Self-Taught vs. Academic: The Need for Formal Education in Mathematics

[twofish-quant]

this makes me run out of time for sitting in a class and looking at head-projector lecture notes :) trying to decipher the professor's sentences.

Academia != classes. If going to lecture doesn't make sense, I don't go to lecture.

But sitting in a boring class trying not to go insane is good practice for long meetings in the non-academic world.

I'm actually confused as the point you are trying to make. If you are trying to argue that there is enough material online to have someone learn the raw material involved for a bachelors math and physics degree, I agree with you, but the problem is that employers are looking for *cultural* traits as well as technical traits, and being able to sit in a lecture hall looking at a professor muttering non-sense is good training when you a senior manager does the same thing.

 

[bpatrick]

Is Academia really necessary to become a mathematician? What about self-taught mathematicians? If someone has the maturity to learn by themselves, why need to go to university and spend time and money to sit in an overcrowded class with who knows what kind of lecture you get...?

The only advantage I see is that someone cannot teach at the university unless they have a related graduate degree. But what about publishing math papers? Do we need to have this graduate academia license to publish something or author a book?

I consider myself a self-taught mathematician. I have a bachelors in musicology and a masters in trumpet performance. My math background in a "formal" academic setting is minimal. I definitely think it's possible to learn on your own. In some cases and at some stages of mathematical development it may be significantly less productive though.

The last time I really had a "formal" course in mathematics was 10th grade when I took calculus. My last two years of high school math were independent studies in linear algebra and differential equations (because my school only offered courses up to AP calculus). I had little interaction with my teacher. My independent study was during her "prep period" where she graded papers for her other classes, made lecture notes, etc... I sat in her room quietly reading and doing problems out of a few books, shoved my work in a folder and that was about it. My independent study "teacher" looked at the work I had in the folder each quarter (didn't grade it or anything), wrote a brief test for me based on how far I had gotten (random problems out of her old college LA/DE book), I took it, she graded it. She gave me the test back, if I had a problem wrong, I was able to correct it and get half credit for it ... I almost always got a 9/10 usually for a stupid mistake, then corrected it for a 95%, which gave me an A for the marking period ... pretty cut and dry.

In college, I majored in music but also enrolled in math and science classes that didn't require attendance (other than lab courses) and made sure to look on ratemyprofessor or talk to students and find sections that didn't have required weekly coursework. I usually scheduled hours of work at my part-time job during class but make sure to take off work the days that were scheduled exam periods. I taught myself the material, often from a few old $5 textbooks rather than the $100+ one that was required for the course. That worked out well for me with all my math/science stuff.

After years of being a professional musician, I eventually found myself doing math again. I am currently doing what is considered "graduate-level" stuff and I haven't had a "formal" class since the late 1990s, so it's definitely possible to teach yourself. Keep in mind it might not be as efficient to do this vs if you were actually in academia due to the support you get from the university system.

I can definitely see this being an issue later on with a PhD. Assume I had to keep up the slower pace I've been working at because I still need to provide for my basic physiological needs. How likely am I to complete something original if it takes me 50-100% longer than the "normal" 3-5 years to crank out my dissertation? Might life happen and I abandon what I'm working on? Might somebody have already solved my problem during the 6-10 years I might be working on it with ~1000 PhDs being granted each year in the US and maybe a 1 in 10 chance they're in the same broad field (excuse that guess if it's totally off, just a round number to serve as an example). How much more time will it take when I don't have an adviser to guide me, tell me what to read, regularly ask me what I've been up to this week, discuss my dissertation problem, etc...

I guess it's possible to eventually work with somebody as an "informal adviser" but good luck finding somebody to volunteer their time taking on a (for lack of better words) "PhD student" who wasn't actually part of their university, and who might only able to devote part of their time to research.

Anyway, my two cents are that: sure it's possible to self study. I think it's much easier / practical to self study all of the topics leading up to PhD qualifier material, especially now when there's: Khan Academy, MIT's OCW, full courses on youtube from Harvey Mudd, Stanford, Princeton, Indian Institute of Technology, USF, Harvard extension school, etc...

 

[dijkarte]

Anyway, my two cents are that: sure it's possible to self study. I think it's much easier / practical to self study all of the topics leading up to PhD qualifier material, especially now when there's: Khan Academy, MIT's OCW, full courses on youtube from Harvey Mudd, Stanford, Princeton, Indian Institute of Technology, USF, Harvard extension school, etc...

