How Universities Work, or: What I Wish I’d Known As a Freshman(jseliger.com)
jseliger.com
How Universities Work, or: What I Wish I’d Known As a Freshman
http://jseliger.com/2010/09/26/how-universities-work-or-what-i-wish-i%e2%80%99d-known-freshman-year-a-guide-to-american-university-life-for-the-uninitiated/
14 comments
Since you asked for feedback...
Your statement that all T.A.s do care a little about teaching is false. I was a T.A. that Did Not Care. There were no consequences to doing poorly, and student grades were controlled across T.A.s so my performance could have no affect on student performance.
Also? Be nice to your T.A. Sometimes I was allowed to wildly inflate grades for students who were enthusiastic/tried hard. Sometimes not. But it can't hurt.
Another random piece of advice I would give is for students to take sections later in the week rather than earlier. My first section was always a disaster, I had no idea what I was doing.
If there is a rubric, follow it to the letter, and don't try to be creative. Rubrics are for larger classes to make the grading even, and they are followed exactly. I knew an A paper from a B paper, but sometimes A papers got Bs and B papers got As because of the stupid rubric (or worse...)
Your statement that all T.A.s do care a little about teaching is false. I was a T.A. that Did Not Care. There were no consequences to doing poorly, and student grades were controlled across T.A.s so my performance could have no affect on student performance.
Also? Be nice to your T.A. Sometimes I was allowed to wildly inflate grades for students who were enthusiastic/tried hard. Sometimes not. But it can't hurt.
Another random piece of advice I would give is for students to take sections later in the week rather than earlier. My first section was always a disaster, I had no idea what I was doing.
If there is a rubric, follow it to the letter, and don't try to be creative. Rubrics are for larger classes to make the grading even, and they are followed exactly. I knew an A paper from a B paper, but sometimes A papers got Bs and B papers got As because of the stupid rubric (or worse...)
Your statement that all T.A.s do care a little about teaching is false.
From the essay:
To be sure, there are exceptions: some professors will be hostile or uninterested regardless of how much effort a student shows, and some will be martyrs who try to reach even the most distant, disgruntled student. But most professors are in the middle, looking for students who are engaged and focusing on those students.
From the essay:
To be sure, there are exceptions: some professors will be hostile or uninterested regardless of how much effort a student shows, and some will be martyrs who try to reach even the most distant, disgruntled student. But most professors are in the middle, looking for students who are engaged and focusing on those students.
[deleted]
You teach two classes a semester? Professors in my department don't even have that load. No wonder if takes humanities students so long to graduate. That must be awful - not the teaching itself (I love teaching), but the large, constant teaching burden on top of research.
That's common in state universities. Some TAs at the University of Arizona teach 4 sections. (each once a week)
I hope that they get a handsome reward (in $$) from the university for that.
Just some formatting feedback. I noticed that there were three hard breaks (ie: <br>) in the content, and they didn't seem to belong (possibly an artifact of your wysiwyg editor).
Look for:
Look for:
"assuming you want to graduate on time."
"Go to the professor’s office hours"
"whether the question he has asked is the right one"
Small correction. At one point, you say, "Graduate Students (like me, as of this writing) have earned a B.A. and are working towards either an M.A. or a Ph.D." Of course, many graduate students have not earned a B.A., but rather, a B.S.
Fixed: "have earned a B.A. or equivalent." I the mention B.S. earlier, too: "Congratulations: you’re now probably working toward your B.A. (bachelor of arts) or B.S. (bachelor of science), which will probably take four years."
Thanks for the heads up.
Thanks for the heads up.
You do know that some places award MA degrees in four years as first degrees?
Despite temptation, a beginner's introduction to a topic is not the place to list every permutation of the basic concepts that somebody, somewhere uses, but rather to simply explain the basic concepts. Trying to do both at once results in the student knowing less at the end than when they started; not only do they still not understand, now they're afraid of the topic!
I'm so glad you pointed this out. I was getting extremely confused by the bias of the author toward Bachelors of Arts degrees over Bachelors of Science degrees. In fact some degrees were not mentioned at all in the article such as S.B. degrees. I was worried about the validity of his arguments and advice because of the lack of rigor in his research of what degrees undergraduates can earn. Again I applaud your efforts to clean up his act.
I was worried about the validity of his arguments and advice because of the lack of rigor in his research of what degrees undergraduates can earn.
See this comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1730253 :
Despite temptation, a beginner's introduction to a topic is not the place to list every permutation of the basic concepts that somebody, somewhere uses, but rather to simply explain the basic concepts. Trying to do both at once results in the student knowing less at the end than when they started; not only do they still not understand, now they're afraid of the topic!
In addition, see what I wrote under the section "Degrees:"
Congratulations: you’re now probably working toward your B.A. (bachelor of arts) or B.S. (bachelor of science), which will probably take four years. If you earn that, you’ll have received your undergraduate degree.
It's easier to write "B.A." in most circumstances than B.A. or B.S. or S.B. or B.F.A. or the various other ways of getting cross the same basic idea.
See this comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1730253 :
Despite temptation, a beginner's introduction to a topic is not the place to list every permutation of the basic concepts that somebody, somewhere uses, but rather to simply explain the basic concepts. Trying to do both at once results in the student knowing less at the end than when they started; not only do they still not understand, now they're afraid of the topic!
In addition, see what I wrote under the section "Degrees:"
Congratulations: you’re now probably working toward your B.A. (bachelor of arts) or B.S. (bachelor of science), which will probably take four years. If you earn that, you’ll have received your undergraduate degree.
It's easier to write "B.A." in most circumstances than B.A. or B.S. or S.B. or B.F.A. or the various other ways of getting cross the same basic idea.
I guess sarcasm is a big no-no around here (for various reasons.)
AFAIK, the two undergraduate degrees are B.A. and B.S. I just tried looking up S.B., and it appears to be just a different name for B.S.
This might sound trivial, but if I could go back in time and give myself one piece of advice, it would be to use a language other than C for Analysis of Algorithms.
I didn't know C very well yet, and trying to learn the algorithms material whilst being distracted by implementation details was simply not worth it. I'd tell my younger self: you're going to screw yourself out of both a grade and understanding of fundamental material.
I didn't know C very well yet, and trying to learn the algorithms material whilst being distracted by implementation details was simply not worth it. I'd tell my younger self: you're going to screw yourself out of both a grade and understanding of fundamental material.
