how did he get 98% on the exam?

[BCEagle91]

<br>

<p>I haven’t. But it should surprise no one that these expert systems are now doing
the heavy lifting in many technical and high-expertise areas. They are the new
generation of Memorizers.</p>

<br>

<p>You seem to spout off opinions about a lot of things that you have no experience nor knowledge of. Your statements above are completely laughable.</p>

[TheMan777]

<p>

Simple. They spend 5-15 minutes the day before the test learning Concepts that others neglect to learn while they are memorizing for hours. The Concepts are the key to Success. </p>

<p>Memorizing is a fool’s errand. I once met an engineering grad student who never memorized Quotient Rule, the pythagorean theorem, the quadratic equation, or the equations for volume of a sphere, cylinder, cube, or rhombus. He simply learned the Concepts, which he was able to apply in order to earn Top Grades.

</p>

<p>I highly disagree. </p>

<p>YES. Understanding concepts is important, but in my experience, understanding how to DO the problem is just as important. Practice makes perfect (in most cases), which is why preparation is so important. Understanding concepts is and has always been important as a first step. Doing the problems themselves is vital and the second step.</p>

<p>Practicing problems is just, if not more important. Thats why people spend hours and hours studying. Not to understand the concepts more, but to practice applying those concepts (that IS what you will get paid to do in the future anyways). How much time you spend is also important, because getting into that “sweet spot” between understanding how to do the problems and not overloading into a psychological breakdown and forgetting everything you just worked hard is just as important.</p>

<p>I really feel that not everyone has the ability to understand concepts at the same rate, but everyone has the ability to practice the problems at the same rate and ability (provided that the concepts are understood). I think thats the difference between the “smart” people and “hard working over achievers”. </p>

<p>The guy who gets the 98 in a very difficult test is able to do so because A. he understands the concepts at a very fast rate and absorbs ALL the material in the lecture as it comes to him (the easy way and rare gift from your DNA) or B. He works hard and prepares to make sure he understand everything as it comes to him.</p>

[justtotalk]

<p>

Your statements above are completely laughable.

</p>

<p>My work here is done.</p>

[Whistleblower1]

<p>

@justtotalk

Like I’ve said before, Conceptual Understanding can not be gained within a semester. Thus, you could not actually Understand all the material necessary in the allotted time, and you could not Memorize all the material without predicting the test.

</p>

<p>Bollocks! It is memorization, not Conceptual Understanding, that is the more time-consuming alternative! An intelligent student cant learn most Concepts in 5-15 minutes apiece. Unless you’re learning over, say, 500,000 Concepts a semester, then it isn’t a tall order to learn all of the concepts. </p>

<p>Conceptual learning has heralded a new era in higher education. Studies show that today’s college students study a mere 14 hours a week while earning stronger GPAs than their 1960s counterparts who studied 30 hours a week. It is clear that Conceptual learning has been the Engine of success of students in the last 40 years. Sounds like you’re just a bitter middle-aged nobody who’s led a mediocre life due to not having the advantages of being brought up in an era of Conceptualization. Grow up.</p>

<p>

@TheMan777

I highly disagree. </p>

<p>YES. Understanding concepts is important, but in my experience, understanding how to DO the problem is just as important. Practice makes perfect (in most cases), which is why preparation is so important. Understanding concepts is and has always been important as a first step. Doing the problems themselves is vital and the second step.</p>

<p>Practicing problems is just, if not more important. Thats why people spend hours and hours studying. Not to understand the concepts more, but to practice applying those concepts (that IS what you will get paid to do in the future anyways). How much time you spend is also important, because getting into that “sweet spot” between understanding how to do the problems and not overloading into a psychological breakdown and forgetting everything you just worked hard is just as important.</p>

<p>I really feel that not everyone has the ability to understand concepts at the same rate, but everyone has the ability to practice the problems at the same rate and ability (provided that the concepts are understood). I think thats the difference between the “smart” people and “hard working over achievers”. </p>

<p>The guy who gets the 98 in a very difficult test is able to do so because A. he understands the concepts at a very fast rate and absorbs ALL the material in the lecture as it comes to him (the easy way and rare gift from your DNA) or B. He works hard and prepares to make sure he understand everything as it comes to him.

