
MIT dean to start new university: “No majors, no lectures, no classrooms” - ilamont
http://tech.mit.edu/V135/N38/ortiz.html
======
melted
I think what we need are apprenticeships. I.e. a prominent research group
hires kids after the remedial first two years of traditional college
curriculum (or something like it plus a couple of years in an entry level
job), and has them work on the actual problems at hand, filling the knowledge
gaps as needed. It is no longer possible to know much of anything, so we
should specialize and diversify at the same time, meaning that these students
should be working at the seams between the fields: EE/CS, CS/Statistics,
CS/Genetics, CS/Mechanical engineering etc. Further specialization should
occur along the lines of whether the student would like to be a researcher, or
have a more employable and practical set of skills. I never got much value out
of lectures: few people can sustain rapt attention for hours a day. Most of
what I know comes from the books. What I did get a lot of value from is
working with people who know what they're doing, and from doing things myself,
perhaps with their guidance and help. If this is heavily emphasized in this
new model, I'm all for it.

~~~
kaishiro
I could not possibly agree with you more, having basically lived through this.
When I look at the current tuition rates for my alma mater, Northeastern
University, it makes me cringe. However, the fact that the default experience
at Northeastern requires a student to undergo multiple "co-ops", 6 month paid
internships, is genuinely a smart thing in my mind.

By the time I had graduated, I had work experience in embedded systems, a
criminal justice stats analysis lab, the Red Sox, and a counter terrorism
research center in DC. And that's all well and good, but the most important
thing I took from it was that it taught me very quickly which sectors I _did
not_ want to work in.

You often come out of high school with this idealized version of what it would
be like to work in X field. To learn what that field is really like, and to
learn if it's something you truly want to pursue, is a huge win in my mind for
an undergraduate.

~~~
melted
Another thing that could be helpful is not forcing kids to go to school when
they're 18. They have no clue whatsoever what they want to do with their lives
and by and large motivation to truly learn something is very much lacking. Or
at least I lacked it. My MSc with honors is a feat of willpower more than
anything else, I ended up using maybe 10% of the knowledge I acquired in those
years. Now if my career started in some kind of an apprenticeship situation,
you can bet I'd have plenty of motivation to master the field. That's more or
less what happened after college, except it's completely backwards from what
it should be, and it's extremely wasteful: I ended up learning (and then, of
course, forgetting) a ton of not even remotely useful stuff in hopes that I'd
need it when I actually have a proper job. Some might say this is well rounded
education, but I'd rather do it by choice, and not arbitrarily. The meta point
is, traditional education is really broken, and it has been for decades. It's
good that someone has the guts to go against the flow and do even a modicum of
rethinking. Academic community is extremely clique-y and conservative, so it
takes non-trivial courage to pursue something like this.

~~~
baudehlo
At 18 most kids have extremely strong passion about what they want to do. I
know I did. I was wrong (maths vs computer science). But persuading them to
take a break from that is going to be hard.

~~~
msellout
> most

My experience says the opposite.

~~~
cgm616
In my experience, there are three groups of kids in high school, at least
concerning future studies/employment.

One group maybe wants to do something because it pays well, with no motivation
because they aren't passionate.

The next group is very passionate about one or two things, and have lots of
motivation. However, they seem to view that as the only option, even though
more likely than not it will change and shift.

The third group has motivation to do work that is interesting, but they have
know idea what to specialize in and have a few things they don't want to do.
They aren't necessarily good at it all, and it's overwhelming to think about
plans for the future because of the open-ended nature of that question to
them.

This is what I've observed. And of course, people change between these groups
all the time.

~~~
restalis
The first group are mercenaries. They usually end up in finance, management,
law, sales or some other (mostly) boring job, then politics.

The second group are crusaders. They begin a quest for fulfillment of their
working potential, usually despite their parent's advice, in anything they
deem challenging (even in the same management or law as the first group, but
for different reasons).

The last group are peasants. These will either be stepping on their parent's
footsteps (or following anything they are being sold by their entourage
actually), or will feel themselves lost and helpless.