Spot on. The 'how do I get an A' question always seemed to be on the lips of everyone who never seemed to want to do the thing consensus reality suggested you might have to do to get one (turn up, pay attention, work hard, ...)
Computer Science, particularly, has a problem with bright students who managed to blaze through their first-year courses with a 4.0, expending absolutely no effort at all. This is because they already know how to program and are often inculcated with enormously broad knowledge of CS as compared with their peers.
Many of them also know dangerous portions of typical second-year subjects - e.g. just enough to regard their second-year algorithms or operating systems courses as 'oh, this is just like first year, I know this'. Unfortunately, this often refers to the first 20-25% of the course, not all of it, and maybe not even that.
Some of them never quite seem to recover and start regarding the marks they get as arbitrary personal judgements of their character ('you gave me a bad mark because I'm smarter than you and you hate me') or as failings in the system ('you gave me a bad mark because this course is in ML and ML is stupid').
Naturally none of this is helped by the fact that there are copious actual failings in the system. The hours of my software engineering course spent on the waterfall model (back in the early 90s), or mind-numbing lectures on the Seven Deadly Layers of OSI, are hours I'll never get back...
Computer Science, particularly, has a problem with bright students who managed to blaze through their first-year courses with a 4.0, expending absolutely no effort at all. This is because they already know how to program and are often inculcated with enormously broad knowledge of CS as compared with their peers.
Many of them also know dangerous portions of typical second-year subjects - e.g. just enough to regard their second-year algorithms or operating systems courses as 'oh, this is just like first year, I know this'. Unfortunately, this often refers to the first 20-25% of the course, not all of it, and maybe not even that.
Some of them never quite seem to recover and start regarding the marks they get as arbitrary personal judgements of their character ('you gave me a bad mark because I'm smarter than you and you hate me') or as failings in the system ('you gave me a bad mark because this course is in ML and ML is stupid').
Naturally none of this is helped by the fact that there are copious actual failings in the system. The hours of my software engineering course spent on the waterfall model (back in the early 90s), or mind-numbing lectures on the Seven Deadly Layers of OSI, are hours I'll never get back...
Don't first year CS courses usually share the same maths classes as first year engineering? Pretty difficult to "blaze through" that purely on prior programming knowledge (believe me, I tried and almost got kicked out of the course I did for failing maths).
True enough. I mainly meant 4.0 in their CS courses, although some have overlap between advanced HS math and first-year university math.
My fault I think, being British I have no idea of the significance of the 4.0 thing :-)
One thing I would add is that if you have any interest in graduate school, it's important to become involved in research ASAP. Research experience is an important differentiator on grad school applications and scholarships, but it's a rare school that will warn you about that before senior year, when it's already too late.
Any tips on landing a decent internship position in researches headed by different universities? I am currently attending an institution where the highest level of education offered is a masters... so there's no research going on here. But I do live nearby a univ. where there is. Do I just e-mail one of the professors there, speak a little about myself, and just sort of say "I'm interested in becoming involved in the research you head"?
And actually, furthermore deciding what sort of research I should get myself involved in. Does it even matter? -- in line of what jseliger and pg said about choosing majors -- that it doesn't matter, because the more important skills are easily translatable into different fields.
And actually, furthermore deciding what sort of research I should get myself involved in. Does it even matter? -- in line of what jseliger and pg said about choosing majors -- that it doesn't matter, because the more important skills are easily translatable into different fields.
"Do I just e-mail one of the professors there, speak a little about myself, and just sort of say "I'm interested in becoming involved in the research you head"?"
Funny -- I actually wrote another essay called "How to Get Your Professors' Attention" on this subject. Some friends are reading it right now, and I wrote it in response to some of the things I've read on HN.
In any event, if you're trying to get in another lab, I'd try something like this:
1) Find the list of the profs and/or their websites.
2) Look at their research. You might not understand a lot of it, but try to get a sense of what they're doing.
3) Try to read some of their recent papers. You might not understand a lot of them, either, so look at the bibliographies: figure out if there are any seminal papers in the field that are cited that you might have a better shot at understanding. Alternately, try to look for a more accessible source of information on the topic. Profs at your own university might be good for that.
4) Then send them an e-mail saying, "I'm interested in subject X and read Y and Z. I've done A and B to learn more about this subject. Can I drop by your office hours to talk it over with you?"
Almost all profs will have office hours.
5) Part of your goal should be to signal that you're not going to waste the prof's time. One way you can do this is by showing that you've invested some amount of your own time. Profs quickly discover that most people who claim they want to learn don't and that most people who implicitly claim they won't waste their time will.
If you want to see a draft of the essay I mentioned, send me an e-mail.
Does it even matter? -- in line of what jseliger and pg said about choosing majors -- that it doesn't matter, because the more important skills are easily translatable into different fields.
Look for what interests you, and do that. What you major in does matter somewhat -- if you want to be an economist, I wouldn't recommend that you single major in art history, and if you want to be a psychologist, electrical engineering might be less useful than some other fields. But people say things like, "You'll be unemployable if you major in X," or "smart people only major in Y," and in those senses what you major in doesn't always matter.
When in doubt, build your reading/writing and math skills, since those are applicable to nearly everything.
Funny -- I actually wrote another essay called "How to Get Your Professors' Attention" on this subject. Some friends are reading it right now, and I wrote it in response to some of the things I've read on HN.
In any event, if you're trying to get in another lab, I'd try something like this:
1) Find the list of the profs and/or their websites.
2) Look at their research. You might not understand a lot of it, but try to get a sense of what they're doing.
3) Try to read some of their recent papers. You might not understand a lot of them, either, so look at the bibliographies: figure out if there are any seminal papers in the field that are cited that you might have a better shot at understanding. Alternately, try to look for a more accessible source of information on the topic. Profs at your own university might be good for that.
4) Then send them an e-mail saying, "I'm interested in subject X and read Y and Z. I've done A and B to learn more about this subject. Can I drop by your office hours to talk it over with you?"
Almost all profs will have office hours.
5) Part of your goal should be to signal that you're not going to waste the prof's time. One way you can do this is by showing that you've invested some amount of your own time. Profs quickly discover that most people who claim they want to learn don't and that most people who implicitly claim they won't waste their time will.
If you want to see a draft of the essay I mentioned, send me an e-mail.
Does it even matter? -- in line of what jseliger and pg said about choosing majors -- that it doesn't matter, because the more important skills are easily translatable into different fields.
