Ryker said:
How does training physicists differ from training hockey players, though? They are both trained with the aim of excelling at the highest level, and both require not just throwing the hardest thing you can at them, but a well thought out approach.
The technique of throwing the hardest problem that you can at someone is a well thought out approach. A lot of what you learn in school isn't the material but the culture and the ideology. What's a fair question?
One common question is "what do top schools look for?" and one important answer is "students that enjoy getting tough questions that weren't in the textbook." My undergraduate school structures admissions intentionally to look for students that *want* questions that weren't covered in class, and this is the general admissions philosophy of graduate schools.
In fact, when my firm does hiring interviews, we get a little nervous with people that have 4.0/4.0 GPA's because there is the worry that those people will react badly if something happens and they don't score 98%.
It is a culture shock, you do need to adjust to it, but if you can't adjust to this sort of thing, then I don't see you getting a Ph.D.
They matter, they matter to employers and to grad schools.
See above for what employers and grad schools look for. Undergrad admissions is a totally different beast than work and grad schools. For the more interesting jobs, employers *HATE* hiring people that can't deal with unexpected questions.
And even if they were just a motivation method, getting low grades due to the test being just ridiculously hard is more of demotivation than a motivation.
Depends on the student, and depends on the school. The more important things that you learn in college are in the "hidden curriculum." One thing that most colleges have to deal with is how to handle students that got 90% in high school and are now just struggling to get a 50%.
But you're trying to educate as many people as you can, and you can always motivate the motivated with other means and get the same results, whereas if you screw up the latter category of students, there's no way you can get that back.
But in college, we are not trying to educate as many people as possible. That's high school. Not everyone is going to be a physicist, and not everyone wants to be a physicist. If we were talking about a class that teaches basic calculus to non-scientists, then the rules are different.
But if you want to be a top scientist, then this is the type of curriculum that you are going to be in for, and if you can't adjust to it, then you really need to reconsider whether or not you want to be a top scientist.
Is the philosophy you're trying to convey here a household idea in most of US universities or was it just that way with MIT?
It's how MIT works. Also you see this sort of philosophy in the military service academies (West Point). I've been told that this is also how things work in the Grand Ecoles in France.
Most people can't stand this sort of intense pressure, a few people just crave this sort of thing. That's why there are so few Ph.D.'s out there.
I have to keep asking the question "How bad you want to be good?"
If someone lasts for 6 seconds, others for 5 and then some only 4, then that is just too small of a difference to really make that distinction and the error in that assessment is just to great for you to be able to take the result seriously./QUOTE]
The big test is whether you show up at the boxing ring after you've been hit.