Unlocking Creativity: How Technology is Revolutionizing Academic Scholarship

[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.

 

[twofish-quant]

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.

And in astrophysics, there is something that I call the Harvard mafia. Most people that I know have some connection with Harvard.

Do you think the title from top school makes most of the difference, or is the education there significantly better?

I don't think it's the title or the education. It's the social connections. Once you know the right people, you can much more easily get what you want than if you don't. It's not so much that they manager will kiss you if you are from Harvard, but rather that if you go to Harvard, you are more likely to know someone that knows someone that can can your resume to someone.

Also there are what I call pseudo-objective criterion. They are criterion that *look* objective but really aren't. For example, if you go to an interview for an investment bank, there is a certain style of clothing that you are expected to wear. That's sort of objective since everyone is evaluated with the same rules, but it also sort of isn't because if you don't have connections, you don't know what the rules are.

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?

Harvard and schools like it *define* what constitutes "smart" or "better". Once you *define* what is smart or better that gives you a huge amount of power.

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?

If you have 100 applicants and 10 positions, then 90 people are going to not get what they want.

Also, you can get a lot further if you understand the system, and the game, and learn how to play it. If getting ahead is all about social connections, then make social connections.

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?

The power elites defines good, and being human they'll define "good" in a way that they win and you lose. If you define "good" as "being like a Harvard student" then Harvard is going to win the game. So then you have to think cleverly about changing the rules.

 

[twofish-quant]

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

Yes they are. There are some things that employers are not legally allowed to ask about, but past educational experience is not on the list.

 

[elfboy]

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

even the best college trained physicists can't do that. How many field theories are there versus the number of theoretical physicists?

Creativity can't be taught and it isn't found in the classrooms.
College classes & Wikipedia may give you the framework but the rest is up to you

 

[twofish-quant]

Now that you mention wikipedia, it's a wonderful example of how technology can improve academic scholarship. People that criticize wikipedia for being "unscholarly" often don't understand how academic scholarship works.

For example, if I write a paper for Astrophysical Journal, I have to spend three to six months preparing the article. A lot of it involves going through and making sure each sentence and each fact is correct, and I have to invest a lot of time because I'm signing my name to the paper, and if I say 2+2=5, then I'm going to look like an idiot.

For wikipedia, because it's fast, I can spend ten minutes and fix some paragraph on general relativity that seems off, and because I don't have to sign my real name, if it turns out to be wrong, it's not a bit deal, and I've learned something.

When people see the libraries and journals, they are seeing the end product. They don't see the conversation in a hotel bar that led up to the idea.

Creativity can't be taught and it isn't found in the classrooms.

Creativity can be taught and it can be taught in classrooms. There are reasons (and some very good reasons) why creativity *isn't* emphasized in most college classrooms, but that doesn't mean that it *can't* be. Teaching creativity tends to be expensive, and sometimes it's not important.

Classrooms in general are geared toward teaching conformity since that is often more important than creativity.

College classes & Wikipedia may give you the framework but the rest is up to you

No it's not. A lot of it is up to people that you've never met that are making decisions about your life. The illusion that you have more control over your life than you really do, is one way that people with power keep their power. You think you have control over your life, but in fact, someone else does, and more likely than not, the person that actually does control your life has a college degree, and probably a degree from Harvard or Yale.