...and I noticed that people change between these groups too.

------
gravypod
The only point of a modern day university is that they are (a) exclusive, and
(b) "guarantee" that students "know" what they are "taught". That's at least
what people who hire think.

I remember someone saying "It wouldn't matter if MIT only taught basket
weaving as long as they still had such a thorough selection process". This
holds true here. People only care about the pedigree of your degree, it's
substance comes second in my experience.

~~~
dhimes
_" guarantee" that students "know" what they are "taught"_

That used to be the case, but now corporations require you to pass their own
exam before they hire you. Let that sink in a moment. No longer are the
universities taken at their word about their product.

For some of you it has never been any different, but this change came about
more or less when I was teaching at university/college. Some of us saw this as
a quite profound change.

In my view, that was the first signal of the beginning of the inevitable
disruption of modern higher ed.

~~~
david927
It's surprising that it's taking so long. The wealthiest have always found
ways to preserve their wealth and Ivy League institutions have played a role
in that. Take some smart people, a lot of people that are good at fitting the
mold that looks best, mix your rich kids in there and call the paint one
color.

Remember, George W. Bush (all politics aside, just looking at him in terms of
intellectual prowess) graduated from Harvard and got his M.B.A from Yale.
That's one easily identifiable example but you can find many. And then you ask
yourself, if you can take a bus that size through a fortress wall, can you
still call it a fortress wall? And then it's clear for what it is --
decoration. Worse: it's signalling, which is the opposite of a meritocracy.

~~~
mietek
What do you _really_ know about George W. Bush?

[http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/](http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/)

~~~
bediger4000
If Bush is that smart, what does that tell us about his questionable decisions
on other things? Why start a war in Iraq based on WMD's that weren't there,
and a government that was not in league with Osama bin Laden? Why start
dragnet surveillance? Why let the CIA torture people? Why do the ridiculous
tax cuts at the same time we're spending big dollar on a war?

If Bush is that smart, he must have good motives for those things, or if not
good motive, hidden motives.

~~~
dnautics
you should really parse the WMD stuff over again. The history on this is as
follows: Post Iran-Iraq war Hussein had a WMD development program, and then
the UN inspections regime came and put several of them "under seal". In the
runup to the Iraq war, the US repeatedly asked where these sealed WMDs were
and Hussein refused to disclose where they were or allow inspectors to see
them, and the US spun that as implying that he COULD use them to supply
terrorists with WMD (technically true, unlikely to actually happen).
Ultimately, after invading the US found them, and they were still "under the
UN seal", unable to be used in any military context.

The US also never argued that there was a direct connection with Bin Laden,
just that Iraq was covertly supporting terrorism. Which is similarly flimsy,
limitedly true, and definitely manipulative of the US public.

So, the Bush administration was incredibly deft at taking minor truths and
spinning them in the public's mind as molehills that justified bigger action.
Not to justify their actions, but in the strictest sense, Iraq did have WMDs,
and Iraq did support terrorists.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
And why did Hussein refuse to disclose where the WMDs where or allow
inspectors to see them? Because he wanted to bluff neighboring countries
(primarily Iran, I believe) into thinking that he had them and would use them
in a pinch. But that bluff ran into the US's desire to control who had WMDs,
with disastrous results.

------
bobby_9x
The current system was created for a reason: because for most people, it
works.

I ran a language learning group for a couple of years and we tried many
different styles of learning.

With no structure, most people flounder. Unless you already learned the
material and just need it for review, it really doesn't work well.

The best was complete structure: tests, lesson plans, and homework. Most
people are passive. They want a teacher to lead them and guide them through
the learning process.

No structure will work with people that have the same discipline required to
start a company, because they don't need someone telling them what to do.

~~~
rndmize
> Most people are passive. They want a teacher to lead them and guide them
> through the learning process.

Bull. Most people have any interest in learning beaten out of them by our
crappy factory/prison like educational system. Because you know what's not
conducive to learning? Having no choice as far as subjects; having no choice
how long you spend on them; having no choice on who to learn from; having no
choice who you learn with.