Look for what interests you, and do that. What you major in does matter somewhat -- if you want to be an economist, I wouldn't recommend that you single major in art history, and if you want to be a psychologist, electrical engineering might be less useful than some other fields. But people say things like, "You'll be unemployable if you major in X," or "smart people only major in Y," and in those senses what you major in doesn't always matter.
When in doubt, build your reading/writing and math skills, since those are applicable to nearly everything.
Emailing profs' grad students can also be a useful way of making contact, and especially a useful way of getting information about what the lab's like, what it does, if they're looking for more people, etc. It's the rare prof who'll write back more than a few sentences to a cold email from someone they don't recognize (unless it's someone important), but procrastinating grad students are often happy to give detailed answers to random inquiries.
>If you want to see a draft of the essay I mentioned, send me an e-mail.
Sure, I'd love to have a look at it. I've just sent you an e-mail (on your gmail address listed on your blog-site).
Thanks!
Sure, I'd love to have a look at it. I've just sent you an e-mail (on your gmail address listed on your blog-site).
Thanks!
I sent it.
Oh yeah -- also see pg's undergraduation: http://paulgraham.com/college.html , which is on point here. I think in some essay he points out that if you want to work in a lab, you need to convince the prof that you'll be a net decrease in work. This is harder than it might appear.
Oh yeah -- also see pg's undergraduation: http://paulgraham.com/college.html , which is on point here. I think in some essay he points out that if you want to work in a lab, you need to convince the prof that you'll be a net decrease in work. This is harder than it might appear.
It never hurts to try. Check out the faculty website for the area you're interested in. Find out if anyone is recruiting grad students and ask them if they could use an undergrad. Lots of professors will hire undergrads to work in their lab over the summer. Also, try asking your instructors whether they know anyone at the university who might have an opening.
Grad school is like entering a medieval guild apprenticeship. The main reason a master would take on apprentices is that they're cheaper than an equivalently motivated and skilled individual. So, your goal is to convince potential supervisors that you're motivated and skilled. The specific research doesn't matter so much as getting a good recommendation.
Grad school is like entering a medieval guild apprenticeship. The main reason a master would take on apprentices is that they're cheaper than an equivalently motivated and skilled individual. So, your goal is to convince potential supervisors that you're motivated and skilled. The specific research doesn't matter so much as getting a good recommendation.
If you're interested in computer science, a lot of research groups have programming tasks that they need done that they are more than happy to hand off to people.
Another thing: assume that the people designing the curriculum might possibly know a little more than you do about what subjects are useful later on. I.e., don't say stuff like this:
"But why do I need to learn about matrices? I'm a meteorology major! We don't use matrices at all, it's all just partial derivatives!"
(This is an actual complaint I received when TAing ODE's, which was required by the meteorology major. I didn't even bother explaining how you discretize a linear PDE into a system of ODE's, or why that matters for weather prediction, I just referred her to her department head. )
"But why do I need to learn about matrices? I'm a meteorology major! We don't use matrices at all, it's all just partial derivatives!"
(This is an actual complaint I received when TAing ODE's, which was required by the meteorology major. I didn't even bother explaining how you discretize a linear PDE into a system of ODE's, or why that matters for weather prediction, I just referred her to her department head. )
By the time I reached the senior year of my EE degree, I was terribly impressed with how neatly the prerequisite courses slotted into requirements of later classes. It's a shame that the reasoning is opaque until you've already been through the program. If I was in charge of the program, I'd give every freshman a manual summarizing the content of each class up to the junior year, and why they should know it.
In doing my CompE degree, my favorite part of any of my junior- and senior-year classes were the last two weeks - which was when they'd connect what you'd spent all semester learning with what you'd learned in previous classes.
"This transform is actually just a low-pass filter (which you can now derive in two different ways","All that matrix algebra can be used to simplify calculating how two transmission cables interact", "If you add in complex variables, all those calculations you've been doing just got a whole lot easier", etc.; for me, that was always the golden moment when it became clear that someone had put some thought into what I was learning, as opposed to just hitting a course catalog with a shotgun.
Only one professor - one of the signals guys - made this point at the start of the semester. I don't remember the exact problem, but he started the first lecture (after giving out the syllabus) working out on the board a relatively complex problem from another course. Took him about ten minutes and three or four blackboards, and he made a few mistakes along the way. Then he erased all his work, solved the same problem in about four lines using a bunch of symbols/variables/calculations that we hadn't yet been exposed to, and said "in three months, you will understand what these four lines mean, and why they're so much more powerful that what you're used to writing out." Come the end of the semester three months later, he was right - the solution he showed us (he wrote it out again) made perfect sense, and applied in a whole bunch of places.
Having said all that, I'm still not clear why I had to take analytical mechanics/statics in my second semester.
"This transform is actually just a low-pass filter (which you can now derive in two different ways","All that matrix algebra can be used to simplify calculating how two transmission cables interact", "If you add in complex variables, all those calculations you've been doing just got a whole lot easier", etc.; for me, that was always the golden moment when it became clear that someone had put some thought into what I was learning, as opposed to just hitting a course catalog with a shotgun.
Only one professor - one of the signals guys - made this point at the start of the semester. I don't remember the exact problem, but he started the first lecture (after giving out the syllabus) working out on the board a relatively complex problem from another course. Took him about ten minutes and three or four blackboards, and he made a few mistakes along the way. Then he erased all his work, solved the same problem in about four lines using a bunch of symbols/variables/calculations that we hadn't yet been exposed to, and said "in three months, you will understand what these four lines mean, and why they're so much more powerful that what you're used to writing out." Come the end of the semester three months later, he was right - the solution he showed us (he wrote it out again) made perfect sense, and applied in a whole bunch of places.
Having said all that, I'm still not clear why I had to take analytical mechanics/statics in my second semester.
> Having said all that, I'm still not clear why I had to take analytical mechanics/statics in my second semester
Part of the hazing :) On a serious note, it looks like ABET has relaxed their standards.
> For most of its history, ABET’s accreditation criteria specifically outlined the major elements that accredited engineering programs must have, including the program curricula, the faculty type, and the facilities. However, in the mid-1990s, the engineering community began to question the appropriateness of such rigid accreditation requirements.[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accreditation_Board_for_Enginee...
New standards (references room-for-interpretation "Engineering Sciences" and not statics, dynamics, nature of materials):
http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/Criteria%20and...
Part of the hazing :) On a serious note, it looks like ABET has relaxed their standards.
> For most of its history, ABET’s accreditation criteria specifically outlined the major elements that accredited engineering programs must have, including the program curricula, the faculty type, and the facilities. However, in the mid-1990s, the engineering community began to question the appropriateness of such rigid accreditation requirements.[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accreditation_Board_for_Enginee...
