akshayxyz Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 I will answer all your questions - one by one. Lets look at this. So' date= analytical ability in Physics and Chemistry is good indicator to judge whether a person would be Computer Scientist ? This is some Najafgarh Logic here. . Najafhgarh logic, my friend, is right up here - in quoted text. I would trust a Physics Olympiad medalist over someone who scored 100/100 in CBSE "computer programming" subject - to be a successful computer scientist (!=programmer), if he chooses to.
Crookbond Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 ^ It's your personal preference. You didn't quite get my point btw. People can be successful either ways. Since, people were going gaga on how PCM is the "correct" way I just showed how there's no correlation. However, I agree to your point on each institute/department setting their own terms.
akshayxyz Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 ^ It's your personal preference. You didn't quite get my point btw. whatever your point was - it was absurd to say that a bright PCM student can't be a good candidate to study computer science or such field - analytical/logical/quant aptitude required to succeed in these fields is quite close...In current Indian X-XII education system, I do not see any other parameters to evaluate students on - for engineering/science college entrance. And good analytical problem solving ability in any of these supersedes over MCQ solving ability in any other. Of course, if one wants to consider Olympiad kind of achievements - they should. But, most of Olympiad candidates already make it to IITs easily - or have already made their choices. People can be successful either ways. Since, people were going gaga on how PCM is the "correct" way I just showed how there's no correlation. However, I agree to your point on each institute/department setting their own terms. And yet you don't like IITs wanting to have own selection process? Some of the professors have been there for at least a decade or two and have seen the JEE and student-intake quantity/quality change (for better or worse -is not the point) - so, I would let them have their say in whether they want subjective test or not. And enforcing that forumla of XII marks + single common aptitude test - is definitely not the better alternative. As for being successful - No college/entrance exam guarantee success in later life. No exam/entrance failure excludes it. Purpose of these tests is to give these colleges a good sample of potential good students - with relatively high level of confidence.
Crookbond Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 whatever your point was - it was absurd to say that a bright PCM student can't be a good candidate to study computer science or such field - analytical/logical/quant aptitude required to succeed in these fields is quite close...In current Indian X-XII education system, I do not see any other parameters to evaluate students on - for engineering/science college entrance. And good analytical problem solving ability in any of these supersedes over MCQ solving ability in any other. Of course, if one wants to consider Olympiad kind of achievements - they should. But, most of Olympiad candidates already make it to IITs easily - or have already made their choices. Whatever you said above, is your personal observation. You can't generalize. In fact, I can pick you up on the very fact that different engineering streams should require different sets of exams. But again, as I said it's not the point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation And yet you don't like IITs wanting to have own selection process? Some of the professors have been there for at least a decade or two and have seen the JEE and student-intake quantity/quality change (for better or worse -is not the point) - so, I would let them have their say in whether they want subjective test or not. And enforcing that forumla of XII marks + single common aptitude test - is definitely not the better alternative. As for being successful - No college/entrance exam guarantee success in later life. No exam/entrance failure excludes it. Purpose of these tests is to give these colleges a good sample of potential good students - with relatively high level of confidence. I want them to have their own "independent" selection process. I was merely pointing that when it comes to "selection" IITs always cry but on other important matters they sleep to glory because it doesn't affect the IITs. Now, these things don't come to light because they are done in private but interacting with IITs (which I regularly do) makes you understand them. I am just exposing the hypocritical attitude which some of the IIT alumni, students and professors have that's all.
akshayxyz Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 Whatever you said above, is your personal observation. You can't generalize. In fact, I can pick you up on the very fact that different engineering streams should require different sets of exams. But again, as I said it's not the point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation . abey dhakkan, which part of speech I used, suggests I am talking about causation? All I said - from whatever I have seen in real life - top class analytical ability in either (or all) Physics/Maths/Chemistry - judged based on Indian X-XII education system - have all been closely related. There have been far more instances of bright students doing well in all of them, than otherwise. Also, IIT ( and all other engineering institutes) have used same PCM criteria for decades - top ones have always went on to select CS/EE - and have done very well - barring few exceptions (who lost interest/motivation, or were from quotas and not sincere enough to take advantage of opportunity). Colleges who used to test subjective skills as selection criteria - likes of Roorkee and IITs - always got better share of quality students These very same - XII-PCM filtered - good for nothing (in research) - IIT BTechs are doing some quality work in conducive environments, like that of US/Europe-univs/Google/IBM/MS etc.. And same applies to other PCM filtered bright students from (any)other colleges.
