Work it out? Or look it up ...
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=802304
someone wrote:
REALLY smart school kids would go to
wolfram alpha to get the distance to
the Moon, and let the suckers analyze
echo's from old NASA clips.
================================
A class of engineering students were given the following question on an exam: How long should a three pound beef roast stay in a 325 degree oven for the center to reach a temperature of 150 degrees?
One student, described as a "Big Project man," didn't come up with an answer but did offer a plan for a series of precise experiments that would yield an accurate answer in six to nine months.
Another student, an advocate of the practical approach, went out and bought a roast, an oven thermometer, and a watch. He wrote his report while munching medium-rare roast beef sandwiches.
A third student used logic. Reasoning that animal tissue is mostly water and therefore should have about the same specific heat and conductivity, he applied heat transfer theory to produce his answer (it proved, incidentally, to be quite close to that of the second student).
The quickest answer, however, came from a student who called his mother on the phone and got the answer from her.
Which of these men promises to be the most effective engineer?
================================
Which would you rather have on your start-up team? Which would you prefer your child to be? Which ones make the money? Which ones will be happiest in life?
Which would you rather be?
10 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 100 ms ] threadThe #2 and #3 attitudes make the best engineers - ideally you can switch between those two modes depending on the problem. If you can only get one, take someone with attitude #2: startups need the roast beef sandwiches[1].
The #4 attitude I've actually found to be anti-correlated with engineering talent in general; the people who are best at that tend to be in business development or sales.
[1] Often the most important thing you get out of tackling a problem is the side product, not the thing you thought you wanted. PayPal thought they were working on secure transactions between PDAs; while solving it they made The Roast Beef Sandwich of Web Payments.
Good teams have balance, and a creative tension in their problem-solving approaches.
Clearly a take home exam, but point taken ...
#1 has no social life, grits his teeth constantly and will probably get grudgingly, angrily married to an unwitting research assistant in his 30s/40s after wondering (for a period of no less than 20 years) why stupid people exist. No children, or an over-worked prematurely-balding vicarious living vehicle, will result. Self-perpetuating cycle.
#2 has a weight problem, and will probably sink into a muttering pile of self-loathing in his late 20s, only to rise again as a slightly-douchey fitness freak or a committed family man. He will marry, be quite happy in mediocrity and become a bearded old programmer. Lots of kids. Weirdly, this one is most likely a gun-toting Republican. Kids will most likely be a bit less incurious, which will make him proud.
#3 is cool and I want at least one on my team, but because he's a lone wolf by definition, he gets uncomfortable easily. He's most likely a man of at least a couple vices. Has a billion hobbies and a pile of old equipment. Least likely to be academic, which is at odds with his vast knowledge. Simultaneously happy with the present, but haunted by a hope for what could possibly be.
#4 also looks on Google for answers, cuts corners at every opportunity, is a great engineer because he conserves all possible energy. Marriage is unlikely, but will probably be an okay father if he manages to stick around for longer than 10 years. Least likely to manage the money he makes without a stickler for a wife.
I'm happy knowing all 4 types. I'm happy being a 3rd/4th hybrid. This really scans like a palm reading, as does the question. ("Will I be rich? Will I have love? Will I have children? Is that a good thing?")
Simply because this is a fallacy: we are "supposed" to choose #4 because he hacked the answer.
The problem is as follows. Whilst his was the best solution to this problem with an existing answer he is not necessarily demonstrating an ability to crack an unsolved problem.
Unless your re-inventing the wheel then #2 and #3 are demonstrating much more useful engineering skills :) (indeed the argument could be made they though of calling mum and then realised that proved nothing)