
Jennifer Widom Named Dean of Stanford School of Engineering - carlosgg
http://news.stanford.edu/2017/02/27/computer-scientist-jennifer-widom-named-dean-stanford-school-engineering/
======
orsenthil
She is a wonderful teacher. When the very first MOOCs were introduced, I took
AI taught by Sebastian Thrun, Peter Norvig and Databases taught by Jennifer
Widom. I could contrast the teaching style of these experts. Jennifer Widom is
approachable, methodical, breaks down complex topics into easily manageable
chunks and pushes you hard with attainable goals. The other two geniuses
(Norvig and Thrun) will present something that you will have struggle (with
frustrations because denial isn't an option with them) to get it. I loved her
way of teaching and I am glad she taking on responsible roles.

~~~
denzil_correa
In these sets of MOOCs, there was also Machine Learning taught by Andrew Ng
and I had your same Widom like experience with Andrew Ng. After taking so many
courses in life - physically and remotely - I can safely say that Andrew Ng is
the best teacher I've come across. The best part was how we actually gave
insights in Machine Learning rather than leaving it like something esoteric.
It changed my perspective and added a lot of value to my professional career.

Recently, I tried to take the Neural Networks from Jeff Hinton and I realized
how much I missed Ng's lectures.

~~~
sweezyjeezy
I took Geoff Hinton's Coursera course about 3 years ago, and it remains my
favourite online course I've ever taken. While I do understand that it may
have felt a bit theoretical and heavy, I also think that this theory is more
important to understand in neural networks than in other areas of ML e.g. for
debugging issues. I also loved his wry sense of humour and turn of phrase.

I felt that Andrew Ng left out a lot of the details that I was curious about.
For example, I remember he introduces logistic regression and cross-entropy,
but he kind of just writes down the equations and says they differentiate
nicely, he never explains where they actually come from, or even points the
interested viewer where to look for more information (short answer :
information theory, also this post
[https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2016/06/01/how-to-assign-
part...](https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2016/06/01/how-to-assign-partial-
credit-on-an-exam-of-true-false-questions/) is a great explanation for cross
entropy)

~~~
denzil_correa
> While I do understand that it may have felt a bit theoretical and heavy, I
> also think that this theory is more important to understand in neural
> networks than in other areas of ML e.g. for debugging issues.

This is the same argument people gave for Machine Learning but Andrew Ng
showed us otherwise.

> I felt that Andrew Ng left out a lot of the details that I was curious
> about.

This is exactly the beauty of Ng's ML course. The fact that Andrew Ng made you
curious makes CS229A (Applications of Machine Learning) a very successful
course. Now, if you want to satiate that curiosity I will recommend you CS229
[0]. It contains all the theory and math and YET that course is as beautiful
as CS229A. This further proves the point that you do not need theory to be
boring to achieve your objectives. If you want to teach something, you will
find a way. Au contraire, Jeff Hinton's course makes me not want to even touch
or understand Neural Networks again. FYI, I have a Ph.D in Computer Science
and I work as a Data Scientist. If this is my view, imagine what it would be
like beyond the us elites?

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A89DCFA6ADACE599](https://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A89DCFA6ADACE599)

~~~
sweezyjeezy
> FYI, I have a Ph.D in Computer Science and I work as a Data Scientist. If
> this is my view, imagine what it would be like beyond the us elites?

The probability, linear algebra and calculus material required to understand
this should be covered in undergraduate courses. Which part exactly did you
find so hard?

~~~
denzil_correa
This isn't about the content but the structure and explaining the intuition
behind algorithms. There are insights behind every algorithm which needs to be
put down explicitly in simple English; not mathematical symbols. A course
should be accessible to everyone given the prerequisites. Just because a
course is easy for me, does not mean its a good course. The Hinton course is
not palatable and you can clearly see that in the discussion forums.

Andrew Ng's CS229 course goes beyond the mathematics and explains the magic
behind these algorithms. Unfortunately, I know many people who use the
mathematics trope to not share these insights and keep them closely guarded to
their chest.

~~~
sesqu
I remember taking Ng's course soon after having taken a similar course. While
his offered insights were occasionally useful, I found a number of them
distracting, especially when they differed substantially from what I had
learned in the other course. I found most of his explanations simple but some
of them were unsatisfactory, as the suggested motivations did not imply the
taught solutions. This was forgivable where I knew of several alternatives,
but not when the information was new to me.

His class left me thinking I was able to apply problems to solutions, not the
other way around. I will agree that he was a better teacher than Norvig and
Thrun, and more engaging (though less holistic) than Widom.

------
theparanoid
I first heard of her when she wrote about taking a year off and traveling with
her family [0]. I've taken 6 months off and would love to do it again.