akshayxyz Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 @mcenley If you are still wondering what is common between skills required to solve analytical problems in PCM, and which are common with CS. PCM are all proper branches of science, with collection of facts/proofs and follow scientific process. Solving analytic problems in all these require lengthy symbolic manipulations based on existing facts/rules, using logical process. It is as simple as that. Which is why at Higher secondary level, students are usually comfortable with all of these three together - more often than not. MCQs test only recollecting few formulae/templates and quickly applying to a problem statement - which is only a small subset of skills required to solve longer analytical problems. Abstract/pure maths has to have biggest collection of interconnected symbols/rules/theorems/proofs, with limited visualizations - and hence is most difficult to master. As it requires long hours of focus to continue manipulating symbols towards a solution, while referring to existing huge db. and margin of error in pure math has to be least, and on the other hand there are many many different ways to arrive at a given solution. Lot of if-then-else and backtracking is involved. Most of the oldie top computer scientists have been Maths majors. In fact, it is only recently that CS has developed into specialized field. As for examples of someone good at physics/chemistry - doing well in CS - well there will be less examples because they continued working in Physics/chemistry, and not because they were not capable of or lacked some special CS skills. Even then, look around, I am sure you can find few examples of some one with Physics major changing over to CS and doing well.
Crookbond Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 You are again making the same Correlation - Causation fallacy. The reason why PCM has worked for the IIT JEEs due to very low selection rates. I have already said earlier that Mathematics can be a good indicator but definitely not Physics and Chemistry. In fact, I would argue that Physics & Chemistry aren't even a pre-requisite for Computer Science. In addition, you are making an assumption that I want MCQ test on PCM - I don't think I ever said that. Finally, The state of research in the IITs is shoddy to say the least. I am not sure how you equate it to "quality work". There's just 1 or 2 groups (5-6 professors) in all the IITs which do great work and have good publications in good tier conferences.
punjabi_khota Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Mcenly have you studied physics at a serious level ? Just curious
Crookbond Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 NO, but here's what I "have" done. I have studied Computer Science (notice I said CS not engineering) at the level which is sufficient enough to put me with the most highest degree one can get. I am deeply involved in various fields of CS and I just don't want to use that as a means of over riding any argument. I don't want to be high handed in brandishing my educational qualifications and saying "Hey, I have done this and hence, listen to me". I am willing to accomodate various opinions as a normal person down the street. I am not throwing jargon. "WE" (I can't reveal exactly and I didn't want to say this but now have to) have extensively studied the requirements of any IT/CS degree and what is actually required to make a successful CS/IT professional. Physics and Chemistry featured lower than - languages & arts - on studies we performed amongst more than 1 Lakh students in India. This is not to say Physics & Chemistry doesn't help and this is neither to say that people with good knowledge of Physics & Chemistry won't become successful CS/IT engineers. However, elementary knowledge of Physics & Chemistry is more than just sufficient and hence it is not a pre-requisite. Mathematics clearly is and in fact the most required for a CS degree. As I have mentioned repeatedly earlier, I support different engineering departments to have different entrance tests as there's no "one size fits all"
punjabi_khota Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Is this study published anywhere ? source ? And do you actually think when people talk about testing on PCM, it is actually the knowledge part they are talking about ? Knowledge of physics is absolutely INESSENTIAL for a CS aspirant, but what you are testing is how well he/she can apply simple principles to solve complex problems. Physics gives a great testing ground for that. Talking about knowledge, hell calculus is not required in any part of IIT CS curriculum. Would you not test them on calculus then, in JEE ? So my point being, it is not the knowledge per se, but more of application of that knowledge. Different departments using separate criteria is not feasible, so I am not going to go there.