</p>

<p>I suppose that practicing problem sets over and over again, repeatedly, would help one to memorize the necessary steps. However this is simply far more time-consuming than learning the Concepts. Learning the Concept of Quotient Rule takes 5 minutes. Doing every problem in the book takes hours, and is a poor surrogate for Conceptual Learning and a crutch for a lack of Understanding what Quotient Rule is and how to apply it. Which strategy do you think is ideal in this era of Time Management?</p>

[albert92]

<p>Nice to know that there’s 5 pages of information describing how someone got a 98% on a test; you guys are elaborate.</p>

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>

i’ve never taken a college history course, but i’m pretty sure that college history courses are about analysis of history, not about whether you can namedrop all of the roman emperors or whatever.

</p>

<p>Funny you should mention this. My brother’s taking a Roman History course right now, and apparently it is actually quite fact-oriented, since there isn’t enough known to do the typical level of analysis. The history of science class I took, on the other hand, was much more concept oriented than Intro Chem, which even had open book exams.</p>

<p>

I worked on AI back in the 80s when there was so much promise. It’s decades later and things are a little better but very few people understand what AI is and what it can potentially do.</p>

<p>Have you ever written an expert system? Such an exercise can demonstrate that understanding models of human thought is a very hard problem.

</p>

<p>The professor for the programming class class I’m taking does work in AI. He said that just going by Moore’s law, computers would be able to model a human brain by around 2035.</p>

<p>

Learning the Concept of Quotient Rule takes 5 minutes. Doing every problem in the book takes hours, and is a poor surrogate for Conceptual Learning and a crutch for a lack of Understanding what Quotient Rule is and how to apply it.

</p>

<p>The quotient rule is just a marginally useful shortcut, not some deep concept. It’s only useful if you bothered to memorize it, otherwise there are faster ways of solving the problem.</p>

[BCEagle91]

<br>

<p>The professor for the programming class class I’m taking does work in AI. He said
that just going by Moore’s law, computers would be able to model a human brain
by around 2035. </p>

<br>

<p>We do AI work where I work.</p>

<p>If you throw out a late enough date, you won’t be around in case your predictions don’t come true. I recommend reading about the Fifth Generation Project. History does repeat. Or rhymes.</p>

[Sithis]

<p>

The professor for the programming class class I’m taking does work in AI. He said
that just going by Moore’s law, computers would be able to model a human brain
by around 2035.

</p>

<p>Doesn’t Moore’s law have to do with the number of transistors on a chip/“processing power”? I think the problem with AI probably has more to do with design.</p>

<p>EDIT: memristors do look interesting though.</p>

[JanofLeiden]

<p>“My brother’s taking a Roman History course right now, and apparently it is actually quite fact-oriented, since there isn’t enough known to do the typical level of analysis.”</p>

<p>Maybe your brother’s course is “fact-oriented,” but that certainly isn’t because “there isn’t enough known.” Do you think historians of antiquity just sit around and memorize Plutarch?</p>

<p>Facts are obviously essential to history, but they’re merely the means to an end. Facts without context, analysis, and interpretation are nothing more than trivia.</p>

[justtotalk]

<p>

Sounds like you’re just a bitter middle-aged nobody who’s led a mediocre life due to not having the advantages of being brought up in an era of Conceptualization. Grow up.

</p>

<p>lol. 10 char</p>

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>

Doesn’t Moore’s law have to do with the number of transistors on a chip/“processing power”? I think the problem with AI probably has more to do with design.

</p>

<p>Now that I remember it, I think he was referring more to computing it in real time.</p>

<p>

If you throw out a late enough date, you won’t be around in case your predictions don’t come true.

</p>

<p>He’s pretty young, so he’ll be around for a while longer. I think it’s more a matter of optimism than arrogance.</p>

[silence_kit]

<p>

I really do believe it’s arrogant to think of memorization as a lower-level type of learning that is beneath you. Retaining reams of information is a skill. “Spewing” that information back out in an orderly and efficient fashion is a greater skill. We should be trying to understand how people memorize effectively instead of bashing them for doing so. It would help us sift through and understand the way-too-large-load of information we capture these days.

