Hacker News Reader

"Battushig, then 15, became one of 340 students out of 150,000 to earn a perfect score in Circuits and Electronics, a sophomore-level class at M.I.T. and the first Massive Open Online Course, or MOOC"

This is a second year MIT course in a language that is not his native language. While I agree with your sentiment about the use of the word genius, I think it is misdirected here.

Give a 15 year old kid an entire summer vacation and some equipment to run wild with a passion of building electronic gadgets and I bet you would be surprised at what that kid could do. I'm not even sure English being a second language would be as big of a barrier with a technical subject as other types of courses would be. What's the word for computer in X language? There's a good chance it's computer. That's a oversimplified silly example, but the point is that some areas of study are more universal than others.

I cringe to think about how much time I had when I was that age that I didn't put to good use. An sophomore in MIT might be challenged to find the time to make the bed properly, let alone get lost in the pursuit of the subjects that are covered in Circuits and Electronics. I was a horrible student in college, not because I was dumb (okay, I take back what I said about me being an idiot, I'm about average) but because I didn't manage my time properly. As a kid, I didn't have that problem.

ETA: And as for the numbers of people who have taken that test, it's not like it's the SAT or the required placement exam to get into a good college in China. If there were truly big stakes attached to that exam then there would be a lot more than 340 people out of 150,000 getting a perfect score.

Again, I'm happy for the kid. But I think the real story here is that kids can accomplish a lot, we just need a way to get them engaged.

Um, just to be clear, gexla - 6.002 requires diffEq as background, as well as physics E&M. I'd suggest that what he did is an extremely substantial achievement for a 15 year old.

I didn't say this wasn't a substantial achievement. If it weren't a substantial achievement, this article wouldn't have been written, MIT wouldn't have noticed this kid and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

My question is, given the drive to do this, is this kid really outstanding or is this something that many more kids are capable of doing?

Okay, clearly it's outstanding even if more kids are capable of doing this. It takes a lot of effort to do something like this on your own free will, and that's not something a lot of people are willing to do. Or, they just don't see a reason for doing it. Getting noticed by MIT would be a great reason, but it's difficult to connect the dots when when you are weighing your decision based on rewards rather than passion.

Just saying, is it genius or is it working smart and hard for something that you are driven to figure out? Genius is difficult to define. What is genius? Is it something we are born with? Can we go from average to genius? If we have to be born a genius, then case closed, the kid is special and untouchable. If his accomplishment was working smart and hard, then that's more achievable, even if it's something not many people are willing to do. Maybe it's a combination of both, which is problematic because we then get to that vague genius term again. ;)

Again, I think the schools need to figure out how to get more kids engaged. Kids spend so much of their time at schools and then more time on homework when they get home. The schools need to be able to make the most of this substantial time they have with our children. Sure, it's not all on the school. It has to be on the parent and the child as well. But the schools are still a huge component.

I hear what you're saying but I think this is so irrelevant, it almost seems a bit jealous in a boring way .... We're talking about a 15 year old doing DE and Physics E&M, given that IQ factors in age, I mean you might as well call him a "genius." I mean, wha are you worried about?

This is markedly different than that rich kid with connections getting Yahoo to buy his little news summary "startup" that was really a proxy play for some third party IP ... Yeah, no one thinks that kid is the next Sirinvasa Ramanujan.

Well, the question we should be asking is, how can we replicate this experience for kids all over the place? How much of this happy story comes from the methodology and commitment of the teachers, how much of it is generalizable to other times, places, and students?

Make it into the story of a 'boy genius' and you reduce it to a one-off event. It's a question of how you're framing the story.

Exactly, people are thinking that I'm jealous about this kid for being called a genius.

The think the term genius could be harmful or just playing down accomplishment.

That would be like toiling for years with a few failed start-ups and then hitting one big success, but the media dismisses your success because you are the son of <insert rich CEO>. Sure, that couldn't have hurt, but what about the years of blood, sweat and tears that you put into it? What about the failures?

For the media, why write about those things when it's easier and perhaps more engaging for readers to talk about your family.

If I meet Laserman and he is able to shoot freaking lasers from his forehead, I want to be just like him. But if he tells me "forget it kid, I'm a superhero mutant, you could never be like me" then that's it. My dreams are crushed.

But if I see that Laserman is more like Ironman and that he actually built this capability with real science and engineering, then perhaps I could really be like him. That's inspiring to me.

That's what genius is to me. It's something you're born with. It's some sort of mutant superpower. Instead of calling this kid a genius, couldn't we instead recognize the actual hard work he put into getting to the point of being called a genius and then show other kids that they could do the same thing? Or even better, how they could achieve similar highs but in different areas?

Really, it's not about me, it's about the children! I'm happy with who I am, leave me out of this. ;)

you're basically saying you're lazy but don't want to admit it and possibly jealous of this kid who worked hard.

>Again, I think the schools need to figure out how to get more kids engaged.

It's upto the kid to be responsible and learn things. If they don't care and just want to fuck bitches, then it's his problem. You seem to have a big resentment against your teachers but it's your problem that you're lazy.

I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that I'm jealous because he worked hard. I have been praising the kid in every post I make. Also, I think calling him a genius is doing an injustice to the work that he put in to get the attention of MIT and the author of this article. It's as if calling him a genius explains everything and suggests that he has some sort of natural ability that other kids can't touch.