This is very true. We live now in an advanced technology era, we can get any information while sitting on couch at home which was unavailable to 17th century people. It takes me nothing to order any book I want, I could even explore the book content online and see how useful it's. Things that were not available to many ancient scientists and professors. Guess what I pick my lectures online I want to watch, and many are very interesting and informative. The difference between me and another person attending the class that I can pause, repeat, look up some terms there, no pushing for exams, or worrying about tuition fees. I can enjoy the learning process and taste and digest the information.

Thank you all for your replies, and making this thread active for a few days.

Now topic closed.

 

[alexmahone]

Now topic closed.

Says who? You're not even a mod.

 

[dijkarte]

I say topic closed then it's. I'm the original poster so I decide. :)

Now time to sleep. Zzzzzzz...Zzz...

 

[Pyrrhus]

Ok, let's put it this way.

There are two paths: Go to graduate school, or spend years trying to do everything on your own while balancing a job to be able to subsist.

If you choose graduate school, you will be able to do research, and graduate with at least some publications. These publications may or may not be important. In addition, you will graduate with a network of researchers doing work in your area of interest, and you will have learned other useful skills to do research such as grant writing (or money to fund your research), and yes there is self-teaching, time management, and self-direction. Also, you will be collaborating with the authors of the textbooks, and journal articles YOU will be reading.

If you choose do it on your own, you will be able to spend years reading, and with luck publish one or two papers that may or may not have a significant contribution. Yes, there will be also a lot of self-teaching.

Now notice, that if you look up the credentials of the authors of the books you are studying from, of the journal articles, and other sources about 99% went to graduate school. Not to mention that those that went to graduate school likely to get a chance to work with the author of those books.

You choose. Will you rather spend 4-5 years to become a researcher under the supervision of people that are PROVEN as researchers (authors of the textbooks you want to self study from) or do it on your own with no experience or direction?

Graduate School -> Publications, Network, Skills required to succeed in research, Insider's information, contact with top researchers...

Self Taught Isolated -> Waiting for science to be put in books, no access to journal articles (the cutting edge is published there), and no contact with the authors (or their former students) of the book you are reading from.

For my case, the decision was simple. I have taught myself many skills such as programming, but I still went to graduate school, because it is CONVENIENT. My advisor is at the top of his field. I LEARNED ALOT from HIM, and also He put me in contact with other top researchers. I was able to do research abroad in Australia with other top researchers. I am now connected to the network He provided to me. In addition, I will be moving to do research after I graduate at other top places. I don't think I could have done as much as I have done without this agglomeration benefits.

 

[Pyrrhus]

Here is a suggestion for dijkarte.

You mentioned you have an undergraduate degree.

Apply for a Master's, but the RESEARCH option. Only accept if they provide funding, or you could do it part time. You mention you work, don't you?

The small benefit of spending a year (I am sure you can finish it in a year) to finish it will be to connect yourself to such a network, and also connect yourself to someone that knows the area you want to do research in. Furthermore, Learn of the current of state of research in your area.

After you graduate, you can still keep contact with your former advisor, and any other friends that you made during the program. That way you can keep up to date with regards to conferences, seminars, which means up to date with advancements to that area you want to work in.

Also a Master's should get you at least one publication, and basically a foot in your research area.

 

[dijkarte]

Thanks you a lot Pyrrhus. I greatly appreciate your suggestion. I will consider this.

 

[Robert1986]

That is a good suggestion and it is exactly what I am doing. However, I wouldn't try to finish it in a year. Most likely you will have to take about 10 classes, perhaps two or three can be research classes. But the ones you are going to take will be pretty hard. I would aim for doing it in 1.5 to two years.

 

[victor.raum]

Yet, I still can't force myself to give my academic life over to a school for 4 years to get a bachelors degree.

In that case you are hosed if you want to do academic research. If you want to be a professional reseacher, you will essentially have to give your *entire life* to the system..

The main point is that when doing professional research work you're at least getting paid to give yourself over to the system, which is perfectly fair in my opinion. The insane thing is that for an undergrad degree you're giving over your life just the same, but this time you're the one paying the system for the privilege, which doesn't make any sense at all in my view.