New standards (references room-for-interpretation "Engineering Sciences" and not statics, dynamics, nature of materials):
http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/Criteria%20and...
That's a bit of a shame, really. I loved those courses. And they can be very practical. You'd be surprised how many game programmers I've known who don't have the understanding of basic mechanics and the spatial intuition imparted by a couple of introductory statics and dynamics classes.
Intro to materials science was especially cool. I knew next to nothing about materials before taking that class, and it opened up an entirely new world to me. My only regret is that the program only allowed me to take one course in materials.
Intro to materials science was especially cool. I knew next to nothing about materials before taking that class, and it opened up an entirely new world to me. My only regret is that the program only allowed me to take one course in materials.
Have you ever thought about throwing a version of Physics Club for these game engineers?
Like having a contest to predict where something rolled down a ramp will end up? School them in the basic equations. Beer, pizza.
Like having a contest to predict where something rolled down a ramp will end up? School them in the basic equations. Beer, pizza.
Something like this would certainly have helped me during high school and university, but I suspect schools may view it as competing against themselves by showing students all they need to know, thus allowing them to skip school and learn the exact same material on their own.
I suspect schools may view it as competing against themselves
This kind of thought process is strange to my way of thinking but plausible; very few teachers I ever had said, "Hey, this is why we're doing what we're doing and why it's important," which is part of the reason I make a point of saying exactly that in the classes I teach. One favorite question: "Why are we reading this, as opposed to something else? What are you supposed to take from it?"
by showing students all they need to know, thus allowing them to skip school and learn the exact same material on their own.
This seems implausible: if students came in already well-prepared or overly advanced for the classes I teach (chiefly Engl composition), I'd be delighted. By now I've taught about ~250 students, and somewhere between 1 and 6 haven't really needed a comp class. Probably only 1. But I can guarantee that more than 6 have thought they didn't need a comp class...
HN has a lot of talk about being self-motivated, and learning on your own, and so forth, which I think is great. But standing in front of a classroom makes me think that the number of people who will really do this is not very great, especially without deadlines and so forth to motivate them (for more on this, see Dan Ariely's book _Predictably Irrational_).
That's not to say the number of very self-motivated people who could acquire the knowledge that school imparts on their own is zero. It isn't. But it's really, really small, which is part of the reason school systems are shaped as they are.
This kind of thought process is strange to my way of thinking but plausible; very few teachers I ever had said, "Hey, this is why we're doing what we're doing and why it's important," which is part of the reason I make a point of saying exactly that in the classes I teach. One favorite question: "Why are we reading this, as opposed to something else? What are you supposed to take from it?"
by showing students all they need to know, thus allowing them to skip school and learn the exact same material on their own.
This seems implausible: if students came in already well-prepared or overly advanced for the classes I teach (chiefly Engl composition), I'd be delighted. By now I've taught about ~250 students, and somewhere between 1 and 6 haven't really needed a comp class. Probably only 1. But I can guarantee that more than 6 have thought they didn't need a comp class...
HN has a lot of talk about being self-motivated, and learning on your own, and so forth, which I think is great. But standing in front of a classroom makes me think that the number of people who will really do this is not very great, especially without deadlines and so forth to motivate them (for more on this, see Dan Ariely's book _Predictably Irrational_).
That's not to say the number of very self-motivated people who could acquire the knowledge that school imparts on their own is zero. It isn't. But it's really, really small, which is part of the reason school systems are shaped as they are.
What is the problem with students skipping classes and learning the material on their own? If they like it more that way and have good results, why should they be forced to attend the classes they do not like, or do not find helpful in absorbing the material?
Universities are supposed to do the research and help students learn things. If the students learn things and scientists do research, everything is all right, I guess. No need to impose a military regime.
However, it might not be true for high schools, for it is more supposed to gather students in one place and keep them from fooling around, than actually teaching them stuff.
Universities are supposed to do the research and help students learn things. If the students learn things and scientists do research, everything is all right, I guess. No need to impose a military regime.
However, it might not be true for high schools, for it is more supposed to gather students in one place and keep them from fooling around, than actually teaching them stuff.
This reasoning doesn't hold up because all of the information is already available through course descriptions and syllabi on course webpages. You don't even need to attend a school to get at that information.
Good point. I was an aerospace engineering major and complained about having to take an electrical engineering course. Now that I'm in industry, I'm glad I did. I wouldn't have understood how we collect structural load data via strain gages which are just wheatstone bridges, or the nuances of sampling periodic data.
Not nearly cynical enough. A lot of the things written here are sort of the 'ideal'. The fact of the matter is, if you want to be a chemist, you probably shouldn't be anything but a chemistry major (or something related enough, or effectively complete the chemistry reqs). I don't know that colleges are 'places where knowledge is created'. In retrospect, I feel like colleges are places where people get that A (i.e. a college diploma) to prove they've been there - and to gain qualifiaction in the eyes of the outside world.
Whether or not that should be the case, that seems to be the way that it is.
The Paul Krugman quote is shudder-worthy, but that is a personal bias.
Whether or not that should be the case, that seems to be the way that it is.
The Paul Krugman quote is shudder-worthy, but that is a personal bias.
Re creating knowledge, it depends on the specialism. In a lot of computer science, I feel that university is perhaps one third ad-hoc / industrial trends and practices getting formalized; one third blue skies work of a some relevance, though by the time it becomes relevant is quickly overtaken by industry; and one third useless formalizations generation, more exercises in rigour (or not) for their formulators than measurable knowledge.
...It actually probably more depends on the school.
To a certain degree there are computer science programs where the net result is large-scale training in collaborative development. At the university where I worked, there was a graduate CS class where over the course of 10 weeks they rewrote the transportation department's website (enabling real-time tracking of campus busses and wi-fi base stations in all the busses).
However, I was a chemistry/math major as an undergrad, at a primarily research institution. I imagine chemistry departments at primarily undergrad institutions were probably not as involved in the process of "knowledge creation" - that's what REUs were for - and who can say about the humanities and political science?
To a certain degree there are computer science programs where the net result is large-scale training in collaborative development. At the university where I worked, there was a graduate CS class where over the course of 10 weeks they rewrote the transportation department's website (enabling real-time tracking of campus busses and wi-fi base stations in all the busses).
However, I was a chemistry/math major as an undergrad, at a primarily research institution. I imagine chemistry departments at primarily undergrad institutions were probably not as involved in the process of "knowledge creation" - that's what REUs were for - and who can say about the humanities and political science?
