|
You're making it sound like engineering uses exams the way other courses use projects and papers. Would this be accurate? If that is the case it makes a lot more sense overall, and it's even kind of logical, since I suppose you can't build fifty bridges each semester.
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
Nessus posted:You're making it sound like engineering uses exams the way other courses use projects and papers. Would this be accurate? If that is the case it makes a lot more sense overall, and it's even kind of logical, since I suppose you can't build fifty bridges each semester. With the exception of lab/project courses, this is more or less accurate (for good profs, anyway).
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Nessus posted:You're making it sound like engineering uses exams the way other courses use projects and papers. Would this be accurate? If that is the case it makes a lot more sense overall, and it's even kind of logical, since I suppose you can't build fifty bridges each semester. That sounds about right. Homework would be worth 10-20% of my grade (usually less than 20%) and projects or midterms would be everything else. Participation was basically never graded. I never wrote a paper for a CS class and theory classes didn't have projects. I had a class once where the TAs were supposed to be able to get 100% (barring silly mistakes like misteading the question or copying a constant down wrong) in 30 minutes on the midterms (we'd have an hour and a half to do them in).
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
If you're making the argument that exams/coursework have to be tough (30% score on a exam = an A grade etc.) so that we don't have lousy engineers designing lovely bridges, it still doesn't explain the masochism for CS kids. Not to mention that your summer internships both for engineering and CS kids are 10x more important in developing your technical skills.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:If you're making the argument that exams/coursework have to be tough (30% score on a exam = an A grade etc.) so that we don't have lousy engineers designing lovely bridges, it still doesn't explain the masochism for CS kids. CS is similar in that it's trying to develop a thought process for the best way to get to a solution, since most problems with CS have multiple possible answers. You are correct about internships being more important for developing technical skills. Also, as far as CS is concerned schools don't do anywhere near enough group work, and working in teams is pretty much entirely what you'll be doing in the real world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Tech bubble. As long as they're showy and ambitious enough, they've got endless venture capital, so it doesn't matter how deep they dig themselves. At least, till the bubble pops and the sides of the holes they're digging collapse in on them. It'd be funny if not for the fact that the resulting economic turmoil and investor flight will probably endanger companies built on more solid principles too. Not necessarily. I mean, I guess if you were programming 10 years ago and then stopped and are not trying to get into the industry but 10 years of programming experience is pretty great, but if you are a retarded hiring manager or some kid running a startup, you don't really know or give a poo poo about any of that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
Dystram posted:Not necessarily. I mean, I guess if you were programming 10 years ago and then stopped and are not trying to get into the industry but 10 years of programming experience is pretty great, but if you are a retarded hiring manager or some kid running a startup, you don't really know or give a poo poo about any of that. It really depends on what you are working on as well. Making apps that link to cat photo websites written in the current hot language is one thing, but C/C++, basic CPU principals, operating system kernels, communication protocols and the other things that the modern app-centric universe actually runs on top of hasn't changed that much over the years. Obviously they've evolved, but if you were familiar with them before, it's not much of a jump to get caught up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
The_Franz posted:It really depends on what you are working on as well. Making apps that link to cat photo websites written in the current hot language is one thing, but C/C++, basic CPU principals, operating system kernels, communication protocols and the other things that the modern app-centric universe actually runs on top of hasn't changed that much over the years. Obviously they've evolved, but if you were familiar with them before, it's not much of a jump to get caught up. Right. That's pretty much what I meant. If you have a strong foundational programming skillset, you can get up to speed easily these days. Hiring managers and kids running startups are pretty dumb about that though, so they figure if you're old then you are obsolete since you, like, learned computers when they were, like, old and stuff, right? Plus startups are more interested in having cooworkers that are peers who they can hang with rather than crusty old dudes/ladies, I guess; that's why they need like 10 people and millions of dollats to code lovely CRUD apps Best programmer I've worked with has been doing this stuff for 30 years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:As someone with an English and a science degree, this is true. But don't forget that pretty much anyone can get an English degree if they structure their schedule right. It's not just that the English program doesn't have