It was that realization that triggered my exit from my undergrad degree program, and my reentry into the more sensible working world.

 

[noobilly]

The main point is that when doing professional research work you're at least getting paid to give yourself over to the system, which is perfectly fair in my opinion. The insane thing is that for an undergrad degree you're giving over your life just the same, but this time you're the one paying the system for the privilege, which doesn't make any sense at all in my view.

It was that realization that triggered my exit from my undergrad degree program, and my reentry into the more sensible working world.

Well you are compensated for "giving over your life to the system and paying for it", the compensation is better career prospects and, to some extent, more social respect. It makes sense to me at least.

 

[dijkarte]

How much do they get paid on average? And I don't mean scientists or the quite few geniuses working in research facilities. I think here we should distinguish between someone whose main interest in life is writing research papers and teach in academia, or someone whose goal is to learn. Let's leave writing research papers alone and focus on the goal of pure learning, then we cannot argue that going to college does make someone more educated about the subject than another person who did not took the same path, but decided to teach themselves. The opposite is also true, it could be that academic person is more professional and knowledgeable about their subject of study. Thus someone can decide either paths based on experience, confidence about teaching themselves, base knowledge (some other related degree maybe), and available and accessible resources.
I have an undergraduate degree in theoretical physics, what prevents me from learning, at least to undergraduate level, computer science, for example?
Another person got a Masters of Biology, they want to learn more math which is required by their work nature, and they find themselves they need more of math probably subjects covered in higher graduate courses, but they cannot afford time for uni then then do it yourself. My job does not involve writing academic literatures, this is not how I make living neither I intend to, out of interest, until I discover something or solve an unsolved problem and need to publish my work then if whatever I found even worths it and going to add to the subject significantly, it will get to the world no matter how and who writes it. My point is about pure knowledge and ideas.

"Social respect", "Titles", "Career success" are not the goals or advantages I'm talking about here. These are irrelevant to pure knowledge and innovation, and to $$$ as well.

 

[Mépris]

You're in Europe, yes? Things are a little different there. France has the M1 and M2, which together, results in a Master's degree, according to the Bologna process. Germany just has a two year master's, where the second year is research only. The Master's by Research degrees are more common in the UK - often called MRes or MPhil. These would require paying tuition fees though!

 

[Robert1986]

How much do they get paid on average? And I don't mean scientists or the quite few geniuses working in research facilities. I think here we should distinguish between someone whose main interest in life is writing research papers and teach in academia, or someone whose goal is to learn. Let's leave writing research papers alone and focus on the goal of pure learning, then we cannot argue that going to college does make someone more educated about the subject than another person who did not took the same path, but decided to teach themselves. The opposite is also true, it could be that academic person is more professional and knowledgeable about their subject of study. Thus someone can decide either paths based on experience, confidence about teaching themselves, base knowledge (some other related degree maybe), and available and accessible resources.
I have an undergraduate degree in theoretical physics, what prevents me from learning, at least to undergraduate level, computer science, for example?
Another person got a Masters of Biology, they want to learn more math which is required by their work nature, and they find themselves they need more of math probably subjects covered in higher graduate courses, but they cannot afford time for uni then then do it yourself. My job does not involve writing academic literatures, this is not how I make living neither I intend to, out of interest, until I discover something or solve an unsolved problem and need to publish my work then if whatever I found even worths it and going to add to the subject significantly, it will get to the world no matter how and who writes it. My point is about pure knowledge and ideas.

"Social respect", "Titles", "Career success" are not the goals or advantages I'm talking about here. These are irrelevant to pure knowledge and innovation, and to $$$ as well.

If you can learn about a topic as an undergrad, then you can probably learn it by yourself, especially with the internet. Really, you should "self-teach" most of the stuff you learn as an undergrad in the first place; the lectures are just there to clarify things and to give you a chance to ask questions. So, if you just want to learn more, and you don't care about the other things, then it would be crazy for you to go back to school.

But, I was under the impression that your ultimate goal was to do a lot of research; is this incorrect? If it is indeed the case that you want to do pure research, my argument is that it seems much easier to do research if you work at a university where you are essentially getting paid to do research.

 

[dcpo]

The Master's by Research degrees are more common in the UK - often called MRes or MPhil. These would require paying tuition fees though!