I think there is a growing apathy between undergraduates and there teachers: the students don't quite see the point of slavishly attending lectures when the same information is readily available online or in the library, while lectureres don't see why they should try harder to engage students when they constantly turn up late, don't pay attention, or skip classes entirely.
I don't know if it's always been like this. My undergrad uni seemed to have recently added actual credit for mere attendance. One of the modules reportedly only had a tenth of the people show up (I didn't realise this cause I ditched it after the first two lecture which were exceptionally dull and unenthusiastic). My postgraduate class consisted of a room half full of foreign students who talked all lecture. I don't know if there's cynicism amng academics about their students, or some sort of undying optimism. I suspect they say "unbelievable now lazy they're getting, how lax the standards are, how ignorant..." when we're not there.
And then there's the tutorials: 90% of the time they were a joke. Even the better ones where some active discussion transpired, I wasn't convinced of their actual value beyond entertainment.
I don't know if it's always been like this. My undergrad uni seemed to have recently added actual credit for mere attendance. One of the modules reportedly only had a tenth of the people show up (I didn't realise this cause I ditched it after the first two lecture which were exceptionally dull and unenthusiastic). My postgraduate class consisted of a room half full of foreign students who talked all lecture. I don't know if there's cynicism amng academics about their students, or some sort of undying optimism. I suspect they say "unbelievable now lazy they're getting, how lax the standards are, how ignorant..." when we're not there.
And then there's the tutorials: 90% of the time they were a joke. Even the better ones where some active discussion transpired, I wasn't convinced of their actual value beyond entertainment.
The biggest difference between a university and a high school is that universities are designed to create new knowledge, while high schools are designed to disseminate existing knowledge. That means universities give you far greater autonomy and in turn expect far more from you in terms of intellectual curiosity, personal interest, and maturity.
I found that this to be vary a lot from department to department. First of all, undergraduate programs across the board are largely about disseminating knowledge, as a foundation to be able to create new knowledge later as a graduate student or researcher. As far as similarity to high school, I found that business school undergraduate classes in particular were very much like high school just on a larger scale: attendance taken, assigned seats, required homework, etc. Classes in the Math or science departments were more likely to leave it all up to the student: grades were based solely on performance on exams. Humanities courses were somewhere in between those extremes.
One thing not mentioned in this piece, as an undergraduate it is much easier to establish a high GPA your first two years than it is to bring up a low GPA as a junior or senior. You don't do this so you can "coast" later, but because your 3rd and 4th year classes in your major are going to be hard, or at least quite time-consuming. If you have a high GPA coming in to your junior year, you don't have to worry so much about the stray required electives you are still finishing off, at the expense of the subjects you are really interested in.
I found that this to be vary a lot from department to department. First of all, undergraduate programs across the board are largely about disseminating knowledge, as a foundation to be able to create new knowledge later as a graduate student or researcher. As far as similarity to high school, I found that business school undergraduate classes in particular were very much like high school just on a larger scale: attendance taken, assigned seats, required homework, etc. Classes in the Math or science departments were more likely to leave it all up to the student: grades were based solely on performance on exams. Humanities courses were somewhere in between those extremes.
One thing not mentioned in this piece, as an undergraduate it is much easier to establish a high GPA your first two years than it is to bring up a low GPA as a junior or senior. You don't do this so you can "coast" later, but because your 3rd and 4th year classes in your major are going to be hard, or at least quite time-consuming. If you have a high GPA coming in to your junior year, you don't have to worry so much about the stray required electives you are still finishing off, at the expense of the subjects you are really interested in.
When you ask how you get an “A,” they’re likely to be annoyed because you’re indicating you don’t care about learning, which is the best way to earn an A.
I cannot stand it when a professor says that the best way to get an A is to learn. It shows a fundamental ignorance about their own system of instruction.
If there is anything I've learned about universities, it is that learning is at best orthogonal to getting an A. More often you have to actively sabotage your actual learning in order to get an A.
When you get excited about a subject enough to explore it on your own, you will almost inevitably end up either spending too much time on one part of the curriculum or neglecting the rote memorization and tedious busy work that is necessary to get an A. Classes are just small factories, treating and evaluating every student the same way. It is and ever was a game of points and percentages. If you want "learning" out of this, you need to balance it with playing the game.
Professors have either never known this or have completely forgotten it. They constantly whine about how students seemingly strive to get the least out of their education as possible by taking as many shortcuts as they can. What they fail to realize is that all of their classes are set up as silly little point games, and each student has about 5 or 6 of them. Then they give out so many busy work assignments and so much reading per class that it is impossible to accomplish it all. The students are essentially learning how to prioritize and cut out all of the unnecessary fat in order to maximize their points. They're kept so busy that they don't even know that they're not really maximizing for learning. Learning is not what the professors tell them to do. Learning is not what the professors hold over their heads. They live by points, and die by points. It takes a special student to pull his/her head out of this firehose of tasks and decide to pursue their own education.
So Bob the student comes into class and he hasn't done the reading. Why? Because he has spent 102% of his time on the various homeworks and deliverables for this and other classes -- the stuff that actually has an effect on the bottom line: his grade. He'd sure like to do the reading, but he knows that he can get the assignments done just as well without it, and so it goes to the bottom of the priority list. He will never get around to doing the reading, because the list of grade-impacting busy-work deliverables will never cease.
The professors then complain about the students like Bob, who don't seem to want to actively explore their subject. They complain about the work of their own hands, the inevitable result of their own system. The professor actively molds students to be this way, and then they complain about it.
That is what I wish I'd known as a freshman.
I cannot stand it when a professor says that the best way to get an A is to learn. It shows a fundamental ignorance about their own system of instruction.
If there is anything I've learned about universities, it is that learning is at best orthogonal to getting an A. More often you have to actively sabotage your actual learning in order to get an A.
When you get excited about a subject enough to explore it on your own, you will almost inevitably end up either spending too much time on one part of the curriculum or neglecting the rote memorization and tedious busy work that is necessary to get an A. Classes are just small factories, treating and evaluating every student the same way. It is and ever was a game of points and percentages. If you want "learning" out of this, you need to balance it with playing the game.