[0]
[http://cs.stanford.edu/people/widom/yearoff.html](http://cs.stanford.edu/people/widom/yearoff.html)

~~~
et-al
Thanks for sharing that link. On a tangent, I love these old university
personal pages. In an age of impermanence, it's endearing to stumble upon web
pages still up 20 years after they were made.

I've used the Arroyo Seco River Hike guide from another Stanford alum quite a
bit:

[http://theory.stanford.edu/~rvg/arroyo/](http://theory.stanford.edu/~rvg/arroyo/)
(mildly NSFW)

And Ed Corbett's tide charts for the Bay Area are priceless (though I noticed
he hasn't updated them for this year):

[http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/edc/tides/2016/tides_2016.ht...](http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/edc/tides/2016/tides_2016.html)

~~~
randycupertino
> I've used the Arroyo Seco River Hike guide from another Stanford alum quite
> a bit:

[http://theory.stanford.edu/~rvg/arroyo/](http://theory.stanford.edu/~rvg/arroyo/)

Casual nudity! On a work website. Love it.

edit: update looks like they're part of a community of nudist hikers, the
South Bay Naturists. Nothing wrong with that, though bold to post about it on
your work website.

~~~
et-al
Whoops, thanks for bringing that up. Luckily most folks in the States aren't
at work, but let me email the mods.

To continue the conversation, I think that site was more of a personal site
just hosted on Stanford--not necessarily a work site.

------
carlosgg
Her Databases MooC is now offered as a series of self-paced mini-courses:

[https://lagunita.stanford.edu/courses/Home/Databases/Enginee...](https://lagunita.stanford.edu/courses/Home/Databases/Engineering/about)

~~~
sampo
I have taken also other MOOCs (Machine Learning, Probabilistic Graphical
Models, Functional Programming Principles in Scala, ...) and Widom's databases
MOOC was by far the best planned, best designed and best executed.

There was quite a lot of homework, but it was all well planned and served a
purpose, you could do all the SQL, Xpath, JSON, ... query exercises in the
browser without needing to install anything, and the system gave good feedback
when you did something wrong. That environment was very well implemented.

The course was packed with theory and practice, there was minimal extra
chatter in the video lectures, almost every minute of the lectures was used to
cover the material, and the lectures provided just the right amount of theory
for doing the exercises, and the exercises covered almost everything from the
lectures. Good video lectures are more dense, and proceed faster than live
lectures, because when you miss something, you can always rewind and watch the
last minutes again.

~~~
henrik_w
Good summary - mirrors my experience. I wrote down my impressions after I took
it: [https://henrikwarne.com/2011/12/18/introduction-to-
databases...](https://henrikwarne.com/2011/12/18/introduction-to-databases-on-
line-learning-done-well/)

------
FullMtlAlcoholc
Congrats! I acquired more practical knowledge in her CS145: Intro to Databases
than any other single class.

~~~
droithomme
Also got a lot from it, she's a very good teacher and will make a great dean.

------
sizzzzlerz
Very impressive credentials and a well-deserved appointment. Being appointed
Dean of the School of Engineering at one of the world's most prestigious
universities has to be close to the top of career achievements for an
academic.

~~~
santoshalper
Yeah, there really is almost nowhere further to go in an academic engineering
career. She will probably retire there.

------
bossskag
I took a course on databases through Stanford Online or something like that
years ago, she was great. Glad she's moving up in the world.

------
offsky
I can honestly say that taking Widom's Intro DB class in the late 90s set my
entire career trajectory. It may have been the most influential class I took
at Stanford. I am very grateful for her teachings and guidance.

------
tabeth
How much influence do deans have at Stanford? I think she's a great teacher,
but from my experience, your teaching ability is irrelevant when it comes to
your responsibilities as Dean.

~~~
mattybrennan
Please tell us more about your experience in being a Dean

~~~
tabeth
I have no experience being a dean. I do have experience being managed by one.
I personally didn't see any correlation in their effectiveness and their
popularity as a teacher. If you have any evidence stating there's a
correlation I'd love to read it.

~~~
tnecniv
I'm sure there's some correlation between teaching ability and money raising,
one of the more important aspects of being dean. They both stem from being a
good people person.

------
oculusthrift
who cares? we seem to obsess over the elites when America is built off people
going to state schools.

------
tlow
And the thermo guys are out. Might be a good time to recognize your University
runs an isolated HCI group in it's CS department and about 4 different
"Design" groups within the School of Engineering that are _NOT_ connected to
HCI in anyway...

