Unlocking Creativity: How Technology is Revolutionizing Academic Scholarship

[G01]

That's probably the case. People get annoyed when colleges are used for remedial courses, but if colleges don't do it, then someone has to...

Dunno, I think you can ask them. Also it could be that colleges are just not set up to teach the general education skills that students need. The problem is that general education is *extremely* labor intensive, and it's not a high priority for most education institutions.

Well, I guess in order to fix the problem of making sure people are getting the right kind of post secondary education, we need to fix the secondary education system first.

 

[twofish-quant]

Well, I guess in order to fix the problem of making sure people are getting the right kind of post secondary education, we need to fix the secondary education system first.

Trouble is that if you have an 18 year old, he's going to be 30 by the time you've "fixed" the secondary education system, and it's already too late for him.

Also, if you wait until you've fixed the system, then nothing is going to get done. What's going to happen is that you are going to spend five years arguing about what needs to get done, another five years putting in some sort of political compromise that no one is happy with, and then after another five years, you've found that even that compromise has been watered down so that nothing got done.

Personally, I'm not interested in the ideal education system since we'll never have it. I'm not interested in "reforming" the system, since "reform" to me means "let's argue for a few years and then find that we don't agree on what needs to get done."

What I'm interested in are things that are "actionable" what can be done (or more importantly what can *I* do) right now to make things slightly better than they were before. For me, that means focusing on the physics Ph.D. employment part of the problem since that's the part that I know best.

 

[Newtonsenigma]

I remember being fresh out of high school having a full-time job and going to college. I was making decent money and I really didn't care too much for more school (I only enrolled because my parents wanted me to). I spent the next 5 years traveling the country working dead-end jobs that I didn't like. It got to the point where I was homeless so I moved back home and enrolled at the local community college. Last semester (fall) I received straight A's taking a dc theory math course, an introductory course in hydrodynamics and a sustainability class (with a couple other non-related classes to get full-time units).

Sure, college isn't for everyone. It took me 5 years of living a hard life to realize what I wanted to do and the only way for me to achieve my goals is to get a PhD in Physics. I'm still far off from achieving said degree but after the things I've done, it's a walk in the park. Life experiences have done more to strengthen my character and have given me the resolve to rationalize my dream. I don't need some Harvard committee telling me what I want to accomplish isn't worth it.

 

[Skrew]

Out of all the things a parent can do for a child, encouraging them to get a college degree in something worthwhile is one of the most important.

 

[Newtonsenigma]

Not worthwhile for the parent but the encouragement of something the child finds worthwhile. So many times the parents live vicariously through the child and that child grows up doing something that they don't care too much for. I was pushed growing up to get into the medical field. I honestly considered it, but; what it boiled down to was, the math and science behind it all. So the pursuit of the unknown and an understanding of what is known that compels me to go to school. There is always something to learn and discover. Whether what I discovered is something already classified or not isn't the point. It's new to me.

 

[twofish-quant]

Not worthwhile for the parent but the encouragement of something the child finds worthwhile. So many times the parents live vicariously through the child and that child grows up doing something that they don't care too much for.

On the other hand sometimes the parent lives vicariously through the child and it works out well.

I should point out that one of the reasons that colleges exist is that there needs to be a safe place that kids can just be away from their parents for a few years to figure out what to do. Professors get annoyed when they have to do young-adult babysitting, but if colleges don't do this, the only other institution that I know of that does young adult baby-sitting is the military.

I think encouraging people to go straight to work instead of going to college is a bad idea for a lot of 18 year olds. There are a very large number of college freshmen that aren't terribly mature, and if you put them in a work environment, they will end up in a far, far, far worse situation than if you just put them in college where the environment is more protected.

 

[twofish-quant]

Life experiences have done more to strengthen my character and have given me the resolve to rationalize my dream. I don't need some Harvard committee telling me what I want to accomplish isn't worth it.

Exactly. Let me change from Harvard to MIT, since being an alumni, I have more standing to scream about it, and maybe change it.

The trouble is that if you apply to the MIT undergraduate program right now, you'll find your application rejected. MIT will not admit students older than average into the undergraduate program, and I think that's a very bad thing, and being a master plumber or construction worker is not something that Sloan thinks highly of when they look at MBA applications.