Professors have either never known this or have completely forgotten it. They constantly whine about how students seemingly strive to get the least out of their education as possible by taking as many shortcuts as they can. What they fail to realize is that all of their classes are set up as silly little point games, and each student has about 5 or 6 of them. Then they give out so many busy work assignments and so much reading per class that it is impossible to accomplish it all. The students are essentially learning how to prioritize and cut out all of the unnecessary fat in order to maximize their points. They're kept so busy that they don't even know that they're not really maximizing for learning. Learning is not what the professors tell them to do. Learning is not what the professors hold over their heads. They live by points, and die by points. It takes a special student to pull his/her head out of this firehose of tasks and decide to pursue their own education.
So Bob the student comes into class and he hasn't done the reading. Why? Because he has spent 102% of his time on the various homeworks and deliverables for this and other classes -- the stuff that actually has an effect on the bottom line: his grade. He'd sure like to do the reading, but he knows that he can get the assignments done just as well without it, and so it goes to the bottom of the priority list. He will never get around to doing the reading, because the list of grade-impacting busy-work deliverables will never cease.
The professors then complain about the students like Bob, who don't seem to want to actively explore their subject. They complain about the work of their own hands, the inevitable result of their own system. The professor actively molds students to be this way, and then they complain about it.
That is what I wish I'd known as a freshman.
It sounds like Bob overloaded his schedule. Or, more likely, he's been partying all night and placed his priorities elsewhere. Most students tend to procrastinate to the last second then whine that they "didn't have time" to get the assignment done, muchless the reading. And that is the sad truth.
Anyhow, points are a game that even the best students get sucked into playing. We are not passionate about every subject, obviously. So, play the points game for subjects you don't care about, then really try and learn for the subjects you do care about. It will only help your grade, and you might find some friends and supporters along the way too.
Anyhow, points are a game that even the best students get sucked into playing. We are not passionate about every subject, obviously. So, play the points game for subjects you don't care about, then really try and learn for the subjects you do care about. It will only help your grade, and you might find some friends and supporters along the way too.
Some, certainly, but not all by any means. Try doing well in an art / music field, both of which require many many many hours outside of class - typically more than 2x the hour load - and learning more abstract skills like math or coding. The stuff you can sacrifice a little becomes the stuff you sacrifice.
For instance: across two projects in two classes, I've clocked over 1000 hours. Both classes had 3 (shorter) projects, and I had three other courses at the same time.
And that wasn't my busiest semester. That one had 21 credits - one of which was an internship - and a part time job. (not recommended under any circumstance, btw)
For instance: across two projects in two classes, I've clocked over 1000 hours. Both classes had 3 (shorter) projects, and I had three other courses at the same time.
And that wasn't my busiest semester. That one had 21 credits - one of which was an internship - and a part time job. (not recommended under any circumstance, btw)
Every time a professor complained, "you students worry too much about grades and not enough about learning," I wanted to respond, "and you teachers worry too much about tenure and not enough about teaching." Of course I never actually said it, being too worried about grades....
Perhaps other people are different, but I rarely learn important things or acquire deep understanding without doing a certain amount of "busy work".
It took me a semester of physics homework to actually understand vector calculus. I had to write philosophy papers in order to see the beautiful arguments in my head fall apart on the page. I tried to learn a language by immersion alone -- but that left gaps it took hours and hours with a textbook to fix.
Even points aren't a terrible idea: I'm very good at overestimating the depth of my understanding, and I often have to do a certain amount of grinding to uncover the deficiencies in my knowledge. During my undergraduate career, points (when properly applied) were very good at getting me to realize how important some of the pointless-seeming work was.
Good professors will probably give you some "busy work". Whether they're assigning the right work, and providing the right incentives, is another question.
It took me a semester of physics homework to actually understand vector calculus. I had to write philosophy papers in order to see the beautiful arguments in my head fall apart on the page. I tried to learn a language by immersion alone -- but that left gaps it took hours and hours with a textbook to fix.
Even points aren't a terrible idea: I'm very good at overestimating the depth of my understanding, and I often have to do a certain amount of grinding to uncover the deficiencies in my knowledge. During my undergraduate career, points (when properly applied) were very good at getting me to realize how important some of the pointless-seeming work was.
Good professors will probably give you some "busy work". Whether they're assigning the right work, and providing the right incentives, is another question.
I think that part of the problem is that each professor believes their classes to be the most important, and students have wildly varying workloads.
Personally, my favorite setup is what one of my math professors does: recommended homework, which can be submitted to get feedback, and which 1/2 of the test questions are pulled from. If you do it all, it's a lot, but you're not required to do any. Predictably, most people do little, but the people who need it / actually care still get the benefit of homework, and the flexibility of a lack of deadlines.
Personally, my favorite setup is what one of my math professors does: recommended homework, which can be submitted to get feedback, and which 1/2 of the test questions are pulled from. If you do it all, it's a lot, but you're not required to do any. Predictably, most people do little, but the people who need it / actually care still get the benefit of homework, and the flexibility of a lack of deadlines.
I had a calc teacher in high school who did the "recommended homework" thing.
It was amazing, as I could devote however much time I needed in order to be able to identify and then efficiently and effectively solve a given problem type.
This was still at the level where it was a lot closer to arithmetic than actual math (even the most complicated problems rested on just one or two methods which we already knew, and all had an objective, known solution), but the flexibility that it offered me was very useful, given the busy-ness of my schedule that year.
It was amazing, as I could devote however much time I needed in order to be able to identify and then efficiently and effectively solve a given problem type.
This was still at the level where it was a lot closer to arithmetic than actual math (even the most complicated problems rested on just one or two methods which we already knew, and all had an objective, known solution), but the flexibility that it offered me was very useful, given the busy-ness of my schedule that year.
I like the sound of that policy -- for some courses, it would work fine. For other, there might be problem:
* Some courses are hard enough, and many undergraduates are undisciplined enough, that a lot of students would end up failing. Of course, when this happens, the professor gets a whole bunch of reviews back telling him that he taught badly.
* Sometimes exams aren't the best setting for evaluation.
* Some courses are hard enough, and many undergraduates are undisciplined enough, that a lot of students would end up failing. Of course, when this happens, the professor gets a whole bunch of reviews back telling him that he taught badly.
* Sometimes exams aren't the best setting for evaluation.
1) I dislike the current organization for college+ level schools. That's an entirely different issue. And, given that this approach is a bit... liberal in its views of students, it's less likely to be taken by anyone without tenure. In which case they're nearly immune to feedback like that if they can demonstrate their system. At least, in my experience.
