Sure--can you email me at my website, I don't really check my YouTube account messages. personal .at. scotthyoung .dot. com
I think I understand your stance, but I disagree with it. Innovation is a different skill from learning something already discovered. Most of learning is not innovation, and indeed innovation depends crucially on huge volumes of the learning that isn't innovation. PhD's don't start their mathematics careers by reinventing calculus, they do it by understanding what has already been discovered and building on that until they get to the bleeding edge of our current knowledge.
MIT's goal for its students is to have them be knowledgeable about all areas of science to a basic level. So the general requirements for any MIT degree are to do physics, biology, chemistry and calculus.
- Both of those were major topics in the course. The actual assignments involved using those techniques to build a robot, so I created a different project to work on those ideas. Everything is done in Python.
- MIT's OCW class on Calculus is comprehensive and includes solid video lectures--so I recommend that as a starting point. If you get stuck on any of the explanations, Khan Academy and PatrickJMT are also exhaustive. (check out the links in the description)
- I've managed to make some changes to my routine to make it a bit more productive, so I'm typically working 7:30-6:00. Perfect consistency was more important in the beginning, but now that I've gotten accustomed to the pace, I'm less rigorous and more flexible.
@hotelroomsmoker - The truth is I already have the career I want as a writer, and I have no real desire to work either in academia or for a large corporation in the future. That said, not having a degree isn't necessarily a waste, particularly in computer programming (related, but not the same as comp sci) where self-taught coders with strong portfolios can have solid careers without formal credentials.
- Definitely. But you can create that structure of accountability as well. By organizing it as a challenge, setting milestones and being public motivation is easier. But, my advice was equally directed towards students who aren't self-educating--liking a subject is the first step to finding motivation to learn it.
- Well it's an experiment, using MIT as a benchmark. There will undoubtedly be drawbacks from pursuing my approach, but there are major advantages too (namely that I'm doing it in 25% of the time and at 1% of the financial cost). I think a lot of the MIT students' criticism raise good points about those drawbacks, which I've already been adjusting to compensate, but they hardly invalidate the entire experiment.
- I have two graduate courses coming up in the program, so I'll let you know when I get to them. Also, the passing rate is 50% just as it is for most university programs (my lowest grade thus far has been a 60% and I've scored a few in the 85%+ range).
- Yeah, it's not in OCW right now. There's some non-OCW ones you can access by searching "Stellar MIT 6" and then looking for version of 6.02 which have public access listed (unfortunately YouTube won't allow me to post links). When I complete the class, the materials will be accessible from the challenge homepage.
- I have MIT's official solutions, which, thus far, have been enough to get my grade. Perhaps as I get into more complex classes which have many correct answers I'll pay a CS TA or PhD student to doublecheck my results.
- I was under the impression QEC is mostly for reviewing, and then, mostly for non-technical classes which revolve around big ideas. But, yes, I think the two styles could be merged.