PG has a classic essay on makers vs managers on scheduling, and he places
emphasis on how for work like programming, getting into the material takes
time. I see no reason this wouldn't apply to learning. How much work would
most developers get done if they had their day broken into 50 minute segments,
five minute transition times, and six different projects they were required to
work on every day with equal consistency?

My mother runs a Montessori preschool. Consistently, the kids that go off to
first grade come back with stories of attending traditional school and
wondering when they get to start doing something instead of sitting at their
desk. Or when they can do something new instead of going through material they
already know with the class. This is not to say Montessori is a perfect system
- but it was actually designed with the education of children in mind, rather
than efficiency from a bureaucratic perspective.

It bothers me greatly when someone blames the nature of people for problems
that are systemic in nature - it feels no different from the ridiculous number
of ADHD diagnoses we have these days, which seems to largely stem from not
giving kids space to be kids.

~~~
jbhatab
I disagree. I think most people need structure. It may be from personal issues
or life issues, but most people need that guidance.

~~~
copperx
Structure and motivation are needed to learn about subjects you are not
passionate about. For those things that make your heart race faster, structure
is a hindrance.

However, to have real mastery of a subject (say, Computer Science), will
require you to suffer through parts of the curriculum that don't seem
interesting.

------
mywittyname
This kind of hippiesque, free-spirit approach sounds fine for MIT-level
students, but I have my doubts that this model can be effective beyond those
highly driven individuals.

Also, while I agree that you don't need a college degree to be a successful
programmer or business person, most other science professions require some
sort of structured learning environment and equipment to effectively teach
students.

Maybe I'm dumb and this professor is onto something. She has a degree in
material sciences, so perhaps she knows first-hand that all the knowledge you
need to learn advanced chemistry can be gained by someone with a garage and
aspirations.

~~~
Alex3917
> I have my doubts that this model can be effective beyond those highly driven
> individuals.

C.f. Punished By Rewards.

------
tanker
I like the idea of project based learning. I think it will end up being a more
lasting method of instruction.

I am interested in how they will still teach the breadth of the subject
matter.

For example, you can get a lot of work done with linear algebra without really
understanding vector spaces.

I assume this method of instruction would require more teacher-student
interaction to be effective. The teacher could review the student progress on
a project and make a note of where the application of a new technique would be
helpful. Guiding the student towards a more complete understanding of a
subject.

~~~
danieltillett
Yes you are right. This sort of teaching is very effective, but very
expensive. The reason we have the current system we do is because it is the
cheapest solution that somewhat works.

~~~
CardenB
Except our current solution has become very expensive. Perhaps we need to move
out of our local maxima of education if people are willing to pay so much.

~~~
danieltillett
You can basically do this now if you really want. There are heaps of adjunct
lecturers who will provide one-on-one or small group tutorials for cash. Wave
a few thousand dollars a term in front of some starving adjunct and you will
get exactly the education you desire.

------
paulojreis
Maybe I'm wrong - and I kind of hope I am, as there's a noble motive behind
this movement - but I always feel that people are focusing too much on IT and
the stories of a guy who became a full-blown IT professional learning by
himself, Google and open courseware.

I think this kind of approach to learning works for IT, because a) the
logistics to learn it are easier to handle; but mostly because b) most IT jobs
actually don't require a degree - or "degree-deserving" knowlege; most
programming is "trade-school"-like knowledge.

~~~
such_a_casual
So all of those people with psychology and business degrees are going into
jobs that require "degree deserving knowledge"? If you're going to say
something special about a particular field, at least compare it to something
else otherwise the statement is meaningless.

~~~
paulojreis
I didn't mean to talk about the field in general. Computer science is, beyond
doubt, "degree deserving knowledge". I just meant that most IT jobs don't
require such knowledge and, in my opinion, would benefit from a more flexible
approach to teaching. Something more trade school-like.

