This slideshow points at some key problems high achieving people face post-high school - how to stand out when everyone's as smart/hard working as you when all you know is getting good grades?
I knew a lot of people who double majored (even attempted to triple major...) and filled up their schedule so much that (apologies if this sounds a bit rude) they had an "empty" life outside of classes. This actually hurt people in the CS job search (not a problem for CMU grads though). The ones found a job easily are doing the same things as me, a lifelong B+/A- student. Of course, this is anecdotal and all, and who knows where we'll be in ten years, but I always wondered if all the stress and lack of free time during ages 18-22 was worth it.
I know a lot of careers demand a ton of your time in undergrad for grades, extracurriculars, preparing for grad school, etc. I'm glad programming interviews focused more on practical skills and problem solving skills - my undergrad was a lot less stressful and more fun that way and I was able to explore and mess around with technology and life in general.
> You have to struggle/agonize over it. You have to immerse yourself in it. You have to think about it all the time.
We see these ideas echoed over and over by intensely successful people. For example, it's the same one Richard Hamming claims in his famous talk, "You and Your Research"[1]. Kayvon's talk focuses heavily on the side of academia, but the claim holds equally well in two other areas:
1. Community involvement.
As an undergrad, over-commitment to classes leaves little time to give back to the "community," for definitions of community like classmates, under-represented groups, the wider campus, etc.
For example, you can't be a great undergrad TA if you don't put close to or more work into the class than your students do. This means TA'ing should factor into your schedule like taking another class. If you're already overloaded on classes and TA'ing a class, how can you hope to contribute something valuable to your students?
2. Self-driven deeper understanding.
In all these discussions, we're starting from the assumption that the student is driven; otherwise, they wouldn't be motivated to take tons of classes in the first place.
By taking fewer classes, there's more available time for the motivated student to read an interesting paper related to the lecture that week--and read it thoroughly. There's more time to think critically about interesting, new problems, and even to discover one's own passions or calling.
As one last note; if you're a student ever in the position to take a class from Kayvon, I'd very strongly recommend it.
Kayvon was my undergraduate thesis advisor as well as an instructor for a class I took while there, and it's hard to exaggerate how fantastic he was. I second your recommendation.
> By taking fewer classes, there's more available time for the motivated student to read an interesting paper related to the lecture that week--and read it thoroughly. There's more time to think critically about interesting, new problems, and even to discover one's own passions or calling.
This is why it's a good idea to join a research lab, even if only for a semester. Hanging out with grad students can give you a new perspective on a lot of cool things you'd never know about and help demonstrate why certain things are important.
one problem w/ cmu education: it burns a lot of people out. I've known many a bright folk to go in flying high and come out just wanting to find something more relaxing to do. simply put: it's not for everyone. of course, many other top schools are the same way...
I think the point of the slides (and college in general) is that you don't necessarily have to stress out yourself to be an all As student with a double major to get a good job. Instead, relax a bit more and build software.
Really? I didn't see that in the slides. I saw "trade classes or grades for other stuff (but still work to or past your limit)" specifically with the references to not sleeping. As a CMU alum that both hit home and depressed me. I can't, and don't want, to do that kind of shit anymore. Why are we encouraging our undergrads to work to the point of harm in order to excel? Excellence can happen without all nighters, and it's more sustainable that way.
In essence, I agree with you but I don't think the slides do.
Some of the smartest, most successful and most driven people I know are highschool dropouts. It's a shame we put such an emphasis on grades, which really just reflect someone's ability to spit out things that have already been figured out - not any proof of ingenuity, curiosity, or the ability to learn on the fly.
(before the replies - yes I know a lot of dropouts without any ambition or discipline as well - but living in a highly educated community it's easy to note many of the "educated" people really lack ambition and ingenuity whatsoever.)
On an anecdotal note, I dropped out of high-school got a job in tech and went back to college - I went to a top 10 university (graduated) and didn't learn much I couldn't have taught myself. It did help me get more interviews though.
We put a lot of emphasis on grades in high school. Makes sense - that's what colleges want. But in college, as the slides show, there are so many non-strictly-academic opportunities that a lot people miss out on because in their mind they're still in high school mode.
> before the replies - yes I know a lot of dropouts without any ambition or discipline as well - but living in a highly educated community it's easy to note many of the "educated" people really lack ambition and ingenuity whatsoever.
I don't think the argument normally has anything to do with how much ambition & ingenuity college educated people have. Looking at college educated people with low ambition isn't a great reason to drop out of school.
The issue is that, statistically, college degrees are strongly correlated with better outcomes. There's a variety of reasons, and of course it does not mean that every dropout will do worse.
Most people who drop out don't drop for a positive, because they're doing something better. They drop out for a negative, because they don't like school or authority or it's too hard or they're uninterested or drugs or poverty, etc.. If you're giving advice to someone who doesn't know what to do, going to college and doing well there is hands down the better recommendation on average for most people.
If they're driven and strong enough to drop out because they're learning faster on their own, or have something more important to do, or see the potential to make more money now, then they're probably going to ignore advice anyway. The strong driven successful people who don't need a college degree also don't need the advice or any emphasis on grades, because they know what they want, and they've found their own metrics. Everyone else, most people, will probably benefit by staying in school longer.
