Most active commenters
  • freedomben(4)

←back to thread

896 points tux3 | 29 comments | | HN request time: 1.028s | source | bottom
Show context
jerf ◴[] No.43546861[source]
One of my Core Memories when it comes to science, science education, and education in general was in my high school physics class, where we had to do an experiment to determine the gravitational acceleration of Earth. This was done via the following mechanism: Roll a ball off of a standard classroom table. Use a 1990s wristwatch's stopwatch mechanism to start the clock when the ball rolls of the table. Stop the stopwatch when the ball hits the floor.

Anyone who has ever had a wristwatch of similar tech should know how hard it is to get anything like precision out of those things. It's a millimeter sized button with a millimeter depth of press and could easily need half a second of jabbing at it to get it to trigger. It's for measuring your mile times in minutes, not fractions of a second fall times.

Naturally, our data was total, utter crap. Any sensible analysis would have error bars that, if you treat the problem linearly, would have put 0 and negative numbers within our error bars. I dutifully crunched the numbers and determined that the gravitational constant was something like 6.8m/s^2 and turned it in.

Naturally, I got a failing grade, because that's not particularly close, and no matter how many times you are solemnly assured otherwise, you are never graded on whether you did your best and honestly report what you observe. From grade school on, you are graded on whether or not the grading authority likes the results you got. You might hope that there comes some point in your career where that stops being the case, but as near as I can tell, it literally never does. Right on up to professorships, this is how science really works.

The lesson is taught early and often. It often sort of baffles me when other people are baffled at how often this happens in science, because it more-or-less always happens. Science proceeds despite this, not because of it.

(But jerf, my teacher... Yes, you had a wonderful teacher who didn't only give you an A for the equivalent but called you out in class for your honesty and I dunno, flunked everyone who claimed they got the supposed "correct" answer to three significant digits because that was impossible. There are a few shining lights in the field and I would never dream of denying that. Now tell me how that idealism worked for you going forward the next several years.)

replies(45): >>43546960 #>>43547056 #>>43547079 #>>43547302 #>>43547336 #>>43547355 #>>43547446 #>>43547723 #>>43547735 #>>43547819 #>>43547923 #>>43548145 #>>43548274 #>>43548463 #>>43548511 #>>43548631 #>>43548831 #>>43549160 #>>43549199 #>>43549233 #>>43549287 #>>43549330 #>>43549336 #>>43549418 #>>43549581 #>>43549631 #>>43549681 #>>43549726 #>>43549824 #>>43550069 #>>43550308 #>>43550776 #>>43550923 #>>43551016 #>>43551519 #>>43552066 #>>43552407 #>>43552473 #>>43552498 #>>43553305 #>>43554349 #>>43554595 #>>43555018 #>>43555061 #>>43555827 #
don-code ◴[] No.43548274[source]
This is, more or less, exactly what happened when I took Electronics I in college.

The course was structured in such a way that you could not move on to the next lab assignment until you completed the one before it. You could complete the lab assignments at your own pace. If you failed the lab, you failed the class, regardless of your grade.

The second or third lab had us characterize the response of a transistor in a DIP-8 package, which was provided to us. If you blew it up, you got a slap on the wrist. That DIP-8 was otherwise yours for the class.

I could _never_ get anything resembling linear output out of my transistor. The lab tech was unhelpful, insisting that it must be something with how I had it wired, encouraging me to re-draw my schematic, check my wires, and so on. It could _never_ be the equipment's fault.

Eight (!) weeks into that ten week class, I found the problem: the DIP was not, in fact, just a transistor. It was a 555 timer that had somehow been mixed in with the transistors.

I went and showed the lab technician. He gave me another one. At this point, I had two weeks to complete eight weeks of lab work, which was borderline impossible. So I made an appointment to see the professor, and his suggestion to me was to drop the class and take it again. Which, of course, would've affected my graduation date.

