in music, or not interested in music and trying to figure out why others are interested in music.
Prodigy skips undergrad -> Universities are doomed? What?
There’s a modern phenomenon I’ve been thinking about but have struggled to put a name to.
Everything just becomes so generalized, streamlined that it becomes impossible to operate outside of the pre defined “happy path”.
AI will make this increase 100x as taking humans out of the loop seems to accelerate this process.
And frankly I find it just as valuable.