>and didn't learn much I couldn't have taught myself.
I've been thinking a lot about this recently, and I think this could be a fallacy brought on by the weird way we remember things. When I think about what I learned during my undergrad I'd like to say that I learned very little, but then I just know things I must have learned during university.
To me, it's really hard to pinpoint when and where I learned something I truly absorbed, and I don't think I'm alone in this.
This gives me a very false impression of what I did during university. Could I have learned all of this myself? Would I have known where to look?
IMO high grades are simply an indication of the ability to meet the expectations of either the Professor or the parents if they are paying tuition or even to yourself if that is how you measure success. Grades are not typically an indication of mastery of the subject matter because that comes with application of that which was learned rather than a recitation of that which was taught. Low grades, well they are a horse of a different color altogether.
The reason to go to university is to work with and learn from the best and smartest people in an area you enjoy. There is a ton of opportunity and you just have to take advantage. It is also a great time to figure out yourself, what you want and only have to answer to yourself.
I do think colleges should offer a 101 course where you get to work on establishing healthy habits and provide an understanding of mental health etc...
15 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 41.1 ms ] threadI knew a lot of people who double majored (even attempted to triple major...) and filled up their schedule so much that (apologies if this sounds a bit rude) they had an "empty" life outside of classes. This actually hurt people in the CS job search (not a problem for CMU grads though). The ones found a job easily are doing the same things as me, a lifelong B+/A- student. Of course, this is anecdotal and all, and who knows where we'll be in ten years, but I always wondered if all the stress and lack of free time during ages 18-22 was worth it.
I know a lot of careers demand a ton of your time in undergrad for grades, extracurriculars, preparing for grad school, etc. I'm glad programming interviews focused more on practical skills and problem solving skills - my undergrad was a lot less stressful and more fun that way and I was able to explore and mess around with technology and life in general.
We see these ideas echoed over and over by intensely successful people. For example, it's the same one Richard Hamming claims in his famous talk, "You and Your Research"[1]. Kayvon's talk focuses heavily on the side of academia, but the claim holds equally well in two other areas:
1. Community involvement.
As an undergrad, over-commitment to classes leaves little time to give back to the "community," for definitions of community like classmates, under-represented groups, the wider campus, etc.
For example, you can't be a great undergrad TA if you don't put close to or more work into the class than your students do. This means TA'ing should factor into your schedule like taking another class. If you're already overloaded on classes and TA'ing a class, how can you hope to contribute something valuable to your students?
2. Self-driven deeper understanding.
In all these discussions, we're starting from the assumption that the student is driven; otherwise, they wouldn't be motivated to take tons of classes in the first place.
By taking fewer classes, there's more available time for the motivated student to read an interesting paper related to the lecture that week--and read it thoroughly. There's more time to think critically about interesting, new problems, and even to discover one's own passions or calling.
As one last note; if you're a student ever in the position to take a class from Kayvon, I'd very strongly recommend it.
[1]: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html
This is why it's a good idea to join a research lab, even if only for a semester. Hanging out with grad students can give you a new perspective on a lot of cool things you'd never know about and help demonstrate why certain things are important.
In essence, I agree with you but I don't think the slides do.
(before the replies - yes I know a lot of dropouts without any ambition or discipline as well - but living in a highly educated community it's easy to note many of the "educated" people really lack ambition and ingenuity whatsoever.)
On an anecdotal note, I dropped out of high-school got a job in tech and went back to college - I went to a top 10 university (graduated) and didn't learn much I couldn't have taught myself. It did help me get more interviews though.
I don't think the argument normally has anything to do with how much ambition & ingenuity college educated people have. Looking at college educated people with low ambition isn't a great reason to drop out of school.
The issue is that, statistically, college degrees are strongly correlated with better outcomes. There's a variety of reasons, and of course it does not mean that every dropout will do worse.
Most people who drop out don't drop for a positive, because they're doing something better. They drop out for a negative, because they don't like school or authority or it's too hard or they're uninterested or drugs or poverty, etc.. If you're giving advice to someone who doesn't know what to do, going to college and doing well there is hands down the better recommendation on average for most people.
If they're driven and strong enough to drop out because they're learning faster on their own, or have something more important to do, or see the potential to make more money now, then they're probably going to ignore advice anyway. The strong driven successful people who don't need a college degree also don't need the advice or any emphasis on grades, because they know what they want, and they've found their own metrics. Everyone else, most people, will probably benefit by staying in school longer.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/02/11/the-rising-cost-of...
I've been thinking a lot about this recently, and I think this could be a fallacy brought on by the weird way we remember things. When I think about what I learned during my undergrad I'd like to say that I learned very little, but then I just know things I must have learned during university.
To me, it's really hard to pinpoint when and where I learned something I truly absorbed, and I don't think I'm alone in this.
This gives me a very false impression of what I did during university. Could I have learned all of this myself? Would I have known where to look?
I do think colleges should offer a 101 course where you get to work on establishing healthy habits and provide an understanding of mental health etc...