Just a note about the MPhil. Most if not all Ph.D courses in the UK begin as an MPhil., the student takes an oral exam at some point around the two year mark to transfer to the full Ph.D. If the student fails this exam, or chooses not to transfer they are able to submit material for an MPhil degree instead. As a result of this many people technically doing MPhils are funded and have their fees waved.

 

[dkotschessaa]

Probably you need to work on your inter-personal and social skills first. This will help you a lot understanding mathematics better :)

I'm being blunt with you because you are making wild inferences and acting irrationally.

-DaveK

 

[twofish-quant]

I think here we should distinguish between someone whose main interest in life is writing research papers and teach in academia, or someone whose goal is to learn.

Those aren't exclusive. Learning becomes a lot more interesting when it you end up learning stuff that no one is teaching.

Lets leave writing research papers alone and focus on the goal of pure learning, then we cannot argue that going to college does make someone more educated about the subject than another person who did not took the same path, but decided to teach themselves.

First of all, I don't think that there is such a thing as "pure learning." All learning takes place in a social environment. Second, it doesn't make sense to talk about "teaching yourself." When you are reading a book, the book had an author. If you literally mean "teaching yourself" you'll be in an empty room doing nothing.

Second, the important bits of college are *cultural*. It's possible to learn those things in other places, i.e. the military or the work place. But the important thing about college is that if you have a good program, you learn to teach yourself stuff. If you have a library, but you can't read the language the books are written in, the library is useless. So there are some basic literacy skills, that I think the teachers should focus on, and once you have them then you are on your own.

I have an undergraduate degree in theoretical physics, what prevents me from learning, at least to undergraduate level, computer science, for example?

Well you need a computer, and you need people to answer your questions about said computer. You need books.

My point is about pure knowledge and ideas.

I don't think that pure knowledge and ideas exist.

"Social respect", "Titles", "Career success" are not the goals or advantages I'm talking about here. These are irrelevant to pure knowledge and innovation, and to $$$ as well.

They actually are quite important. Social respect gets you money, which you an use to learn stuff that will get you more social respect. If you have a new idea, that's totally useless. What you need is the ability to sell your idea, and use the system to your advantage.

 

[dkotschessaa]

I say topic closed then it's. I'm the original poster so I decide. :)

Now time to sleep. Zzzzzzz...Zzz...

Well, you don't. But I think this thread is getting to it's inevitable circular non-conclusion, since we're repeating ourselves and you are repeating yourself.

If the Mods have mercy on us mortals, perhaps they will grant your wish. :)

 

[dijkarte]

Well, you don't. But I think this thread is getting to it's inevitable circular non-conclusion, since we're repeating ourselves and you are repeating yourself.

It's an interesting topic indeed, and it's going very well regardless of any heated arguments.
And as long as we exchange points of views without insults, then the thread should be kept active.

Those aren't exclusive. Learning becomes a lot more interesting when it you end up learning stuff that no one is teaching.

You are mixing discovery with learning. You cannot learn something that does not exist, but you can discover new things.

First of all, I don't think that there is such a thing as "pure learning." All learning takes place in a social environment.

As I already mentioned, some people are better learners in a group, and others are more independent in this regard. Otherwise I will have to attend a class for everything I need to learn in daily life, which does not make sense.

When you are reading a book, the book had an author. If you literally mean "teaching yourself" you'll be in an empty room doing nothing.

Yes a book as one or more authors. But if I'm teaching myself, how can I be "doing nothing?" Have you ever heard the term: self-taught? Does not this contradict with:

But the important thing about college is that if you have a good program, you learn to teach yourself stuff.?

Well you need a computer, and you need people to answer your questions about said computer.

Yes I do need a computer, and other resources, which I did mention already accessibility to learning resources. I may need people to answer my questions yeah if I'm a instruction- based learner, they might be available, but in case not, there're countless online resources, forums?

I don't think that pure knowledge and ideas exist.

Explain please?

They actually are quite important.

Completely relative and depends on a person's self-esteem. Some people do care much about how others see them, others don't.

Social respect gets you money, which you an use to learn stuff that will get you more social respect.

Never :) What does social respect have to do with how much someone makes? I wish that was the case, the higher your degree the more your skills appreciated and paid for.

