v.cx is a personal blog with short essays on education, writing style, P versus NP, and Mastodon.
HN mostly links it for the Feynman-in-Brazil education post, which commenters use when discussing school standards and rote learning.
OK, wow, the old guard sure knows how to write sensibly. This is a great
article.
But I have to disagree with this (because of course I do):
>> For example, when I tell Siri “Call Carol” and it dials the correct number,
you will have a hard time convincing me that Siri did not understand my
request.
That is a very common-sense and down-to-earth non-definition of intelligence:
how can an entity that is answering a question correctly not "understand" the
question?
I am going
to quote Richard Feynman who encountered an example of this "how":
After a lot of investigation, I finally figured out that the students had
memorized everything, but they didn’t know what anything meant. When they
heard “light that is reflected from a medium with an index,” they didn’t know
that it meant a material such as water. They didn’t know that the “direction
of the light” is the direction in which you see something when you’re looking
at it, and so on. Everything was entirely memorized, yet nothing had been
translated into meaningful words. So if I asked, “What is Brewster’s Angle?”
I’m going into the computer with the right keywords. But if I say, “Look at
the water,” nothing happens – they don’t have anything under “Look at the
water”!
https://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education
In this (in?) famous passage Feynman is arguing that students of physics that
he met in Brazil didn't know physics, even though they had memorised physics
textbooks.
Feynman doesn't talk about "understanding".…
I can speak to both my own personal experience and anecdotal info, in that I've personally only worked with Chinese engineers who are of the utmost scruples and integrity (even when I don't always agree with their choices from an engineering perspective), but it does seem to be that there is some cultural traction against the kind of mindset we appreciate in the West.
But I tend to view it in the context of Feynman's remarks about Brazilians (who I've also had the pleasure of working with and being enlightened by) [0].
Even if there is some cultural resistance, there will always be exceptions, depending how you choose to select from that data.
Personally, I value those traits that choose certain value over others. Being right (with the qualification of being right, rather than appearing right) is essential for a good engineer.
I don't think any country has a monopoly on good engineers or on bad. The best we can do is engage these like minds and cultivate a shared appreciation of the Good.
I think politics (from the education level up) makes it hard to question the cultural norm, I find there are plenty of folks who hold "correctness" a higher value than compliance.
All this said as a white guy looking in and lucky enough to have found aligned mentalities among the folks I've worked with.
[0] http://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education
The problem space for computer science algorithms is gigantic and many of these companies testing for this knowledge then immediately throw new engineers onto line of business CRUD apps and bug fixes, which rarely have the engineer implementing any of these algorithms from scratch.
A programmer worth his salt should retain enough 1st principles knowledge to not create a O(n^3) bottleneck in production or otherwise stay out of trouble.
Unless you have a super targeted problem space that interviewing employees know about
Often the specific skills are mentioned up front. It doesn't have to be that targeted, either.
Most developers I know just brush on as many algorithms as they can remember when they are going to interview for a new job. Then they just go through interviews until they find a company that manages to pick an algorithm out of the ones they memorized.
This speaks more to bad interviewing. It certainly does not mean that such knowledge being worthless and arbitrary. What you want in a candidate, generally speaking, is someone who can actually apply knowledge. What you are describing above is just regurgitation.
http://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education
I attended an expensive private school until 6th grade, a typical public school from 6th-8th grade, and did my 'high-school' years at an online school.
I learned legitimate skills at the private and traditional public schools. I learned nothing of value at the cyber school. The first two actually focused on developing a concept to the point where it could be applied. Math was one such example. The cyber school was very obviously designed to allow the students to just cheat. As in, literally have the book open in your lap and take the test.
If I had gone to the cyber school for my entire education cycle I'd undoubtedly be severely disadvantaged in the same way described by the [0] article (about Feynman )linked in another comment. Parroting facts can get you the job, but it won't help you do the job.
[0] https://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education
> what are good courses for people from these countries to study so that they become more skilled ?
Just my opinion, but more doing, less "learning". I've interviewed dozens of Indian candidates at my company, and I've noticed a huge problem: a good 50-60% of them know the jargon and theory, but if you try to probe deeper they don't know what any of it means.
It reminded me strongly of Feynman's account of the Brazilian education system[1]
Basically, I think serious students need to actually build stuff and gain a deep intuition of the concepts they are learning. There seems to be far too much rote memorization of CS concepts and jargon without deep understanding of the why and the how.
[1] http://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education
Compare Feynman (1985): https://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education
> I discovered a very strange phenomenon: I could ask a question, which the students would answer immediately. But the next time I would ask the question – the same subject, and the same question, as far as I could tell – they couldn’t answer it at all!
(He proceeds to discuss the difference between rote learning of phrases and the ability to visualise a physical system and have insights into it. Along with a bonus example of a textbook that includes only one experimental result, which is fake and gives the wrong answer)