The problem that you'll find is that because you (wisely) spent a few years doing things other than college, you are outside of the mainstream, and so you'll find it harder to get the physics Ph.D. than if you had stayed on the assembly line. Personally, I think it's a bad thing, and I think *that's* the problem that needs to be addressed because students that are making decisions are faced with "now or never" issues.

 

[Newtonsenigma]

I've come across that quite a bit. Just to get enrolled there were so many hoops I've had to jump through, success contracts and the like. If I do well this coming semester all the bans on units will be lifted as well as financial aid being awarded. So I know all about the discrimination against counter-culture people.

 

[twofish-quant]

I've come across that quite a bit. Just to get enrolled there were so many hoops I've had to jump through, success contracts and the like. If I do well this coming semester all the bans on units will be lifted as well as financial aid being awarded. So I know all about the discrimination against counter-culture people.

If you can write up something that explains the issues that you ran into and what you had to do to get around them, that would be extremely useful for me and I'm sure a lot of other people.

Also, I have a lot of sympathy because I'm more or less in the same boat. After I got my Ph.D., it seemed pretty obvious that I just wasn't going to get anywhere with through the standard academic route, so I have as much interest in tearing down the current system as you do.

 

[elfboy]

the knowledge is in front of you..on the internet
you don't need college to obtain it

 

[Pengwuino]

the knowledge is in front of you..on the internet
you don't need college to obtain it

I've never seen anyone derive a new field theory based off of wikipedia.

 

[Newtonsenigma]

for one I had to see a counsellor to do that I had to bs my way because I hadn't taken the placement test. That involved showing up at the office around 0500. They didn't do appointments and there was a limited number of slots available for that day. Filled out an academic success contract, take that to financial aid where I was put on a two semester probationary period where I have to get better than 'c's in my classes, I also had to take a college success class (utter ********) where I "learned" how to take notes. make a schedule, ect... BTW the counsellor never filed a grade for me and a glitch in the webadvisor system put me on academic dismissal. Back to the counsellor's office I go, turns out the counsellor took a copy of my recent transcript, with all 'a's from fall and asks the president of the college if I'm the type of student that needs to be kicked out of school. He said, "no" and it was changed. So now I'm eagerly awaiting this coming fall semester to see if financial aid has some excuse for not wanting to help me out. I've kept all my documents thus far so I can refute any claims they have against me.

 

[Newtonsenigma]

The last time I was enrolled was 5 years ago and I had a few 'F's. but my new gpa is 2.0. I'm going to retake those classes when they become available. But, funny tid-bit, I got an F in introductory algebra( I was working and never bothered dropping) but was able to enroll in a technical math class that covered algebra and trig. I ended up retaking the Assessment Test and placed in a higher math class. I thought that was kind of funny.

 

[twofish-quant]

I've never seen anyone derive a new field theory based off of wikipedia.

I've seen people use wikipedia as a mathematics textbook in my daily work.

 

[twofish-quant]

the knowledge is in front of you..on the internet

A lot of it isn't. For example, you can read about how to ride a bike, but you actually have to ride a bike to get that knowledge.

You don't need college to obtain it

It makes things a lot easier. For example, a lot of research journals are stuck behind paywalls, and getting admitted to college is one of the easier ways of getting access to research material and databases. It also helps when you want to study to find a coffee house with nice comfy chairs and people that are also studying.

I think that people are stuck with the idea that the most important thing about college is classroom instruction, whereas colleges and college towns provide a lot of important functions that don't involve direct information delivery.

The fact that the raw information *is* mostly on the internet changes things because it makes more important things like comfy chairs and lockers in libraries and student health services.

 

[shravas]

The trouble is that if you apply to the MIT undergraduate program right now, you'll find your application rejected. MIT will not admit students older than average into the undergraduate program.

Uhh, this is not true. If anything, they encourage letting students take a year off, giving everyone who accepts an admissions offer the opportunity to take a year or two off before starting at MIT, and there are definitely people here older than average.

 

[flyingpig]

I finished college

That just means none of us are the smartest man in the world, duh!

Now if only you dropped college you would've known that you have the potential to become the smartest man in the world.

This is one of the reasons I don't like Psychology, a lot of studies are simply just waste of time and money

 

[Vanadium 50]

The trouble is that if you apply to the MIT undergraduate program right now, you'll find your application rejected. MIT will not admit students older than average into the undergraduate program

I do not believe this is the case.