the ability to offer assurance of specific skills, they don't have the ability to offer assurance of any skills - you can't tell an English major who is a brilliant linguistic analyst or written communicator from one who slid through writing high school level papers for the minimum C-minus just from the resumé. I disagree with this quite a bit. You can tell a good English major because one will come out of University with the equivalent of a first and the other will come out with a lower grade. You might argue that because English is so subjective that there is no consistent marking standard, well in the academic world that is what we have peer review for. I got a low 60 recently on an essay I wrote and felt genuinely grieved about the mark. I went in to see the marker and the man had the audacity to say that everything I said was correctly argued, but that it wasn't 'what he wanted to read'. I nearly flipped a lid and took it higher. Several of the faculty in my school read it and had the mark boosted significantly. The point is is that you can tell a good argument from a bad one in the humanities, and that is where a lot of the marks are. Writing a mediocre argument will produce a mediocre grade. I would not hire a mediocre engineer either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
The_Franz posted:It really depends on what you are working on as well. Making apps that link to cat photo websites written in the current hot language is one thing, but C/C++, basic CPU principals, operating system kernels, communication protocols and the other things that the modern app-centric universe actually runs on top of hasn't changed that much over the years. Obviously they've evolved, but if you were familiar with them before, it's not much of a jump to get caught up. Another thing to keep in mind is that there's quite a lot more information sharing going on among  ) called Codeapalousa. Dumb name aside, it's a great way to keep abreast of modern coding developments. Some of it is buzzword poo poo, but the vast majority is surprisingly solid. I really do think it's an evolution of the open source movement; all you have to do is harness developers' vanity for good instead of evil.Point is, keeping an ear to the ground will generally make up for the 10 year thing because you're constantly learning. If you just want to grab a single language and coast by, yes, you will be obsolete in 10 years. Maybe even two. Joe: Do you think we ought to spin this out into its own thread? It's been a pretty interesting and substantial derail. (I know you aren't a mod anymore, but you're still the OP, and it's your thread!)
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
Ocrassus posted:I disagree with this quite a bit. You can tell a good English major because one will come out of University with the equivalent of a first and the other will come out with a lower grade. I'm assuming from your use of "University" and "a first" that you're not American. America doesn't have a standardized degree classification system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:Another thing to keep in mind is that there's quite a lot more information sharing going on among It depends on the language - Java, JavaScript, Ruby, PHP, and lots of other languages have some fairly awesome staying power. Now, yeah, if you grab just one framework or library and expect to coast by, you will obsolete yourself if yours isn't the framework or library of majority.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
This startup is eerily 100% relevant to this thread... and 100% dumb. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/04/upstart_launches_apr_loans_a_new_way_for_twentysomethings_to_get_a_line.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:This startup is eerily 100% relevant to this thread... and 100% dumb. quote:“I guess the fact that more benefits accrue to those who have proven themselves academically might seem unfair,” Girouard says, “but it's hard to deny that it's a merit-based system, which is actually pretty rare.” Appropriate, given the recent conversation in the thread, and another excellent example of how the whole conversation on socioeconomic privilege goes completely over the head of some (many? most?) Valley types.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Dystram posted:It depends on the language - Java, JavaScript, Ruby, PHP, and lots of other languages have some fairly awesome staying power. Now, yeah, if you grab just one framework or library and expect to coast by, you will obsolete yourself if yours isn't the framework or library of majority. I have my doubts about Ruby's staying power, and I have an irrational hate of Java. Otherwise, agreedo. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/27/5659230/latest-anti-tech-protest-targets-uber-by-blocking-cars-in-seattle Uber's aggressive policies — and its outspoken CEO, Travis Kalanick — makes it an easy company to hate unless you're a fan of convenient, expensive taxi rides. And now the company's made itself a target of small groups of protesters who identify as The Counterforce. In a new Wordpress blog dedicated to "the destruction of Uber," a writer identifying with the anarchist collective published details of an attack on Uber vehicles in Seattle this past weekend. The writer notes that ten vehicles were "detained" and "fliers were distributed to the drivers and passengers." The post continues: "Hundreds of people witnessed this act of defiance against one of the most disgusting tech companies in existence." The outrage against Uber centers around an accident last year in which a driver tragically killed a six-year-old girl in San Francisco....