2) Yeah, but then you're in an entirely different style of class, and it probably doesn't have a lot of busy-work homework like objectively-testable (if there is such a thing) classes can generate. Though please, point some out to me if you've had any, I'm quite interested in how education is handled :)
2) Yeah, but then you're in an entirely different style of class, and it probably doesn't have a lot of busy-work homework like objectively-testable (if there is such a thing) classes can generate. Though please, point some out to me if you've had any, I'm quite interested in how education is handled :)
One of the best classes I've ever taken was a class on set theory at the University of Washington. It was a philosophy course taught by a law professor, even if it was, for the most part, a math course.
The way he had setup the class was that he'd give lecture for three days out of the week, give us two week long assignments, and nothing else.
These limits were extremely reasonable, he went far and beyond in explaining a lot of concepts in easy to understand language, and he was a tough grader. But everyone came away anyway with at least a 3.5 or higher in the class.
Why? Because he was also very very reasonable with the workload. The assignments were anything but busy work - he gave two weeks because he really wanted everyone to absorb the material before tackling the mind crushing assignments.
There was another math class I took in college (that I failed miserably) - it was a senior level analysis class. I think within the first week or two, I was on the list to give a proposed solution to a problem in the problem set. Within two or three seconds of giving a solution, a fellow student shot me down and the professor said in front of everyone that "it was alright, it just meant I didn't understand the material." Never went to class after that.
The way he had setup the class was that he'd give lecture for three days out of the week, give us two week long assignments, and nothing else.
These limits were extremely reasonable, he went far and beyond in explaining a lot of concepts in easy to understand language, and he was a tough grader. But everyone came away anyway with at least a 3.5 or higher in the class.
Why? Because he was also very very reasonable with the workload. The assignments were anything but busy work - he gave two weeks because he really wanted everyone to absorb the material before tackling the mind crushing assignments.
There was another math class I took in college (that I failed miserably) - it was a senior level analysis class. I think within the first week or two, I was on the list to give a proposed solution to a problem in the problem set. Within two or three seconds of giving a solution, a fellow student shot me down and the professor said in front of everyone that "it was alright, it just meant I didn't understand the material." Never went to class after that.
Seconded. I flunked out of lots of classes where I was the one who learned the most. My attitude was pretty undisciplined, but it was also intense. I drove my professors to despair by failing the introductory courses and getting A+ on honours courses.
I'm not saying that makes me amazing or anything, but it's quite possible to fail university out of sheer love of knowledge; in fact far more likely than doing so out of ignorance. Someone who is determined to stay ignorant is going to do very well in university, since their attitude will be realistic; they'll quickly figure out the shortest route to getting a good mark. Actually learning is not the shortest route.
Also, professors have to realize that at least 4 times out of 5 you are just taking the course because of the bizarre credit requirement system, which is in part designed just to funnel students to every bloody department, whether people are interested in it or not.
I'm not saying that makes me amazing or anything, but it's quite possible to fail university out of sheer love of knowledge; in fact far more likely than doing so out of ignorance. Someone who is determined to stay ignorant is going to do very well in university, since their attitude will be realistic; they'll quickly figure out the shortest route to getting a good mark. Actually learning is not the shortest route.
Also, professors have to realize that at least 4 times out of 5 you are just taking the course because of the bizarre credit requirement system, which is in part designed just to funnel students to every bloody department, whether people are interested in it or not.
[deleted]
To get that A/B/C, demonstrate that you’re interested in the material, do all the reading, and show up to class every day. Go to the professor’s office hours to ask intelligent questions—like whether you’re on the right track regarding a paper—or what you could’ve done better on a quiz.
I never find myself doing this with a CS class. I always show up right before class starts, answer a few questions to show the professor I haven't zoned out in front of my laptop and leave once class ends. Talking to others in the class, they pretty much did the same. What we were covering always seemed pretty set in stone. The complexity of mergesort won't change and its rather easy to see how it differs from quicksort, for a contrived example.
However, when I had International Studies as my second major, I found myself in professors offices a lot more. The politics behind everything at the level we were looking at things on was much easier to find questions to explore than CS was. And even more so with the art classes that I'm in right now. I'll stay after class to work on something, show up before class to talk to others and see how their project is coming along (and theirs is usually in a completely different direction than mine). I'd ask the professors if they knew of any artists who had made similar works that I could look at, etc.
I never find myself doing this with a CS class. I always show up right before class starts, answer a few questions to show the professor I haven't zoned out in front of my laptop and leave once class ends. Talking to others in the class, they pretty much did the same. What we were covering always seemed pretty set in stone. The complexity of mergesort won't change and its rather easy to see how it differs from quicksort, for a contrived example.
However, when I had International Studies as my second major, I found myself in professors offices a lot more. The politics behind everything at the level we were looking at things on was much easier to find questions to explore than CS was. And even more so with the art classes that I'm in right now. I'll stay after class to work on something, show up before class to talk to others and see how their project is coming along (and theirs is usually in a completely different direction than mine). I'd ask the professors if they knew of any artists who had made similar works that I could look at, etc.
This all very useful information and well written but I have to ask, do undergraduates really not know this or at least figure it out very quickly? I would expect students who are investing large sums of money to be better prepared than just turning expecting High School plus with a generous helping of A's them a nice job? Perhaps it is different in the USA than elsewhere?
I would expect students who are investing large sums of money to be better prepared
So did I. I spent a lot of time during high school looking over options of where to study. When I enrolled, I knew almost as much about the CS department's course offerings and degree programs as the faculty did as well as what courses I would take to fulfill my general education requirements. I was very confused at the large proportion of students I encountered who knew very little about the teachings their departments (and the university) offered. While I now acknowledge that this is the way things are, I still do not understand why. I have not determined whether this correlates with the degree to which students put effort into their own education; this should make for some interesting conversations (I think I'll start with my brother).
So did I. I spent a lot of time during high school looking over options of where to study. When I enrolled, I knew almost as much about the CS department's course offerings and degree programs as the faculty did as well as what courses I would take to fulfill my general education requirements. I was very confused at the large proportion of students I encountered who knew very little about the teachings their departments (and the university) offered. While I now acknowledge that this is the way things are, I still do not understand why. I have not determined whether this correlates with the degree to which students put effort into their own education; this should make for some interesting conversations (I think I'll start with my brother).
While I now acknowledge that this is the way things are, I still do not understand why.