 

[flyingpig]

I use to think all MIT undergrad applicants are those who in high school who already took the four years of college math and other science courses (during high school) and applying them again.

 

[zpconn]

@flyingpig:

That's definitely not true because MIT offers all the basic math and science classes and they are always filled up to the max with students who haven't taken them before.

There are some precocious students at MIT but mostly it's just people who took the standard stuff in high school but did very, very well, and then it's a few others who just got lucky during admissions.

 

[twofish-quant]

I do not believe this is the case.

Can you introduce me to three MIT undergraduates who are in their 40's?

 

[twofish-quant]

Uhh, this is not true. If anything, they encourage letting students take a year off, giving everyone who accepts an admissions offer the opportunity to take a year or two off before starting at MIT, and there are definitely people here older than average.

A year or two. Sure, Ten years after which you've gone to community college and become a plumber. No.

Again, if you can introduce me to an MIT undergraduate that has taken ten years off to attend community college and become a plumber, then I'll reconsider my statement. The one statistic that I could find which I'm trying to verify is that 1% of MIT undergraduates (i.e. around four people) are older than 25.

Again to quote Newton's enigma...

"I was making decent money and I really didn't care too much for more school (I only enrolled because my parents wanted me to). I spent the next 5 years traveling the country working dead-end jobs that I didn't like. It got to the point where I was homeless so I moved back home and enrolled at the local community college."

This is the type of person I think that MIT *should* admit, and I think it's unfortunate that he doesn't have a change of getting in.

Now if you think that MIT has valid reasons for not admitting people in their 40's that have done things other than to straight into college, that may be a valid point, but that's a separate discussion. My point is that MIT doesn't.

One reason that I think the topic comes up is that MIT is making money from executive education and I get flyers all of the time offering alumni only professional development courses by MIT. It's fine that MIT is starting to get into the business of executive education, but if it offers only executive education courses and doesn't try to offer "calculus for plumbers" I think it's a betrayal of what William Barton Rogers and Margaret MacVicar intended.

But that's not a big deal. One thing that is truly inspirational for me is to actually go back and read what William Barton Rogers was thinking about when he started Boston Tech. He had a decent professorship at William and Mary, but he left because he just couldn't do what he wanted there. The reaction of the Virginia legislature to his ideas to create a technical institute to exploit the coal deposits in what is today West Virginia was basically "what's the point of building machines when we've got slaves?"

What I'm trying to figure out is whether or not what I want to do is "too weird for MIT" and whether I'm better off trying to get it done at the University of Phoenix, CMU, BYU, or the American Museum of Natural History.

The other cool thing about William Barton Rogers was that he was in his sixties when he started MIT, so I've still got time. :-) :-)

http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/mithistory/pdf/objects-plan.pdf
http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/mithistory/pdf/scope-plan.pdf

 

[Ryker]

Can you introduce me to three MIT undergraduates who are in their 40's?

I don't think this would prove anything, to be he honest. In terms of their pre-university achievements, there's probably not that many great applicants in their late 20's or 30's and MIT doesn't accept second-degree students. So even if what you said was true, I believe the latter would have a much greater effect on the age of students there. But if you were scolding this policy, then I second that

 

[Vanadium 50]

Can you introduce me to three MIT undergraduates who are in their 40's?

I can't introduce you to one MIT undergrad in their 20's. I don't know any.

However, when I was there, there were a handful of non-traditional students. A couple former military, an artist, a former homemaker and recent divorcee in her 30's. You claimed that these people do not exist.

 

[twofish-quant]

However, when I was there, there were a handful of non-traditional students. A couple former military, an artist, a former homemaker and recent divorcee in her 30's. You claimed that these people do not exist.

I revise my claim to say that they are highly unusual, and that they shouldn't be.

 

[WWGD]

Well, a couple of comments:

1) It seems like most of those who claim that college is not for everyone do
believe it is _for them_ and for _their kids_ just not for others nor for these others'
respective kids. I wonder how many here would admit that their kids/close relatives
are not college material, and/or should not go to college.