If you have a new idea, that's totally useless. What you need is the ability to sell your idea, and use the system to your advantage.

If you have a new idea, that's totally useless. What you need is the ability to sell your idea, and use the system to your advantage.

Ideas that require marketing! :)
What about this, I make a new discovery, theory, idea, and then sell it in a usable product, and market that product instead will definitely bring more money :D
At least it will be accessible to non academia world and at the same time will hit the academia since it's proven usable.
Ideas that are proven and based on strong scientific merits, or at least shown to be applicable and can be utilized, need no selling and pushing.

 

[CDTOE]

As an undergraduate electrical engineering student, most of my learning since I joined the university was done by me in home. I rarely interact with professors and that only happens when I really can't grasp something or stuck in an exercise problem. I don't know if I would be able to continue on this trend, because there maybe some higher courses that I would need to interact with a professor in order to understand, but I hope that doesn't happen.

 

[dijkarte]

I ended up not attending any of these graduate courses after the first few lectures.

Your best teacher is a book, pen and paper. If you have access to internet then that's great. :D :D :D

 

[twofish-quant]

As I already mentioned, some people are better learners in a group, and others are more independent in this regard. Otherwise I will have to attend a class for everything I need to learn in daily life, which does not make sense.

You are confusing classes with academia. Most of the things that I learned in the university, I learned outside of class. Also you are confusing masters programs with Ph.D. programs. Ph.D. programs don't have classes.

Also in daily life, you are interacting with people either directly or indirectly. Even when you read a book, that's interacting with a person (who could have died several hundred years ago).

Yes I do need a computer, and other resources, which I did mention already accessibility to learning resources. I may need people to answer my questions yeah if I'm a instruction- based learner, they might be available, but in case not, there're countless online resources, forums?

If you want to learn how to do web programming in 2012, there are tons of books and forums in which you can do that. I learned web programming in 1991, and I learned how to do stuff with the internet in 1987. The reason I was able to do this was that I went to a school in which they had computers connected to the internet just lying around for people to use. Not a big thing in 2012. Huge deal in 1987. The school spend tens of millions of dollars to put together an campus computing system and it was one of the first ones available. So I was able to teach myself how to use the internet about five years before anyone had heard of the internet, so that when it did explode, I was in good shape.

Now today, everyone has access to the internet. But I bet that there is something in some university which is the "next big thing" what everyone will be using in ten years, but which no one has heard of.

Completely relative and depends on a person's self-esteem. Some people do care much about how others see them, others don't.

Everyone cares about how *someone* sees them. A lot of life involves trying to figure out whose opinions matter and whose don't. Also sometimes, you *have to care*. If my boss thinks I'm incompetent, I care about that because having my boss think I'm incompetent means that I'm not likely to keep the paychecks coming in.

Now caring about what other people think doesn't mean that you have to do what they say. If my boss is being unreasonable, then I look for another job. My wife's opinions matter more than my bosses, since it's not a huge deal to look for another job, but looking for another wife is something that one doesn't do lightly.

But even if my boss is being unreasonable, what he thinks is something I can't ignore.

One thing that academia gives you are foster parents. If my teachers think that I'm doing a good job, then that gives me the confidence to tell other people to go to hell if they don't like what I'm doing.

What does social respect have to do with how much someone makes?

Social respect gives you power. If I go to Congress and tell people that the fate of the world depends on spending $X billion on something, no one is going to listen to me. If Stephen Hawking does it, people will. They might not do what he says, but they will at least schedule a meeting.

I go to my boss and ask for money. How much I get paid depends on how much my skills are respected.

I wish that was the case, the higher your degree the more your skills appreciated and paid for.

Depends on the situation. Among some groups of people, having a big degree causes you to be *dis*respected. Some groups care about how much money you make, others about how much money you spend.

Ideas that require marketing! :)

Sure, and I hear that there these things called universities that offer classes on marketing. Heck, they offer degrees in marketing.

What about this, I make a new discovery, theory, idea, and then sell it in a usable product, and market that product instead will definitely bring more money :D

Fine. Where are you going to learn to do that? One reason that I think my university had an excellent program was that in addition to learning the science, you ended up learning about the business of science. There were all of these contests, and talks about starting your own business, and you ended up with social contacts that would help you with starting your business.

At least it will be accessible to non academia world and at the same time will hit the academia since it's proven usable.

