So if Bob, Jim, and Jane are all riding in Bob's car then "y'all have a ride". But if all three of them have their own car, then "all y'all have a ride".
> maximizing prediction accuracy is inherently unbiased
This assumes that you're actually maximizing prediction accuracy, rather than taking the easiest route toward sufficiently high predictive power.
Not-so-hypothetical: you can invest $N and create a profitable model that (unfairly and inaccurately) discriminates directly based upon race, or you can invest $N*M and create a profitable model that does not discriminate on race (regardless of whether its results are racially equitable). Given the choice, a lot of people will choose the $N approach.
WRT CS, my comment was meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive. FWIW I agree with you, but what I said is largely true of CS curriculum in the US.
I'm not sure whether I agree with you regarding math. I think pre-requisites should reflect required knowledge accurately, and should leave required maturation to the student and his/her instructor. Requiring the calculus sequence prior to courses that contain no calculus strikes me as a silly historical accident, for example.
That largely depends on the depth of the engagement.
Reading Das Kapital should be an exercise in critical thinking, regardless of one's political persuasion. For example, where in the software industry is the labor theory of value a reasonable model? Where is it not reasonable? Why? Answering these questions requires what any reasonable person would call critical thinking.
Conversely, hearing a bunch of passionate lectures about worker's rights movements is considerably less enlightening...
Economics is also the source and home of some of the most bullshit-prone theories and explanations. That's why I ultimately dropped my Economics major. It's full of people that got into the field precisely due to their passion for of their highly politicized opinions. Those people generate elaborate theories, data sets, and models to justify their almost always a priori beliefs -- always under the guise of supposedly rational debate.
I would argue -- as a non-physicist and non-biologist and non-chemist -- that physics or biology or chemistry should take the crown. All explain historical phenomena via models and also extend those models to the present day and even the future, allowing eminently testable predictions. Additionally, the questions these fields pose are typically but not always far less likely to ground out in political preference and are therefore less susceptible (though not invincible) to bullshit.
Scientists may lack resources and proper incentives, but it's pretty bold to claim that they lack the ability to propose new testable/semi-testable theories...
It's really useful to distinguish technical fields from engineering and especially natural sciences fields once you get past K12. STEM is not actually a very coherent grouping.
Almost all CS programs are relatively flat, but many science programs have longer chains of linear or parallel pre-reqs.
Math programs differ from both because long chains of pre-reqs in Math often correspond to required maturation rather than required knowledge (e.g. the Calc sequence as a pre-req for algebra courses).
On the contrary, the answer to such a question perfectly illustrates the sort of critical thinking that is taught in a history degree program but not necessarily in a technicaly degree program.
After reading enough about the history of mathematics, it is nearly impossible to arrive at the conclusion that today's mathematicians do not have their own set of ideological beliefs. However, obtaining high scores in a mathematics degree program is easily achievable without seeing these beliefs as ideological ("that's just how it's done" is a profoundly common and profoundly ideological answer to questions of the form "but why not do things this other way" -- especially in upper-level undergraduate mathematics).
Technical fields -- especially those closer to technology than to natural science -- can also be extraordinarily ideological. Both in curriculum and (especially!) in culture.
For a perfect example of true ideology in action, look no further than these comments -- from members of a field renowned for epic religiousity over such comparatively inconsequential topics as programming languages, text editors, and software license preferences -- decrying the proneness of other fiends to ideological attachments!
No, because as a nation we are actively investing in each funded Ph.D. we train.
If we have too many PhD's then we should decrease the number of PhD's the federal government funds. But as my original parent observed, paying hundreds of thousands to train someone just to kick them out of the country is silly.
(Also, I think downward pressure on PhD salaries has very little to do with over-supply, but that's for another article.)
> In many thousands of cases, you are also wrong about buying the degree: research grants to universities fund those students' tuition and stipends, in exchange for good work.
I think your parent was primarily referring to masters programs, not phd programs.
FWIW I am pro-immigration in general, but I do worry about expensive diploma mill masters programs becoming a way for wealthy immigrants to buy preferential treatment. It's a legitimate concern with any "masters == green card" scheme.
That said, anyone who opposes such a scheme for Ph.D. students or for highly quality masters programs is insane.
So, the point of these programs isn't citizen enrichment. The point is job training.
Consider: philosophy is also intellectually demanding, but I don't see "Philosophy for All" educational initiatives.
I think a lot of people who oppose CS Ed investments are self-interested, but that doesn't mean there aren't genuine problems with government policies that tie themselves too closely to today's labor market.
If we're not careful, "learn to code and you'll have a job" will be tomorrow's equivalent of "get a college degree and you'll have a job".
Most important reason: a lot of potential reviewers wouldn't like that model for a variety of reasons.
Reviewing, generally, isn't prestigious or well-rewarded. So potential reviewers need to be kept as happy as possible. Internet forums have a lot of frustrating problems that IRL conversations don't have, especially for people who wouldn't otherwise use an internet forum.
You have to remember that the people who enjoy participating in written conversations online -- even young people who grew up on the internet -- is still a small fragment of the population.
1 = "do all of you have a ride (perhaps shared)?"
2 = "do each of you have your own ride?"
So if Bob, Jim, and Jane are all riding in Bob's car then "y'all have a ride". But if all three of them have their own car, then "all y'all have a ride".
ymmv.