------
matt_wulfeck
We don't need a "new" university system. We need to update our expectation
about higher education and the work force. Let's start but dropping our mantra
that everyone should go to college.

Here's another: Maybe not everyone should even go to high school.

~~~
Pharaoh2
But everyone should go to high school. Hell, if you aren't going to college I
do hope there is an extended high school. I don't care if its taxpayer
sponsored but even high school is not enough to foster a critical thinking
process.

I picked that up somewhere between high school and end of college. Some people
may be faster than me but that skill is really important.

Either that, or you don't get to vote.

Edit: The last statement was more about the ability to think critically and
less about if you finished high school/college.

~~~
such_a_casual
>Either that, or you don't get to vote.

What? Graduating from school (highschool or university) is about learning how
to follow directions and play the game. To say that a degree somehow
guarantees that a person knows how to think critically is ludicrous.

But you're not even making such a modest claim, you're actually claiming that
it is the only way to assure people can think critically (even though it's not
even a valid way to begin with). Some of us can think critically as children.
Do you honestly believe just because you couldn't think critically until you
were an adult, that means that hundreds of millions of people that you've
never met should be forced into the same fruitless, and arbitrary
indoctrination you had to undergo to become adequate in your own eyes?

Are you aware of how absolutely stupid school seems to people who are really,
really smart?
[http://www.lambdassociates.org/blog/bipolar.htm](http://www.lambdassociates.org/blog/bipolar.htm)

~~~
st3v3r
I can't say I've ever been convinced that those who rant against school are
"really, really smart". Mostly they just sound like people who are insecure in
their choices.

~~~
such_a_casual
I'm not talking about people who "rant against school". I also hope that you
realize that my post was not a "rant against school", but a rant against
taking away millions of people's right to vote just because they didn't learn
how to shut up and do what they're told. The people I'm referring to would
likely not rant about school, because they likely wouldn't have graduated or
even attended in the first place. When I see people ranting it is usually
people who have taken on debt via student loans.

------
thorntonbf
It's exciting to see some thought and movement at this level.

The existing system is broken when it comes to actual student knowledge. A lot
of systems are to fault, but as the modern university has bowed to their
corporate overlords in filling the pipeline of modern corporate key punchers,
college has essentially become tech school for Power Point and Excel in a lot
of cases.

So many of our current college students would be so much better served by tech
school.

Heck, so much of this community often ends up eschewing college at large to go
build something - often because the value proposition of the university model
right now simply doesn't make sense.

We're always going to need people who can think - maybe a bifurcated path
where a lot of our university experience returns more to a true liberal arts
education.

This experience-based model wouldn't have been out of place historically. That
it appears so revolutionary to us today shows how broken the current model is.

Something has to change. I'm excited to see some movement around the borders.

------
D3_4dl1N3
The "42" (school) seems very promising, it's a private French computer
programming school created and funded by Xavier Niel.

To apply, there is no degree or diploma requirement, and it's completely free.

The training focuses on project-based learning via a peer-to-peer pedagogy and
allows students to set their own pace for learning.

IMO The 42 school is not research-oriented, but rather emphasizes practical
training suited to the needs of startups.

www.42.fr

------
kania
Sounds quite a bit like a more radical version of Olin College of Engineering
not too far from MIT.

From what I've seen that sort of education is more accepted by industry than
academia so its a good solution for me. Having an expansive portfolio to show
is a very powerful thing.

------
digikata
It would be interesting to compose your own 'major' program out of smaller
granularity subject modules. So e.g. if one were interested in majoring in
robotics, you could assemble a study program of something like basic CS, basic
MechE, basic EE, then stack some other intermediate level subjects modules on
top... Controls, Visual processing, etc...

~~~
kedean
Interesting, but maybe not all that useful. The purpose of a major is to give
others an implicit idea of what you studied. If I say I have a major in
Robotics, then everyone can infer what that consisted of, even if it varies
across universities (in which case that knowledge usually disseminates). What
happens when I say I majored in robotics, but I failed to actually include
anything on the hardware side of it and only really studied AI and control
algorithms?