2)Re the MIT/Harvard/Ivy issue:

In Andrew Hacker's book "Higher Education?" , he argues ( I thought) convincingly that
(at least at an undergrad level) getting a degree in some of the top schools
does not offer any real advantage over the long run. Graduates of those
(supposedly) top schools do get a bump over the short run; possibly because
of the rep. of the school and/or
the contacts they make in those schools, but , over the long run, those graduates
do not statistically do better than grads of any other univiersities. On the contrary,
grads of many of these top schools end up worse over the long run, because they
graduate with debts of up to $100,000. In addition, most undergrads will never come
into contact with any of the Nobel Laureates or Fields Medalists advertised by those
schools ( often one of the big selling points for the schools); instead, they will
be taught by T.A's for the most part.


3) If you are 35+ , many state u's will take you. My cousin is such an example,
and he is soon to get his PHD. I have known of similar examples in other schools,
though I have no hard data. If you are serious about learning, a good library and
a good advisor, forums on the internet, etc. should give you very good
results; nothing to envy most of
those getting degrees from the top schools ( of course I do not include here
those in the top schools who have gone through a very intensive academic track;
going through high schools where they take advanced classes and have gone
through undergrads where they do B.S theses, etc.

While statistically insificant on its own, the case of Joan Birman gives
something to think about: she got into school in her 40's, and it is an important
researcher in topology (mapping class groups, I think).

.

 

[twofish-quant]

I don't think this would prove anything, to be he honest. In terms of their pre-university achievements, there's probably not that many great applicants in their late 20's or 30's and MIT doesn't accept second-degree students.

But then we have to question what constitutes a "great applicant" and "achievement."

My point is that if going to community college kills your chances for being a "great applicant" then we shouldn't be surprised that people don't do it.

 

[flyingpig]

@flyingpig:

That's definitely not true because MIT offers all the basic math and science classes and they are always filled up to the max with students who haven't taken them before.

There are some precocious students at MIT but mostly it's just people who took the standard stuff in high school but did very, very well, and then it's a few others who just got lucky during admissions.

No the admitted students retake those courses, the other students who haven't taken them are probably Art students

 

[twofish-quant]

It seems like most of those who claim that college is not for everyone do believe it is _for them_ and for _their kids_ just not for others nor for these others' respective kids. I wonder how many here would admit that their kids/close relatives are not college material, and/or should not go to college.

I'd really be interested if you could get one of the people that author those reports to say "well now that I think about it, I would have been better off going to community college rather than Harvard." There is a conflict of interest here because the fewer *other* people go to college, the higher the chances of your kid getting in are.

In Andrew Hacker's book "Higher Education?" , he argues convincingly that (at least at an undergrad level) getting a degree in some of the top schools does not offer any real advantage over the long run.

The trouble is that he is defining advantage in economic terms. I think if you look at it in terms of "social power" you'll see a different story. You may make $120K as a policy wonk in a think tank, but you have a lot of social power in that your ideas influence for good or ill the lives of other people.

What I think would be interesting is to look at people that make a salary of >$1M and look at the fraction of people that went to the Ivies. Or look at the CV's of Supreme Court justices. Sure if you go to Harvard, your chances of being a Supreme Court justice is very low, but there is a big difference between very low and zero.

n addition, most undergrads will never come into contact with any of the Nobel Laureates or Fields Medalists; instead, they will be taught by T.A's for the most part.

But being close to a Nobel laureate makes a big difference. For example, one of the things that made me less likely to want to get a Nobel prize in physics was because I learned that Nobel prize winners sometimes have awful personal lives, and I learned this from TA gossip.

Also, even small bits of contact can make a big difference. I think while I was at MIT, I only spoke face to face with Dean Margaret MacVicar for a total of no more than five hours, but she planted some seeds in my mind that changed my life.

There are some Nobel prize winners at UT Austin that have no clue who I am, but just sitting at the same lunch table as them and watching them ask questions and think taught me a huge amount.

If you are 35+ , many state u's will take you. My cousin is such an example, and he is soon to get his PHD.

Talk to him once he/she starts looking for a job.

 

[twofish-quant]

No the admitted students retake those courses, the other students who haven't taken them are probably Art students

Most of the people in my class took the standard high school curriculum. MIT is extremely sparing with giving course credit. Also, MIT physics and calculus is required, and there really isn't a big art department.

One thing that has been a topic of discussion on MIT alumni bulletin boards is that the competition for places seems to be a lot worse now than it was when people got admitted, so one question that gets asked a lot is "could I get admitted if I applied today?"