I'll posit some reasons:
I didn't know what I wanted to major in or what I wanted to study. This is very common, as is switching majors. It's also hard to evaluate schools because so many factors go into a decision: large or small school, big university or small college, scholarships, tuition costs, geographic proximity, faculty sizes, student culture... the list goes on. And the people choosing are 17- and 18-year-olds, most of whom aren't particularly well formed or knowledgeable about their interests. There's a reason why you're supposed to discover yourself at the university: because most people don't know themselves before they go. There's a reason why the bildungsroman is such a popular genre: most people go through phases when growing up and learning about the world. Maybe you did so earlier than most. I didn't.
I also think that most people are bad at anticipating what their future selves will want. That also applies to me, and my feeling has been reinforced by books like Philip Zimbardo and John Boyd's _The Time Paradox_, in which they talk about time preferences and how those change. One reason I like Paul Graham's "What You'll Wish You'd Known": http://paulgraham.com/hs.html is the hang glider metaphor: you don't know where you'll want land, so stay upwind.
If you _knew_ that you wanted to be a CS major and you stayed in that major throughout your college experience, you're in the minority of students.
I'll posit some reasons:
I didn't know what I wanted to major in or what I wanted to study. This is very common, as is switching majors. It's also hard to evaluate schools because so many factors go into a decision: large or small school, big university or small college, scholarships, tuition costs, geographic proximity, faculty sizes, student culture... the list goes on. And the people choosing are 17- and 18-year-olds, most of whom aren't particularly well formed or knowledgeable about their interests. There's a reason why you're supposed to discover yourself at the university: because most people don't know themselves before they go. There's a reason why the bildungsroman is such a popular genre: most people go through phases when growing up and learning about the world. Maybe you did so earlier than most. I didn't.
I also think that most people are bad at anticipating what their future selves will want. That also applies to me, and my feeling has been reinforced by books like Philip Zimbardo and John Boyd's _The Time Paradox_, in which they talk about time preferences and how those change. One reason I like Paul Graham's "What You'll Wish You'd Known": http://paulgraham.com/hs.html is the hang glider metaphor: you don't know where you'll want land, so stay upwind.
If you _knew_ that you wanted to be a CS major and you stayed in that major throughout your college experience, you're in the minority of students.
do undergraduates really not know this or at least figure it out very quickly?
Some do, but my impression is that most don't. I didn't, as I wrote; I knew that most smart people go to college, but I didn't know how college was structured (nor did I know how high school was structured, or what was wrong with the structure of high school; for more on that, see http://jseliger.com/2009/11/12/susan-engel-doesnt-get/ ).
Maybe some students figure out the structure of universities quickly through osmosis, but again, I wasn't one. If this essay hastens the process, then I've done something useful in the world.
Some do, but my impression is that most don't. I didn't, as I wrote; I knew that most smart people go to college, but I didn't know how college was structured (nor did I know how high school was structured, or what was wrong with the structure of high school; for more on that, see http://jseliger.com/2009/11/12/susan-engel-doesnt-get/ ).
Maybe some students figure out the structure of universities quickly through osmosis, but again, I wasn't one. If this essay hastens the process, then I've done something useful in the world.
Very useful in my opinion. Universities are strange institutions, especially when you don't know how they work.
Very well written, I like it. I wish more articles were proofed like this one probably was.
Interesting read, but he lost me when he said astronomy was useless, a few paragraphs after he talked about how professors would feel immensely insulted if anyone called their subject boring or useless.
Notice the context:
I tried and found that there is virtually no negotiating with requirements, even if some are or seem silly. For example, Clark required that students take “science perspective.” In studying my schedule and options, I figured that astronomy was the easiest way out. Considering how useless astronomy looked, I decided to petition the Dean of Students to be excused from it so I could take better classes, arguing that I’d taken real science classes in high school and that I could be more productively engaged elsewhere. The answer came quickly: “no.”
Considering how useless astronomy looked in the context of taking it merely to fulfill a requirement of limited utility, I didn't especially want to take it, but I took it, fulfilled the requirement, and continued.
Astronomy is a lovely subject, like many subjects, but it's not one that I desperately wanted to learn about then, and the class was mostly a waste.
I tried and found that there is virtually no negotiating with requirements, even if some are or seem silly. For example, Clark required that students take “science perspective.” In studying my schedule and options, I figured that astronomy was the easiest way out. Considering how useless astronomy looked, I decided to petition the Dean of Students to be excused from it so I could take better classes, arguing that I’d taken real science classes in high school and that I could be more productively engaged elsewhere. The answer came quickly: “no.”
Considering how useless astronomy looked in the context of taking it merely to fulfill a requirement of limited utility, I didn't especially want to take it, but I took it, fulfilled the requirement, and continued.
Astronomy is a lovely subject, like many subjects, but it's not one that I desperately wanted to learn about then, and the class was mostly a waste.
I noticed that too. I'm sure you could have found a more interesting (to you) way to get that credit - but then again, errare humanum est and I've certainly made my own share of mistakes.
"Tests asked things like the size of each planet—in other words, to regurgitate facts that one can find in two seconds on Google, which is how I found out what the Kuiper Belt is again."
Isn't this true for the entire undergraduate curriculum?
"The biggest difference between a university and a high school is that universities are designed to create new knowledge, while high schools are designed to disseminate existing knowledge"
This is wrong. There are no "new knowledge" in undergraduate level.
Isn't this true for the entire undergraduate curriculum?
"The biggest difference between a university and a high school is that universities are designed to create new knowledge, while high schools are designed to disseminate existing knowledge"
This is wrong. There are no "new knowledge" in undergraduate level.
That isn't true. There most certainly can be new knowledge at the undergraduate level, and increasingly many schools are encouraging or requiring real research projects for both BAs and BS degrees. My wife was published for her biology thesis on petroleum consuming microbes and I was for my research & exhibit on the commercialization (via ephemera) of Thomas Jefferson since his death. That said, my actual thesis, on the impact of popular music on public opinion during WWI, was completely regurgitated hash. However, my university has an enormous collection of period sheet music so it was a lot of fun to research and I don't regret it at all. Hopefully my thesis advisor didn't, either. :)
Well, thanks for the examples; and interesting research as well.
I was thinking more about physics. I believe that it takes longer for a student to reach the original research stage in physics.
I was thinking more about physics. I believe that it takes longer for a student to reach the original research stage in physics.
So now I direct people who ask me what this grad student business is to the essay, which has been on my private course sites for a long time but which I've finally decided to make public.
Note: if you have feedback, I'd love to hear it, especially if you're an undergrad (two of my former students read "How Universities Work" and said it made sense; the changes that resulted were relatively minor). If you want to send msgs privately, try seligerj [[at]] gmail --dot-- com.