I chose to take a horrible but passing grade in the lab, finished the class with a C- (which was unusual for me), and went on to pretend that the whole thing never happened.

replies(17): >>43548368 #>>43548469 #>>43548484 #>>43548871 #>>43549249 #>>43549256 #>>43549629 #>>43549683 #>>43550176 #>>43550399 #>>43551048 #>>43551251 #>>43551551 #>>43553532 #>>43554766 #>>43554936 #>>43556056 #
1. freedomben ◴[] No.43548469[source]
That is enraging. I've seen similar things happen too and it blows my mind how ridiculous some of these teachers can be. I don't know if it's dehumanization of their students in their minds or an utter unwillingness to devote 30 seconds of directed attention to understanding the situation and making a reasonable judgment, but whatever the cause it is prolific. The only thing worse is when one of them will add something like, "life isn't fair, get over it" when it's fully in their power to make a reasonable determination.
replies(4): >>43548668 #>>43549915 #>>43551108 #>>43554404 #
2. selimthegrim ◴[] No.43548668[source]
Just wait until that teacher is your graduate advisor.
replies(2): >>43548988 #>>43555921 #
3. DiscourseFan ◴[] No.43548988[source]
I hear so many horror stories in the sciences, I have no idea why anyone would pursue an academic career in it.
replies(2): >>43550371 #>>43551539 #
4. int_19h ◴[] No.43549915[source]
It's a general problem with large bureaucracies. If you're a cog in the machine, the safest way is to always stick to the rules, and avoid any situation where one has to exercise discretion, since any personal judgment comes with potential personal responsibility down the line.
replies(2): >>43551693 #>>43555197 #
5. karel-3d ◴[] No.43550371{3}[source]
Well in the industry you have the weekly JIRA humiliation rituals, bad things are everywhere
replies(2): >>43550688 #>>43551816 #
6. ethbr1 ◴[] No.43551108[source]
The flip side of this is from the professor's perspective: some undergrad in every class will lie their ass off about why their assignment was delayed.

Unfortunately, this reality produces no good options if you think someone is telling the truth: (1) make an exception, and be unfair to the rest of the class or (2) don't make an exception, and perpetuate unfairness for the impacted student.

replies(4): >>43551850 #>>43552680 #>>43555192 #>>43559831 #
7. yardie ◴[] No.43551539{3}[source]
At this point it’s the track to get a visa to work and live in the US. I’ve met so many graduate researchers who put up with way more bullshit than I would ever deal with. And why most grad programs are mostly immigrants.
8. gsf_emergency_2 ◴[] No.43551693[source]
It bugs me that oftentimes there appear to be nothing but cogs (e.g. Intel)
9. concordDance ◴[] No.43551816{4}[source]
What's this a reference to? Not familiar with JIRA humiliation rituals.
replies(1): >>43551956 #
10. freedomben ◴[] No.43551850[source]
That's fair, but in this case it should be pretty easy to verify if the person is lying. The claim is highly reproducible and the instructor wouldn't even have to do it.
replies(3): >>43553058 #>>43555493 #>>43555500 #
11. MattSayar ◴[] No.43551956{5}[source]
Scrum/Kanban ceremonies with assigning points to tasks etc. GP is being melodramatic
replies(1): >>43555948 #
12. BeFlatXIII ◴[] No.43552680[source]
Unfairness to the class, if kept under wraps, is a case of no one actually being harmed.
replies(2): >>43553062 #>>43555638 #
13. fn-mote ◴[] No.43553058{3}[source]
It's only "reproducible" if you find other 555's mixed in the shipment but not distributed to students. Depending on what the error rate in the shipment packing is, that might be very easy or it might be quite hard. At any rate, it's a stats problem that the professor is unlikely to want to engage with. Unfortunately.

For the next semester, a good prof would have a QA step or a harnass that turns on a green light if you plug in a working-as-expected package. I can see how the lab assistant job gets plenty to do in a well-run course, and also how unlikely it is to be happening in real life. There aren't enough incentives.

replies(1): >>43558526 #
14. fn-mote ◴[] No.43553062{3}[source]
Translation: scammers get the green light.
replies(1): >>43563477 #
15. AnthonBerg ◴[] No.43554404[source]
Aggression, Social Stress, and the Immune System – Takahashi, Flanigan, McEwen & Russo, 2018

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/behavioral-neuroscience...