I've been told that it's depressing to work in admissions, because you have to reject rather large numbers of people that would do fine at MIT. MIT could easily triple its undergraduate class from 1000 to 3000 without reducing standards, but then you run into shear logistics problems.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well, a couple of comments:

1) It seems like most of those who claim that college is not for everyone do
believe it is _for them_ and for _their kids_ just not for others nor for these others'
respective kids. I wonder how many here would admit that their kids/close relatives
are not college material, and/or should not go to college.

MOST of my family is not college material.

 

[flyingpig]

Most of the people in my class took the standard high school curriculum. MIT is extremely sparing with giving course credit. Also, MIT physics and calculus is required, and there really isn't a big art department.

You got in MIT in like 1980 or something? The competition has changed...

I've been told that it's depressing to work in admissions, because you have to reject rather large numbers of people that would do fine at MIT. MIT could easily triple its undergraduate class from 1000 to 3000 without reducing standards, but then you run into shear logistics problems.

My university is absolutely heartless, they don't even recognize grade inflations. If you got the grades you are in immediately. Immediate admission is like 91% and that's only for one term, if you drop to 67% you are still in.

For the "extracurricular"s you either have to be a olympic gold medalist or world-class (anything) to by pass that 91% automatic admission

 

[twofish-quant]

You got in MIT in like 1980 or something? The competition has changed...

1987. That was after Michael Behnke became director of admissions, and during the MacVicar era.

 

[WWGD]

I'd really be interested if you could get one of the people that author those reports to say "well now that I think about it, I would have been better off going to community college rather than Harvard." There is a conflict of interest here because the fewer *other* people go to college, the higher the chances of your kid getting in are.


Well, maybe if you ask someone with a $100K + of student loans, and an education
which does not justify it. The authors claim that(at least at the undergrad level), t the
quality of the education was not too high; mostly T.A's, whom, however well-intentioned,
had neither the time nor the preparation do a good job.



The trouble is that he is defining advantage in economic terms. I think if you look at it in terms of "social power" you'll see a different story. You may make $120K as a policy wonk in a think tank, but you have a lot of social power in that your ideas influence for good or ill the lives of other people.

But in Math, which is the area I know of, one finds a significant amount of professors at top schools got their respective degrees from not-so-great schools. So, at least academically, you have a reasonable chance to move up , if you do quality research. I admit I do not at
this point remember the yardstick used to determine who has an advantage. I will check. On top of that, you do have very high-quality people in some of the not-so-great schools; at least in Math, which is the area I (somewhat ) know about.


What I think would be interesting is to look at people that make a salary of >$1M and look at the fraction of people that went to the Ivies. Or look at the CV's of Supreme Court justices. Sure if you go to Harvard, your chances of being a Supreme Court justice is very low, but there is a big difference between very low and zero.


I think to find those making $1M+, one should go to some of the top business schools,
but I don't have hard facts.


Do you think the title from top school makes most of the difference, or is the education
there significantly better? Or are the applicants (excepting those who have been exposed to advanced academic training from early-on) really that much smarter or somehow better
than those in other schools?. I don't know if this is naive, or if I am trying to B.S myself since I am not attending any of the top schools (mine is ranked around 15th, higher if
you consider schools with equal rankings), but ,don't you think that with the educational resources available nowadays, anyone with an interest in a good education and willing to put in the time, can go basically as far as they wish? What obstacle prevents a bright and hard-working student from a good program from being as good as most of those in the top 10?



But being close to a Nobel laureate makes a big difference. For example, one of the things that made me less likely to want to get a Nobel prize in physics was because I learned that Nobel prize winners sometimes have awful personal lives, and I learned this from TA gossip.

Also, even small bits of contact can make a big difference. I think while I was at MIT, I only spoke face to face with Dean Margaret MacVicar for a total of no more than five hours, but she planted some seeds in my mind that changed my life.

Why can't one have similarly valuable advice somewhere else?


There are some Nobel prize winners at UT Austin that have no clue who I am, but just sitting at the same lunch table as them and watching them ask questions and think taught me a huge amount.



Talk to him once he/she starts looking for a job.

I doubt she'll include it in her resume, which she's entitled to do, and the employer
is not allowed to ask

 

[WWGD]

Sorry; I don't know well-enough yet how to use the quote function.