~~~
digikata
A company hiring someone out of this new kind of university would look at
projects the student worked on as well as their subject modules. But large
projects can get fuzzy as to what the specific contributions might be, and the
subject modules then give you an idea of that candidates background skill
spread. So if the company were looking for someone in robotics for more of the
software side, then it would be apparent from the studied modules that they
might be a good fit.

But more than that, it would give universities a model to continue creating a
range of advanced or specialized subject modules. This would allow students or
employees to come back and pickup new subject modules in a more integrated way
to how the whole university operates.

~~~
st3v3r
Unless it becomes the norm, what's more likely is that they'd just ignore
people from that university unless they had a good reason not to.

------
WalterBright
I wonder how she plans to teach them mathematics. I've yet to see anyone learn
math on the job. The difference between a technician and an engineer is the
latter knows the math.

------
bachmeier
Something that concerns me, unless I missed it, is that there is no mention of
the liberal arts. What is described here is closer to my view of what a
university should be. (I'm in year 14 as a professor.) I think it would be a
huge mistake, though, to not have a liberal arts core.

------
TheMagicHorsey
Sounds like a hacker house. Why call it a university if it doesn't grant
degrees?

~~~
skizm
Honestly it probably makes it more acceptable to the "everyone needs to go to
college" crowd. Trade schools have been around for a while, but for some
reason people think you need a "university degree" to get anywhere. I assume
they are trying to bridge that mental gap by using similar language to that of
traditional colleges / universities.

Also "trade schools" and / or specialty schools rarely have the same social
aspects of a traditional school, which (even if you personally don't value
that) is a big selling point for traditional schools. Maybe they are trying to
capture some of that and mix it with the specialization of a trade school.

All speculation of course, but seems reasonable I think.

~~~
gravypod
Honestly, I wish there were major respected trade schools that taught
CS/Software Engineering/IT/IS. The university environment, in my opinion, is
adverse to the development of good CS knowledge.

Most of us on here, I'd say, have learned through trying and experimentation
and that is why we are fairly good at what we proclaim to do.

University doesn't foster that kind of understanding.

I also hate that currently I need to take 5 physics classes, an accounting
class, a social sciences class, and 3 "study" classes to get my major.

~~~
brodawg
I think you're missing the point here.

Those physics classes will teach you to think about problems abstractly. In my
experience, my knowledge of physics has helped me think about algorithmic
problems significantly. Even if you don't use the physics itself, it's good to
learn.

The accounting might not help you so much for CS, but it could be useful. And
a few liberal arts classes are always good for breadth of education, and
making you realize that you can always pick up a good book and read it, and
that not everything you do has to be so math and science oriented.

Also, for the record, what you would learn at a trade school would be
"programming". What they teach at university is "computer science". There is a
pretty serious distinction, and I don't really believe you can learn computer
science properly without a formal education (even if that comes from self-
studying formal books - but teaching yourself javascript is _not_ computer
science).

~~~
saint_fiasco
>Those physics classes will teach you to think about problems abstractly

So do the classes on computer science and algorithms. The reason universities
choose to teach those things using physics classes instead of logic class or
algorithms class are just historical accidents.

>And a few liberal arts classes are always good for breadth of education, and
making you realize that you can always pick up a good book and read it

You can get that for almost free at a bookstore or a library.

~~~
brodawg
Yes, the traditional courses do teach you that as well - to some extent - but
the point is it's important to see how different fields do it. I think my
classes in algorithms are as useful to my research in physics as my classes in
physics are to my research in algorithms.

------
ohitsdom
I love projects, I hate school. Lots of details to work out (and questions of
scale), but still sounds very promising and exciting. Not sure I understand
the "no majors" bit though.

------
beambot
A one year sabbatical to start a new university, where her long-term
commitment depends on its progress after just one year.

Doesn't inspire much trust to prospective students...

------
st3v3r
Sounds like a cool idea, and I wholeheartedly support attempts to distribute
education so that all can benefit and contribute to the sum of human
knowledge.

