Von Fugal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I like learning, I even like most of the classes... I _abhor_ the
> structured environment! Give me a good book and free time to explore the
> avenues that most interest me, and classes where the guidance of an
> experienced teacher is helpful. But by golly, don't bog me down with
> countless assignments, busywork and pointless excercises!
In my personal research of topics that are generally covered in
graduate-level classes, I've run across a lot of course descriptions
and curricula that paint a very different picture of graduate
coursework as compared to undergrad coursework. The nature of my
undergrad classes themselves have also changed a lot from
freshman-level to senior-level classes. Always, the trend is away
from rote exercises to exploration and problem-solving as the level of
the class rises.
The point of an undergrad degree is to get a broad education, both in
terms of all the disciplines as well as your own chosen degree.
Because so much of it is introductory, and meant to prepare a
foundation for further study, there's necessarily a lot of tedium.
Having a BS in CS means that you've been introduced to most of the
important topics in the field, as well as highlights from the liberal
arts and sciences. Having a Master's degree means (or should mean,
anyway) that you've mastered at least a broad subset of the well-known
topics in your field. This generally means less busy-work, since if
you've got that far, you shouldn't need your hand held as much.
A Ph.D, on the other hand, is very different. There's no more
breadth; you pick a single very narrow topic in your field and go
beyond mastery of the well-known into extending what's known through
research and invention. The goal isn't to prepare you for a job
slinging code, but to advance the discipline. That's the idea behind
it, anyway... I imagine individual motiviations for getting a Ph.D
vary a lot, from wanting to be able to teach at a university to
wanting to be able to get industry research positions.
> I try to care, I really do, but I just can't get that level of
> caring high enough to concern myself with trite assignments. As you
> can imagine this has bitten me something aweful, but I still don't
> care! I can't help it. I see classes as windows into vast
> extroardinary worlds of fascinating new concepts, but I'm chained
> down to a few specifics the class expects out of me. Thus excelling
> in class is reduced to tunnel vision, while true excellence and an
> explorative mind into what you would be truly great at are
> carelessly stifled.
>From what I've read about how to apply to grad school, they don't
particularly care about your grades, either, at least as long as you
didn't flunk out. What they care about is the explorative mind, and
whatever evidence you can give them of that. If you got Cs, but did a
lot of great undergrad research and have glowing reviews of your
research ability from respected professors, you're in good shape.
As to the IT industry, they couldn't care less what your grades were.
> I guess this means I won't be attending grad school, a decision I've
> been putting off as not immediate, yet all the while leaning towards no.
> Although teaching is somewhat attractive to me.
I don't see that not attending grad school follows necessarily from
what you said. There were plenty of good reasons presented not to go
in the thread, and I think the major ones are financial and family
stress issues. It's always possible to go back and get a Ph.D later
in life if you decide to go into teaching; one of my teachers at UVSC
recently got his Ph.D and another is working on his. You'll probably
not be able to teach at a prestigious university on that path, though.
--Levi
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