It often works the other way. Universities have research money which they can use to develop things that have no immediate profit possibility. The other thing is that businesses have an incentive to keep things secret, universities don't. I'm working on some cool stuff for my company, but I'll get fired if I post the source code on the internet. I'll even get into major trouble if I publicly mention what I'm doing.

If it's "proven usable" there is no point in having it in the university. Universities work on stuff that may be totally useless. Universities have more money to work on useless stuff, and once in a blue moon, the useless project actually changes the world.

Ideas that are proven and based on strong scientific merits, or at least shown to be applicable and can be utilized, need no selling and pushing.

Not true. People are busy, and you need to make a *huge* effort to get people's attention.

That's one more reason universities exist. If you look at any senior scientist, you'll find an enormous amount of effort spend of raising money. When I was at UTexas Austin, you had dozens of people devoted full time to getting money, often from the state legislature or Congress or alumni or various rich people looking for a tax deduction. I didn't have to worry about that. Once you go outside the university, then you have to worry about dozens of things that you didn't have to before, and that kills time for research.

 

[twofish-quant]

I don't know if I would be able to continue on this trend, because there maybe some higher courses that I would need to interact with a professor in order to understand, but I hope that doesn't happen.

But universities != professors, and a lot of the useful work that professors do ends up not being related to actual teaching. For example, to run a 500 person class requires a ton of effort. You have to find the teaching instructors, write the tests, grade the tests, make sure that you've scheduled the rooms, etc. etc.

The problem is that a lot of things you don't notice unless someone goes wrong. If you have a well run class, then everything "just works" and someone taking the class doesn't notice. However, this poses a problem because when things "just work" people assume that there is no work involved in making it work, and therefore it's all useless.

There is a ton of behind the scenes work that makes a university work, and if you want to replicate a university online, you have to find functional substitutes for everything. This *will* happen, but it hasn't happened yet for science and math (it has for business degrees see University of Phoenix). One thing about universities is that we know how to run a 500 person intro physics class at a physical location. People have done it before. As of 2012, no one knows how to run a 5000 or 50000 person intro physics class. I'm sure it can be done, and I'm sure that by 2022, we'll know how to do it.

 

[twofish-quant]

If you can learn about a topic as an undergrad, then you can probably learn it by yourself, especially with the internet. Really, you should "self-teach" most of the stuff you learn as an undergrad in the first place

The internet does change the structure of knowledge a lot. The thing about the internet is that there are some things that are easy to google for and some things that are hard to google for. You can get the latest research pretty easily, but information on *how* to become a researcher is much harder. The thing about a lot of knowledge is that it's tacit or implicit. Sometimes, someone does it, and then can't explain themselves how they do it. That means it's not getting onto google.

In some ways, google makes professional expertise more important. I've been in situations with doctors and lawyers (and professors!) in which I only talk to them for an hour, but in that hour, they give me the "magic google terms" which are relevant to my situation.

I was involved in a legal situation, and the lawyer involved just talked to me for an hour (and it was a very expensive hour) but in that hour he told me the "magic google keywords" and everything else I could either figure out for myself or have his much cheaper paralegal handle. (He also mentioned not to get offended if he doesn't answer his e-mail but has the paralegal do it, since he is trying to save me money.)

You have the same sort of relationships with professors and teaching assistants.

So, if you just want to learn more, and you don't care about the other things, then it would be crazy for you to go back to school.

A lot depends on what it means to go "back to school". I spend as much time as I can at the local university, and a lot of it is going to conferences, and just meeting people. It turns out that I don't have to pay money since I can barter knowledge. If a professor talks to an undergraduate for an hour, he isn't likely to learn anything that will help him, so that means that the undergraduate has to pay money for the professor to listen to the. Now if I talk to a professor, I have knowledge that I can use to barter for his attention.

For example, I can tell the professor what I'm working on, what math techniques I'm using, which ones seem to work, and which ones seem not to work. It's information that you can't find on google. That's useful for the professor since he can then change his syllabus to include that information. For example, if I tell a professor, that a certain obscure math technique turns out to be really, really useful in, then that professor can include that technique in his courses. When it comes time for interviews and it turns out that the professors' students know that math technique, then that's useful for getting the students jobs, which pays off the loans, that pays the tuition that pays for the professors salary.