</p>

<p>Sorry, but memorizing a tonne of facts in lieu of actually understanding the relationships between those facts is a worse way of learning.</p>

<p>Actually nowadays being able to recall bullcrap is probably less important now that we have computers that we can look facts up on and help us keep track of stuff.</p>

[Lonesin]

<p>Generally the people who get the higher grades are just smarter. They aren’t picking one style of learning. They understand concepts easily and have no issue memorizing the results of those concepts. There are obviously exceptions, but this is the most general case. Many of you will want to deny that success (in this case, success being defined as performing well in school) can be dramatically dependent on an innately higher intellectual threshold, but this is your bias and not the result of any logical conclusions.</p>

[Prothero]

<p>I disagree 200% lonesin. Grades can be affected by a number of factors- motivation, effort, time allocation, physical and mental health, family issues, socio-economical status, teacher subjectivity, curves, and rigor.</p>

<p>I have the firm belief if you are born into a happy middle class non-minority family, you can earn straight A’s if you put in the dedication and have the motivation.</p>

<p>Generally if you put in more time your grades will rise. This suggests grades don’t have much to do with anything innate.</p>

<p>Let’s not forget, Einstein was a slow learner and didn’t do very well in school.</p>

<p>

Sorry, but memorizing a tonne of facts in lieu of actually understanding the relationships between those facts is a worse way of learning.

</p>

<p>It might be worse, but I don’t think anyone can deny there are many many kids who memorize everything the day before a test, and have the general attitude of bsing their way through school in order to get to the next stage in life.</p>

[Lonesin]

<p>I’m not talking about the average case. I’m talking about the top cases. The people who perform better than the other 99% of the student body. When I say general case, I am referring to the general case of the previously mentioned more selective case.</p>

<p>I’m not even going to address than Einstein comment, although I suppose I just did.</p>

[lemone]

<p>This is college, not high school</p>

[Prothero]

<p>

There are obviously exceptions, but this is the most general case

</p>

<p>

I’m not talking about the average case. I’m talking about the top cases.

</p>

<p>Correct me if I am wrong.</p>

[silence_kit]

<p>

Let’s not forget, Einstein was a slow learner and didn’t do very well in school.

</p>

<p>while i appreciate the point that you are trying to make, einstein did pretty well in school. he had trouble early on with speech but other than that he was a good student.</p>

[Lonesin]

<p>I don’t know what you mean by “correct me if I’m wrong”. My first post had some ambiguity, however I was addressing the original topic, which was students who consistently get near perfect grades. My second post clarified the intended definitions anyways. So I don’t know what you’re trying to point out.</p>

[Prothero]

<p>

while i appreciate the point that you are trying to make, einstein did pretty well in school. he had trouble early on with speech but other than that he was a good student.

</p>

<p>Not from what I have been reading.</p>

<p>To a child like Albert, school could only be pedestrian, intimidating and alien. He loathed the ‘dull, mechanical method of teaching’; he didn’t fit in, he didn’t work, and was thought ‘precocious and insolent’</p>

<p>The Encyclopedia Britannica says of Einstein’s early education that he “showed little scholastic ability.” It also says that at the age of 15, “with poor grades in history, geography, and languages, he left school with no diploma.” Einstein himself wrote in a school paper of his “lack of imagination and practical ability.” In 1895, Einstein failed a simple entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich. This exam consisted mainly of mathematical problems, and Einstein showed himself to be mathematically inept in this exam. He then entered a lesser school hoping to use it as a stepping stone to the engineering school he could not get into, but after graduating in 1900, he still could not get a position at the engineering school! Unable to go to the school he wanted, he got a job at the patent office in Bern.</p>

<p>

I don’t know what you mean by “correct me if I’m wrong”. My first post had some ambiguity, however I was addressing the original topic, which was students who consistently get near perfect grades. My second post clarified the intended definitions anyways. So I don’t know what you’re trying to point out.

</p>

<p>I still don’t think you can make this argument- the reason one gets perfect grades is because they are smart. While I do think the population of Harvard students have a slightly higher ability threshold than the general population, this could very well be a correlation and not causation. There are too many examples of brilliant people who didn’t do well in school or dropped out to make your case.</p>