Meanwhile the only course I know of at Stanford that teaches Arduino is at
CCRMA.stanford.edu

~~~
FullMtlAlcoholc
> Meanwhile the only course I know of at Stanford that teaches Arduino is at
> CCRMA.stanford.edu

I don't understand why this is an issue. Why would you want that when Stanford
and almost every other school offers Intro to Electrical Engineering? It will
contain everything you need to know to hack away at Arduino and a lot
more.It's EE40 as I recall and after the first two weeks of that class you
should be able to play around with Arduino. Why would you want to waste
thousands of dollars in tuition for knowledge you can pick up in a weekend at
your local hobbyist Meetup for $20 or less

Do you also bemoan the fact that Stanford doesn't offer a class in how to use
Google or an Intro to Typing?

------
tlow
Preface: I hold a BSE Product Design 2009, Stanford. I conducted research at
the CDR. I took courses at the d.school and CCRMA. I attended weekly HCI
research meetings for 3 weeks and saw Ed Catmull present to the HCI group
once.

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DESIGN ISSUE.

Please understand that Stanford's School of Engineering pretty much owns and
grossly mis-manages the teaching and cooperation amongst different groups with
an interest in DESIGN that there are 6 programs in design that aren't
interrelated, HCI belongs to Computer Science, Design Impact is it's own
program, the d.school doesn't grant degrees, I'm not sure what the "Design
Group" in Mechanical Engineering is, but it is related to the only PhD design
Program at Stanford, the CDR, and product design have no formal linkages. It
would not be common for a Product Design student to ever know or encounter a
CS HCI student, except by coincidence or other interest.

This represents an important change in leadership in the school of
engineering. Previously it was my understanding the SoE was being run by the
thermo guys who are totally clueless to the importance of Design. Stanford
Engineering owns Stanford Design and is an extremely fragmented program which
completely ISOLATES the Computer Science Department (a part of the School of
Engineering) has ZERO ties to 5 other DESIGN programs at STANFORD within the
SoE.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

Lastly the only course that teaches anything to do with arduino is at
CCRMA.[6]

[1] Center for Design Research cdr.stanford.edu

[1] HCI hci.stanford.edu/

[2] Design Impact – A Master of Science in Engineering Program at Stanford
designimpact.stanford.edu/

[3] Hasso Plattner Graduate School of Design aka d.school
[https://dschool.stanford.edu/](https://dschool.stanford.edu/)

[4] ME Design Group [https://me.stanford.edu/groups/about-design-
group](https://me.stanford.edu/groups/about-design-group)

[5] Product Design [https://majors.stanford.edu/product-
design](https://majors.stanford.edu/product-design)

[6] CCRMA.stanford.edu (pronounced "kharma")

~~~
suhcistudent
First, I'm not clear how your comment is relevant to the post.

Second, I think the "design" situation at Stanford would make a bit more sense
to you if you took some time to better understand the academic field of HCI,
of which design is just a small sub-area. Browsing the list of papers at last
year's CHI is a good place to start [1].

Third, several HCI students are co-advised by design faculty in mechanical
engineering and HCI faculty. Several HCI students also both take classes and
physically work out of the d.school. CCRMA members routinely attend HCI
lunches.

Fourth, product design is no more relevant to the academic research that takes
place in HCI than it is for the many other sub-fields of computer science for
which building systems is a major aspect.

[1]
[https://chi2016.acm.org/program/?tab=chi2016-schedule](https://chi2016.acm.org/program/?tab=chi2016-schedule)

~~~
tlow
This is relevant because design is being controlled by the school of
engineering and they are not managing it well. There are too many non-related
groups. Yes some extraordinary students work between these silos, but it would
be far better for the School of Engineering to restructure it's design groups
or to let Design become a school outside of the School of Engineering.

There are no formal connections between the groups. Yes, I am an example of a
student who attended CCRMA, Winograd's HCI group, CDR, d.school. I graduated
with 185 credits, 15 of which were basically useless nothingness because I
couldn't actually enroll in the courses I was taking and professors had to
admit me to their special research courses like ME 293Q.

It is a disaster in terms of organizational structure and it's all due to SoE
Politics.

It's relevant because now the Dean seems to be someone who has an idea about
the modern world and isn't focused on hard sciences like thermodynamics or
materials science.

Also why are you referencing academic papers? PhD programs are for producing
professors, that's not the topic of discussion. We're talking about education.

Last I prove conclusively that Product Design is indeed relevant and thus
refute your wide, incorrect, sweeping assertion. Again I personally know a
Stanford product design student who conducted academic research in HCI.[1]
Please do not make such sweeping assertions when you're not actually informed.
I know its appealing and sounds nice, but its totally inaccurate. Even you
yourself speak of students working between the Silos. To ascribe hate onto
Product Design seems like misplaced anger.

[1] see
[http://designimpact.stanford.edu/about/faculty/](http://designimpact.stanford.edu/about/faculty/)
"Sean Follmer"

~~~
suhcistudent
Thank you for clarifying why this is relevant.

To be clear, I am not claiming that Product Design has no place in HCI. I'm
claiming that its just as relevant to many other areas of computer science as
it is to HCI.