“Aggression has an adaptive significance for most animal species and is critical for acquiring and protecting territory, food, reproductive mates, and offspring. In animals with hierarchical societies, aggressive behavior is thought to help individuals gain and maintain higher social status (Box 2). It has been shown that aggressive behavior, especially the experience of winning, has rewarding properties in animals and repeated aggressive experience may lead to compulsive, pathological aggression that is highly reinforcing (Fish et al., 2002; Falkner et al., 2016; Golden et al., 2016, 2017).”

16. pjc50 ◴[] No.43555192[source]
Note that AI provides a whole new range of possibilities for automating lying about assignments.
17. nicbou ◴[] No.43555197[source]
I forgot where I read that large organisations are effectively accountability dilution machines. No one is fully in charge, and everyone gets to say that their hands are tied, that computer says no.

This is the dark side of scale.

replies(1): >>43558285 #
18. ◴[] No.43555493{3}[source]
19. ncruces ◴[] No.43555500{3}[source]
How? What happens when students start buying faulty hardware to justify unrelated delays?
replies(2): >>43558543 #>>43558544 #
20. jnkl ◴[] No.43555638{3}[source]
The problem: it won't stay under the wraps. People talk. Feels shitty when the scammer tells everybody how easy scamming was, when you yourself worked through the night to finish your assignment.
21. aleph_minus_one ◴[] No.43555921[source]
That's why you should select your PhD advisor very carefully.
22. FrontierProject ◴[] No.43555948{6}[source]
I've been redditing for 15 years and until a week ago here on HN, I've never seen the previous commenter reffered to as GP. What is that an acronym for?
replies(1): >>43556782 #
23. jodrellblank ◴[] No.43556782{7}[source]
GrandParent

Parent is the comment you're replying to, GrandParent is the comment above that, OP is the original poster.

24. miki123211 ◴[] No.43558285{3}[source]
THe original version of that idea seems to come from "The Unaccountability Machine: Why Big Systems Make Terrible Decisions - and How The World Lost Its Mind", by Dan Davies (the "Lying for Money" guy.)

There's a shorter interview with him (in podcast form, includes a well-made transcript) going into these ideas at https://www.complexsystemspodcast.com/episodes/dan-davies-or...

25. freedomben ◴[] No.43558526{4}[source]
I suppose, although if the student is able to show the prof with the tools that the chip they have (which based on the story should be visually identical or very similar to the rest of the chips) behaves incorrectly, that test can be repeated many times. It's possible the student could have acquired it elsewhere and is snowing, but even if that's the case the fact that they can do the analysis and show (and waited so long in the class to get there), and have the history of asking for help throughout the course, all add up to pretty powerful evidence IMHO. The prof could even do his own test with the chip if he doubts. It seems hard to believe that one student would intentionally try to "cheat" by making his life much, much harder. It's surely a path of much less resistance to just follow the book.
26. sriram_malhar ◴[] No.43558543{4}[source]
As a teacher, my first rule is, be kind. Sure, there are people who will take advantage of the situation, but they are not really taking advantage of me.

In this case, I'd have a harness that ensures the parts they were given work as advertised, and make it the students' responsibility to report within the first 3 days if it is not working.

27. freedomben ◴[] No.43558544{4}[source]
Yes, although just having the faulty hardware isn't enough. They also have to use the tools to show that it behaves incorrectly, which is surely a lot more work than just following the book would have been. That is the part that is easily reproducible. The student already knows how, so in a few minutes he can set it up in front of the prof and show him. The prof needn't do anything other than watch for a few mins.

If more of these cases crop up then you should get suspicious, but you also need to consider the impact of giving a student the wrong chip and expecting them to succeed! I think Blackstone's Ratio should apply here personally

28. feoren ◴[] No.43559831[source]
Option 3: treat your students like adults as much as possible and be flexible with everyone about how they complete the class as long as they demonstrate that they've done sufficient work and have sufficient mastery of the material. Then you don't need to play arbiter about whether having a child in the hospital is a better excuse than having their backpack stolen, and you don't unfairly favor squeaky wheels over meeker students.
29. BeFlatXIII ◴[] No.43563477{4}[source]
But OP wasn't a scammer.