However, one of the primary reasons for higher education (for better or for
worse), is to get a job. Currently, most places are going to ask for your
degree, or experience. What's someone coming out of this program going to
have? And how long until most employers accept it?

------
WhatsName
I personally think that's a highly interesting project. Is there any way to
get regular updates on the progress?

------
ajslater
Sounds similar to Hampshire College in western Massachusetts.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampshire_College](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampshire_College)

The College is widely known for its alternative curriculum, socially liberal
politics, focus on portfolios rather than distribution requirements, and
reliance on narrative evaluations instead of grades and GPAs. In some fields,
it is among the top undergraduate institutions in percentage of graduates who
enroll in graduate school. Fifty-six percent of its alumni have at least one
graduate degree and it is ranked 30th among all US colleges in the percentage
of its graduates who go on to attain a doctorate degree (notably first among
history doctorates).

------
BatFastard
Personally I love this idea. If I could send my high junior there I would in a
heartbeat. But I learn by doing. Pattern for me is do, learn, do learn, repeat
until complete. Never cared for the learn learn learn, forget 90%, now do.

------
nurblieh
"I’m looking at a new model, where the whole sort of vocabularity is
different"

Impressive! Creating a new word in the same sentence you declare you'll be
using new words. Assuming I understand her cromulent new word.

------
cylinder
I have had the idea lately that liberal arts universities should be replaced
with a year or two of critical thinking, logic, and emotional intelligence
training.

These are the skills necessary to enter the "modern" economy outside of STEM
and trades, where the most valuable skills are thinking and emotional
intelligence (relationship development and management).

Link up with progressive employers who recognize the value of this training
and are willing to take on young graduates and unleash them on their own
internal domain knowledge for a couple of years.

------
eli_gottlieb
This sounds overly dreamy. At the very least, their new "university" should
bother to award degrees when specific breadth-and-depth levels of knowledge
are adequately demonstrated.

~~~
rubicon33
Do you have an email address I could use to get ahold of you. I have a
question about a post you made a few years back.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
I do think my HN profile lists my email address, but if it doesn't, it's
"$FIRSTNAME$LASTNAME@gmail.com".

------
qwertyuiop924
...So long as she wasn't the one that killed SICP.

------
bhewes
Everything about this sounds like how an university use to work. I for one
will back this idea. Nothing will stop a person from getting a 'real world'
job after completion of the program. But it is clear that the program is not
just specialist training, but geared to moving up the abstraction and
generalization layers.

------
csense
Founding a new university can't be cheap. Who's going to pay for this? Does
she have funding lined up?

------
ludamad
Now project based learning is fine, but CS for example has lots of wonderful
theory, where does that fit in?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
How much of that theory do you have to understand in order to be a competent
professional programmer? Some, sure. The more the better, sure. But much of it
can be learned independent from much of the rest of it - you don't need one
mammoth 4-year curriculum to "master" CS.

~~~
ludamad
I learn a lot faster from the people who teach it well at university, and from
focusing on the subject. But yes if you're goal is to become a competent
programmer it is not strictly necessary.

------
EGreg
I think degrees and accreditation are fine, but the classroom should be
inverted. Universities should be a place for labs, socializing, and individual
tutoring and exploration. Not lecturing. Unless it is just to give a talk that
will later be put online.

------
daveloyall
They are talking about this, right? [http://4pt0.org/programs/startup-weekend-
education/](http://4pt0.org/programs/startup-weekend-education/)

 _EDIT: No, probably not. Different Christine Ortiz..._

------
systems
The only point of a modern day university is socializing

------
joeblau
So... Y Combinator?

------
ausjke
these days you can learn from online and books and forums if you're a self-
driven learner, however the best universities do still provide a place for the
like-mind people to get to know each other, which is important and hard to
replace.

------
manyoso
... "no grades, no teachers, no students, no books, no learning!"

------
known
"You are a product of your environment." \--Clement Stone