But, I was under the impression that your ultimate goal was to do a lot of research; is this incorrect? If it is indeed the case that you want to do pure research, my argument is that it seems much easier to do research if you work at a university where you are essentially getting paid to do research.

Also universities can afford to look long term. I get paid to do research. However, if I wanted to research a math technique and it looks like something that could turn a profit next quarter, I'd do it myself. If it won't turn a profit the next quarter, I can't do it. But I can mention this as something that the professor might be interested in looking.

This also involves people. A company will let you research stuff, but they won't teach you to research if you don't already know how to do it, because they are trying to make a profit. A university has the resources to teach people to do stuff that doesn't make a profit.

Universities also are "white gloves." I know of one situations in which our company has come out with a math technique which we shared with some professors specifically so that they could publish papers on the technique. We don't want our competitors to know that we are using the technique, but we do want people to know about it, and mentioning it to some academics so that they can do some work on it, and publish papers works great for everyone.

 

[CDTOE]

500 person class? wow! I never have been to such a class in my university especially in a science or engineering one. That's a lot of O2 consuming. Anyway, I don't regret doing most of learning myself, because it has also allowed me to learn new things on the process, and helped to free up more time to learn future courses before I take them.

Last semester, I took an object-oriented programming course using Java, and I never studied it at all during that semester. Whenever there's an exam, I go and get an excellent grade. The reason is that I have been learning it well before I took it in university, whereas other students I know suffered a lot from it because they came directly to it with no at least a background in OOP, and some of them still consider it an effort-consuming course.

 

[dijkarte]

One interesting thing about this thread is I cannot help but reply. :)

Talking about an OO-programming course, I took this course and at that time I knew a lot about object oriented design principles which I learned by myself. This helped me judge the professor, the lectures, and content of the course. I'm not going into detailing the disappointing experience with this course, but I can tell you how bad I felt wasting my time and huge amount of $$$ on a course that, first, I did not need. Second, it's nothing more than a very basic OO principles that could be covered in an elementary programming text. Nonetheless the course turned into a programming language how-to's. Well done professor. I could have tell you countless examples based on my own experiences and others'. However for someone who's new to the subject, they would not be able to tell that the course is screwed up until probably very late in their professional work experience cycle.

 

[zahero_2007]

I learned physics up to (some)quantum field theory on my own without even taking calculus at university

 

[twofish-quant]

I think the basic problem here is "going to university" == "taking classes". Personally, I dislike taking classes, and I managed to skip every class that I could. I've only taken one formal class on programming in my life, and it's a a class that anyone can now take on the internet. (However, sometimes one class is enough if it is *good* class.)

However, I couldn't have learned programming outside of a university. The computers and internet access weren't available (remember this was in the late-1980's), and because I went to university I got internet access about five to ten years before the rest of the world did. OK, today everyone has internet access, but I'm sure that there is something at a university that you can get, that everyone else will have in five to ten years.

As far as learning to do research. You can't learn to do research in a class. You learn to do research by doing research, and while it's not an iron law of nature that this can't be done outside of university, it so happens that at this moment in history the social networks that you need pass through universities.

 

[Jorriss]

However, I couldn't have learned programming outside of a university. The computers and internet access weren't available (remember this was in the late-1980's), and because I went to university I got internet access about five to ten years before the rest of the world did. OK, today everyone has internet access, but I'm sure that there is something at a university that you can get, that everyone else will have in five to ten years.

Being part of university allows me a lot of packages like Gaussian, amber... access to journals... there are a lot of benefits outside of courses.

 

[phoenix:\\]

IT depends, you can learn things on your own, no university needed, but like the old saying, "you also need to sharpen your intellect" (sword... I forgot the saying actually).

Yes, I did most of my own self-studying, but upon becoming serious about work in college, I gained further insight from professors. But not only that, the labs are essential as well, and I didn't have a lot of money to create a make-shift laboratory at home, and I definitely wouldn't even if I did have the money because I am not an expert.

There are certainly more pros than cons from academia in the sciences in terms of attending university. The cons is getting up and leaving your house and being able to sit through a lecture. But I primarily base the latter on helping with discipline. Besides, I personally, now, like the structure of going to lecture and watching the professor just write on the board and listening to what it has to say on the subject.