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:I'm assuming from your use of "University" and "a first" that you're not American. America doesn't have a standardized degree classification system. Really? That's dumb as poo poo. How do you select the brilliant individuals from the ones who merely passed a few exams with 'ok' scores?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 13:58
|
|
|
Ocrassus posted:Really? That's dumb as poo poo. Who am "I"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Who am "I"? I'm Batman. Presumably, somewhat obviously, 'you' are a prospective employer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:I'm assuming from your use of "University" and "a first" that you're not American. America doesn't have a standardized degree classification system. It depends what you mean by standardized because there is stuff like ABET to make sure things are properly accredited.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
Ocrassus posted:Really? That's dumb as poo poo. In practice? Connections. Only you're selecting less the 'brilliant' individuals than you are the 'good enough and I knew his dad' individuals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
Also, many schools have Latin honors that they confer upon a set percentage of the graduating class.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 15:39
|
|
Ocrassus posted:How do you select the brilliant individuals from the ones who merely passed a few exams with 'ok' scores?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:A conversation But that's unfair to people who can't sustain a conversation 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Valentin posted:Appropriate, given the recent conversation in the thread, and another excellent example of how the whole conversation on socioeconomic privilege goes completely over the head of some (many? most?) Valley types. I think that everything people are saying about stereotypical Silicon Valley techies can also be said about pretty much any young, high-wealth/income individual with a privileged background. I went to a school with one of the top undergraduate finance programs, and most of the students self-identified as liberal/Democrats (there was actually a poll at some point and I think it was something like 60-something percent Democrat), but they were also extremely naive/sheltered. This one friend of mine started a company a couple years ago with more or less the following business model: Students from a select set of universities (pretty much the ivy leagues + NYU) are recruited and participate in trading competitions, and the top performing strategies are are made available to investors. He views this as giving an opportunity to people who need it, but how many young people do you know who are interested in trading/the stock market who aren't wealthy to begin with? I can't think of a single person among the people selected who really needed that help; not only were they all attending top colleges, but most were at a bare minimum upper middle class (which shouldn't be surprising; people generally aren't interested in investing money they don't have). But from his perspective, probably 95+% of the people he knows are wealthy (I can think of literally two people in our shared social circles who aren't well off, and one of those people is me) so that's his frame of reference. When everyone you have known growing up is also wealthy (or at least very secure financially), it can create the illusion of society being merit-based.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Mukaikubo posted:In practice? Connections. Only you're selecting less the 'brilliant' individuals than you are the 'good enough and I knew his dad' individuals. Pretty much. I graduated with a business degree with all sorts of honors, but I didn't know anyone and I couldn't swing an internship because of obligations. I can't find dick-all for work, going on a year and a half outside of graduation. UNLV has a second degree program in an area I'm actually interested in, luckily, so I'm going to network my loving rear end off this time around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:This one friend of mine started a company a couple years ago with more or less the following business model: Students from a select set of universities (pretty much the ivy leagues + NYU) are recruited and participate in trading competitions, and the top performing strategies are are made available to investors. He views this as giving an opportunity to people who need it, but how many young people do you know who are interested in trading/the stock market who aren't wealthy to begin with? I can't think of a single person among the people selected who really needed that help; not only were they all attending top colleges, but most were at a bare minimum upper middle class (which shouldn't be surprising; people generally aren't interested in investing money they don't have). But from his perspective, probably 95+% of the people he knows are wealthy (I can think of literally two people in our shared social circles who aren't well off, and one of those people is me) so that's his frame of reference. When everyone you have known growing up is also wealthy (or at least very secure financially), it can create the illusion of society being merit-based. When normal people use the word "merit-based", they would not consider the poor people with no idea about investing to have any merit at all, because regardless of whatever social justice buzzwords used to qualify it, they still don't know dick about investing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
on the left posted:When normal people use the word "merit-based", they would not consider the poor people with no idea about investing to have any merit at all, because regardless of whatever social justice buzzwords used to qualify it, they still don't know dick about investing. Oh, it is true that the wealthy objectively have more "merit" simply by virtue of being given access to a superior education and healthy upbringing. By "merit" I'm referring more to stuff like "having a work ethic" (not that this isn't also influenced by your upbringing/health, but the wealthy certainly don't have more merit by that measure).
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
on the left posted:When normal people use the word "merit-based", they would not consider the poor people with no idea about investing to have any merit at all, because regardless of whatever social justice buzzwords used to qualify it, they still don't know dick about investing. Meritocracy was always meant primarily to benefit the middle class against inherited wealth. That's not to say it doesn't benefit poor people sometime too, one of my friends who makes 100k at like 24-25 grew up in the poor parts Detroit and was the first member of his family to go to college
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Meritocracy is one of those things where it would be really nice to achieve it fully (by which I mean that every position in society is held by the persons who will perform best in them), but instituting it partway might be worse than none at all.
