[gadrev]

Linear Algebra was a course in the first semester of freshman year when I was in uni (this wasn't in the US or in an english speaking country). It was famous for being a "filter" course, that made a lot of people quit the degree and switch to a different degree next year.

It had a 94% failure rate, but I got to pass on the first attempt because Gil's free lectures of his LA course made me intuitively understand the stuff we were being taught in that course, which was very dry and IMO poorly explained, at least for freshmen. Don't think I would have dodged the bullet otherwise.

Thanks Gil.

[MisterBastahrd]

I have a feeling that the intellect gap at a lot of universities isn't as profound as one would expect and that one of the reasons that the students of the best unis do so well is because their educators can actually explain the course material. You can do more when you've got to spend less cognitive energy on trying to piece together the hieroglyphic puzzle that lesser professors throw at you because they believe they're too important to teach.

[caddemon]

A lot of the top universities have majority of their profs caring almost exclusively about research though. I think MIT is (or at least was) a bit of an exception, where there was enough of a critical mass of profs that cared about teaching. Can't say the same for a couple other "top" unis I've spent time at.

[frakt0x90]

Yes I've heard that as well. For example I heard 2nd hand that Andrew Wiles at Princeton, who famously solved Fermat's last theorem, is a brilliant researcher but a terrible professor.

I had a math professor from Dartmouth who told me that Dartmouth really emphasized teaching in their phd program and he was indeed an exceptional teacher. I wish that was emphasized more, or they separate hardcore researchers from the teachers.

[etrautmann]

It’s a good point, although Princeton in general places a higher emphasis on undergraduate teaching than a number of other top research universities, so that example might be idiosyncratic if true.

The emphasis on teaching in a PhD program may not have much bearing on the quality of undergraduate teaching at a university, though it might be indicative of a culture or spirit.

[fsckboy]

i find that in general (not always) the smarter people are, the better they understand precisely what you don't know, and what you need to know to understand what they are trying to tell you

it's a bit like the old "the more I know, the more I know I don't know" but with an addition of "the more I know exactly what I know, and exactly what I don't" and it's then applied via theory-of-mind, "the more I know precisely what I can teach you"

[tuxguy]

one related quote i really like is : "it takes a lot of knowledge to realize the extent of your own ignorance" :D

[kevviiinn]

I would have to agree with this. In all my time in school I've had terrible and amazing professors, the difference in the amount I learned was generally due to their ability to explain the subject in a way that was easy to understand. I also credit the MIT open courseware chemistry lectures for helping me through uni, because that professor was one of the not so great ones at my school

[xupybd]

I had the same experience. I didn't understand the teaching from my university. Once I found his lectures it all clicked. I understood what we were doing. It was no longer wrote learning of algorithms to manipulate things with no meaning.

I did very well in that paper.

[klysm]

Fwiw the word is “rote” not “wrote”

[xupybd]

TIL, thank you.

[woleium]

I <3 HN

:))

[mynameisash]

I took linear algebra about 20 years ago as a requirement for my CS degree. I had no clue whatsoever what it was for beyond just "solving systems of equations" - whatever that meant. The prof didn't impress upon us how it underpins all of machine learning (which, mind you, wasn't as much of a hot topic then that it is now). Our attempts at grokking its importance were largely met with a kind of "because it's important" dismissal.

I didn't do great in the course, and when it was done, I was pretty happy this useless subject was behind me.

It wasn't until several years into my profession that I learned how important linear algebra truly is. I now work very closely with tons of data scientists, and I still feel like I should go back and learn it better.

[flashgordon]

Same thing happened to me. Yes ml wasn't a hot area then (20 years ago) but computer graphics, linear regression (ie old school statistics used for supply chain), signal processing for audio and video were all got them but their applicability was never pointed out let alone emphasized. I was just lucky that I was interested in these areas on my own so the linkages thankfully "clicked". Is it me or did profs back then just do research and teaching in a bubble?

[sitkack]

I agree with u on Strang, wonderful lectures. I always learned on books at least a decade or older, I was amazed even the 90s about his lasting legacy. He has been helping people with linear algebra for more than 50 years. I haven’t even been alive for that long.

Weeder courses shouldn’t exist, they are immoral. Glad you survived yours.

[poslathian]

Such an interesting principal to carry, I never thought about it before.

Now that I am, it seems kinder to fail people early out of paths they are ill suited to follow, no?

[stilist]

If it’s something they’re interested in or need to know for their career, then I don’t think it’s possible to be ill-suited, only ill-prepared.

[shallichange]

It’s mostly because in free public universities there’s an appetite for making things hard. Very hard. The less students graduate, the most prestigious they think they are