 

[dijkarte]

I liked all my lectures as they were helping me getting more sleep time :D
I'm not really against academia and getting formal education and certificate, but I'm with some reform. Yes the Academia still needs a lot of reform and rethinking to adapt to the new technology and globalization. Ancient university settings are not of great help in this era.

 

[twofish-quant]

I'm not really against academia and getting formal education and certificate, but I'm with some reform.

I hate, hate, hate the word reform. One very strong rule that I have in talking about education is to avoid using the term "reform". If after avoiding the use of the term "reform" you can't say anything meaningful then you are just using the term to say nothing.

Talking about reform is an excuse to do nothing.

Yes the Academia still needs a lot of reform and rethinking to adapt to the new technology and globalization. Ancient university settings are not of great help in this era.

In fact they are. Technology has changed and politics has changed, but the human mind has basically stayed the same for the last 10,000 years, and so knowing how things worked in Ancient Greece tells us something useful about what's happening today. You can deal with radical change by focusing on things that *don't* change. I don't think that the basic cognitive processes that people use to learn stuff really has changed over the last several thousand years.

The other thing is that you can figure out where to go next by seeing how we've got to this point and why. A lot of things that people think have deep history really don't have that deep a history. For example, one of the major functions of the American university is to serve as young adult daycare, and that really wasn't a major function of the US university until the 1960's. In the 1940's and 1950's, the military took that role for most males in the United States. Also a lot of the globalization that is happening now is merely reversing the "de-globalization" that happened in the late-19th and early-20th century.

 

[homeomorphic]

I don't think that the basic cognitive processes that people use to learn stuff really has changed over the last several thousand years.

Lecturing to 200 students has recently become obsolete, thanks to video technology (as of maybe the 1930s or earlier, if anyone was paying attention, and much more so with the internet). Why are we still doing these silly things?

 

[twofish-quant]

500 person class? wow! I never have been to such a class in my university especially in a science or engineering one.

I'm thinking about the core courses at MIT 8.01, 8.02, 18.01, 18.02. These are the core courses which every MIT student has to pass, which means that you have a total enrollment of about 1000 which gets split up into several tracks, which means that you end up with 500 people core classes. You then split up those 500 people classes into 20 people recitations and 5 person tutorials.

Now let's try to scale things up from 500 to 5000 to 50000 to 500000. University of Phoenix has come up with a scalable system although how well it would work with math and science courses, no one knows.

Anyway, I don't regret doing most of learning myself, because it has also allowed me to learn new things on the process, and helped to free up more time to learn future courses before I take them.

The big problem right now is how do you convert this knowledge into cash money? So you've taught yourself calculus. How do you monetize that? Figuring out how to monetize things is important, because without money, it's a barter or gift economy, and there are limits to how big and complex barter or gift economies can grow.

Last semester, I took an object-oriented programming course using Java, and I never studied it at all during that semester.

And you'll find that employers won't care about your grades in the course. Looking at *why* employers don't care about your grades is quite interesting. I can sit down with someone and within half an hour, I can figure out their skill at OOP. I just ask some questions, and I know.

The trouble with this form of evaluation is that it doesn't *fit* the evaluation mechanisms that most undergraduate courses use. It's not standardized, and when I go into asking some programming questions, I don't know what questions I'm going to ask. It's not reproduciable. It's expensive. You have to have a programmer there. You can't give a list of questions to a non-programmer, it just won't work.

The other thing that happens is that tests take on a life of their own. Once you have a standardized test, then if you change *anything* on the test, people will scream, and so the test measures what people teach, people teach what's on the test, and in a lot of situations this becomes completely detached from reality. The other thing is that it's possible to do well on a test, and have zero skill at what the test is trying to measure. If I gave a non-programmer, fifty standard questions to ask programmers, then what's going to happen is that within a week that's going to be on the internet, and within a month, everyone is going to have a perfect score.

 

[Hobin]

The big problem right now is how do you convert this knowledge into cash money? So you've taught yourself calculus. How do you monetize that? Figuring out how to monetize things is important, because without money, it's a barter or gift economy, and there are limits to how big and complex barter or gift economies can grow.

I apologize if I'm making strange assumptions here, but, not everything needs to be monetized. Learning for the sake of just-wanting-to-know-how-stuff-works and - at times - personal application is definitely underrated.