Mornacale fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Meritocracy is one of those things where it would be really nice to achieve it fully (by which I mean that every position in society is held by the persons who will perform best in them), but instituting it partway might be worse than none at all. Though the people who fit a position best tend to be educated and have lots of resources, i.e. they're not poor. So arguably, a meritocracy by definition discriminates against poor people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Though the people who fit a position best tend to be educated and have lots of resources, i.e. they're not poor. So arguably, a meritocracy by definition discriminates against poor people. Ideally it would be based on innate merit or potential, but how would one even measure that, assuming it's possible? E: this basically illustrates how important it is to have a good universal education system. And despite how much education is talked up in US political discourse, people seem reluctant to actually invest in such things. Especially the libertarian 'meritocracy' evangelist set--tuition for the University of California system has gone through the roof since the recession due to budget issues, I haven't heard anything from the techies or investors about that. rockopete fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
rockopete posted:Ideally it would be based on innate merit or potential, but how would one even measure that, assuming it's possible? Hiring for a job you aren't looking for someone with hypothetical potential, you're looking for someone with deliverable potential. They're not orthogonal but it favors those with a head start.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:Hiring for a job you aren't looking for someone with hypothetical potential, you're looking for someone with deliverable potential. They're not orthogonal but it favors those with a head start. Right, this is my point. Having a "meritocracy" only from the perspective of hiring doesn't really help, you have to also fix education and childhood poverty and so on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
rockopete posted:Ideally it would be based on innate merit or potential, but how would one even measure that, assuming it's possible? Even this wouldn't really be "ideal" from a more moral perspective; why should some individuals be privileged due to the talents they were born with? While privileging the innately talented might be good from the perspective of making society run smoothly and efficiently assigning people to tasks, it certainly wouldn't be fair or moral. The ideal that should be aimed for is a high quality of life for everyone regardless of their ability or talent. While this probably isn't possible, it's still a better idealistic goal than a perfect meritocracy (which would just shuffle around the haves and have-nots).
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
rockopete posted:Ideally it would be based on innate merit or potential, but how would one even measure that, assuming it's possible? Yes, but any 'good universal education system' should ALSO be in conjunction with real political and economic reform to address the depressing inequity that exists. Otherwise, you basically get what we already have now - testing-centered & bootstrappy neoliberal educational privatization in the guise of "education reform", as well as a ridiculously expensive, and an increasingly unaffordable higher education system. mA fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Even this wouldn't really be "ideal" from a more moral perspective; why should some individuals be privileged due to the talents they were born with? Meritocratic arguments tend to go hand-in-hand with the idea that people are all equal at birth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Meritocratic arguments tend to go hand-in-hand with the idea that people are all equal at birth. "I'm all for equality, equality of opportunity! No handouts though!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Meritocracy is one of those things where it would be really nice to achieve it fully (by which I mean that every position in society is held by the persons who will perform best in them), but instituting it partway might be worse than none at all. computer parts posted:Though the people who fit a position best tend to be educated and have lots of resources, i.e. they're not poor. So arguably, a meritocracy by definition discriminates against poor people. Kalman posted:Meritocratic arguments tend to go hand-in-hand with the idea that people are all equal at birth. Well, actually the alternatives all tend to be pretty terrible (read: nepotism/inherited wealth/aristocracy which favors the rich/elite even more) I think people's vision of meritocracy is just colored because it's brought up against affirmative action all the time. Typo fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Apr 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
rockopete posted:Ideally it would be based on innate merit or potential, but how would one even measure that, assuming it's possible? Testing the actual skills needed to work at a task - things like working memory, pattern recognition, and other information-processing type capabilities. This is how the HI-LAB test works. Of course there's no guarantee that even that is an even playing field. Being poor forces you to devote a huge fraction of your brainpower to poo poo like making sure you are going to make rent and don't rack up a bunch of overdraft fees, and that has a direct, measurable impact on cognitive performance. And for a large amount of tasks you don't really need any skills at all anyway - McJobs are specifically designed to be performed by someone with no skills and little training, and those types of jobs are making up an increasing fraction of our economy. There's not really an absolute shortage of cashiering skills such that we need aptitude tests to find good candidates. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Apr 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 00:36
|
|