"Sorry, son, your friend is a genius and you aren't, there's nothing you can do about it, now go back to plowing the field."

Screw that, I think lots of kids have this potential, they just haven't been helped to find the beginning of the path.

As for me being lazy, maybe when I was in the K12 system. Today I'm self taught, work from home freelance programmer. Aside from shipping code all day, I have had to keep my skills relevant for the years I have been doing this. I'm able to make my way doing this without living in my parent's basement. I would say that makes me an expert at laziness and procrastination. Everyone has these problems at times, but I have dealing with them down to a science, or I would literally starve. Nobody will wait for me to get around to getting my work done, if I'm not making reasonable progress, then I get replaced. There is zero job security for a freelancer.

I suppose in some ways that makes me a bit like this kid. So, I'm rooting for him. I hope he gets into MIT. I also hope that other kids don't take that genius thing seriously and realize that they could do the same thing if they put in the effort.

Also, while I hated the K12 system, I loved my teachers. I can credit many of them for the successes I have had in life. The overall system still sucks though.

I thought he was wondering if by labeling children 'geniuses' we assume that their achievements are beyond the reach of others.

This boy is most certainly special, but if we can figure out why he's so capable we may be able to replicate this for every child. Imagine an army of little kids, each having the opportunity to follow what they're best at and what they like the most. On the other hand, if the experience is not replicable, we can celebrate him as a talented human being and leave it at that.

>you're basically saying you're lazy but don't want to admit it and possibly jealous of this kid

That's not what I got out of that at all. Perhaps you're projecting in some way?

My question is, given the drive to do this, is this kid really outstanding or is this something that many more kids are capable of doing?

Your definition of "outstanding" seems to have something to do with innate talent.

My definition of outstanding is "what does he do with what he's got"?

Unless this article is made up, this kid has accomplished quite a lot, much more than others in similar or better circumstances. I think that's what matters, and it's also the best predictor of future accomplishment.

Here's what I've picked up in my working years: "genius" is a completely worthless novelty if it is not put to productive use.

Have you studied circuits and electronics? I'm not an electrical engineer. The textbook I used, which is pretty popular, assumed you had some background on physics and math. That's true. But in my limited experience, the material was highly algorithmic and not very conceptual. You could probably get by with a functional, but not a fundamental understanding. You could "solve" a circuit, but not solve a nonstandard EM physics problem.

I'm looking at their material: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-comput...

I don't consider a lot of the equations to be sophisticated at all.

My opinion: I consider John von Neumann to be a genius. Here's what sets him above the rest: he produced novel results in many different fields. IMO, it's not enough to just ace a course, no matter the age.

Well,it is usually a requirement, but doesn't end up touching it.

You would usually use the Laplace equivalent and not the diff. eq. themselves, as this is """easier"""

>If there were truly big stakes attached to that exam then there would be a lot more than 340 people out of 150,000 getting a perfect score.

That, and we're all blissfully unaware of what fraction of that 150k participated in the course, and what fraction merely participated in clicking the confirmation email.

>As a kid, I didn't have that problem.

Word to that. Yours truly, for example, took Multivar and LinAlg at Georgetown while in high school (in summer semester before sr. year - for fun), scored a 35 on the ACT w/o prep, AIME participant, that kind of thing. Later failed out of college. I hope this kid really is a genius because if he's not, well, "Whom the gods wish to destroy, they first call promising."

Failed, or decided to pursue other interests?

Failed. Well, technically I think they let you return if you demonstrate this and that elsewhere, but the university most certainly dismissed me for academic reasons. So, failed.

I see where you're coming from. Most young people around the world don't really engage with creative learning, the fog of social games obscures the power and possibilities of education I guess. Your best shot is if you have an amazing teacher, but most teachers are products of the same system, and working with limited resources to boot. The brilliant are much more likely to wind up as professors, which I suppose could be why most people who have these later epiphanies tend to have them around college.

That said, this article is really a testament to the incredible potential of online education. A link was forged between a global centre of thought and a young boy in a far-flung, isolated and poor country. That's pretty awesome when you think about it, and hopefully something that will happen more and more as things get better!

Anyway, I hope you don't let stuff like this get you down. It's never too late in life to find your path.

Nah, it doesn't get me down. I have found my path. In fact, the internet has been as amazing for me as it has been for this kid. I learned (and continue to learn) my craft through the internet before anyone thought that creating actual courses for this stuff would be a good idea. In some cases I was lucky to find documentation.

I'm able to live anywhere in the world within reason (the Antarctica is too cold, Manhattan is too expensive and North Korea is too restrictive) and I have lived abroad for five years now. I think travel and living abroad is overrated, but I made the choice and I was able to do it.

I don't feel down about myself. I feel down about kids who aren't "genius" but have just as much potential. However, I'm a huge fan of luck created through a bit of hard work, and this kid hit it. I hope he gets into MIT.

it has nothing to do with luck. Everything happens for a reason. Hard work makes you a genius, simple as that. Feynmann is the best example of this.

Well...this is NYT..Would you rather they call it 'diligent mongolian boy succeeds at MIT online classes'?

I don't think every person his age has the ability to get a perfect score in a course like that given how hard the material is. I think we should be allowed to reward people like that with titles such as 'boy genius'.