Crookbond Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 PK - Publishing isn't in my hands, so you will have to live with my words. But, I understand why you ask for authenticity and you can discount that argument. I get what you try to say but here's the point - Application of knowledge changes across subjects. It's not that if you're good at applying knowledge in Physics you would be good at Maths. We all have some in-born genius talents which aren't always manifested by applying knowledge in Physics, Chemistry and Maths. Btw - if application of knowledge is the point I would rather test using language which is a very good indicator to learn a programming language. Calculus is required in various parts of a CS/IT curriculum. But, I would still not test them on calculus in JEE. The issue here I have is not with - "Application of Knowledge is important". I definitely agree that it's important. I am more concerned with the thought process of equating application of Physics and Chemistry knowledge problems to engineering disciplines. There's more to it than just that. You need to go down to the common denominator and make it a sensible test. The JEE (definitely not in the current objective format) is a good indicator of person's fit to an engineering degree (at least for a CS/IT degree).
CG Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 PK - Publishing isn't in my hands, so you will have to live with my words. But, I understand why you ask for authenticity and you can discount that argument. I get what you try to say but here's the point - Application of knowledge changes across subjects. It's not that if you're good at applying knowledge in Physics you would be good at Maths. We all have some in-born genius talents which aren't always manifested by applying knowledge in Physics, Chemistry and Maths. Btw - if application of knowledge is the point I would rather test using language which is a very good indicator to learn a programming language. Calculus is required in various parts of a CS/IT curriculum. But, I would still not test them on calculus in JEE. The issue here I have is not with - "Application of Knowledge is important". I definitely agree that it's important. I am more concerned with the thought process of equating application of Physics and Chemistry knowledge problems to engineering disciplines. There's more to it than just that. You need to go down to the common denominator and make it a sensible test. The JEE (definitely not in the current objective format) is a good indicator of person's fit to an engineering degree (at least for a CS/IT degree). Application of Knowledge is important I am currently doing my btech in cse and we had to give three diff exams one for state jee,aieee,private colleges exams,iits.The objective questions do carry negative marks but still it does depend on luck,I have seen students who have failed in exams get good ranks in jee,Many confess they just went for fun off it.Also i have pcm geology in +2 ,I can say that for 1 st year the course is not much diff to +2 except the programming in c and data structure ,But from 2nd year we get course specific.I do not think my learning in pcm which in our system is pretty basic helped in those subjects.
adi B Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 Application of Knowledge is important I am currently doing my btech in cse and we had to give three diff exams one for state jee,aieee,private colleges exams,iits.The objective questions do carry negative marks but still it does depend on luck,I have seen students who have failed in exams get good ranks in jee,Many confess they just went for fun off it.Also i have pcm geology in +2 ,I can say that for 1 st year the course is not much diff to +2 except the programming in c and data structure ,But from 2nd year we get course specific.I do not think my learning in pcm which in our system is pretty basic helped in those subjects. am doing b.tech in electricals, i love physics nd maths, but donno where maths or chemistry will be needed enormously in my field...pcm shouldnt be the only criterion in entrance exam, ,gs nd aptitude should also be present
punjabi_khota Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 am doing b.tech in electricals' date= i love physics nd maths, but donno where maths or chemistry will be needed enormously in my field...pcm shouldnt be the only criterion in entrance exam, ,gs nd aptitude should also be present
Crookbond Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 IIT-CET row: Compromise formula reached According to reports, all IITs have agreed to the new formula that has ended the row. In the new formula, two exams, main and advanced tests will be held. The IITs would conduct an advance test in which top 1.5 lakh students from the CET would sit. This advance test would be held on a date different from the CET.
akshayxyz Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 You are again making the same Correlation - Causation fallacy. The reason why PCM has worked for the IIT JEEs due to very low selection rates. I have already said earlier that Mathematics can be a good indicator but definitely not Physics and Chemistry. In fact, I would argue that Physics & Chemistry aren't even a pre-requisite for Computer Science. In addition, you are making an assumption that I want MCQ test on PCM - I don't think I ever said that. Finally, The state of research in the IITs is shoddy to say the least. I am not sure how you equate it to "quality work". There's just 1 or 2 groups (5-6 professors) in all the IITs which do great work and have good publications in good tier conferences. I am not asserting any causation. I am not introducing any fallacy. You are failing to see the abstraction/connection between PCM. As PK also said below. Is this study published anywhere ? source ? And do you actually think when people talk about testing on PCM' date=' it is actually the knowledge part they are talking about ? [b']Knowledge of physics is absolutely INESSENTIAL for a CS aspirant, but what you are testing is how well he/she can apply simple principles to solve complex problems. Physics gives a great testing ground for that. Talking about knowledge, hell calculus is not required in any part of IIT CS curriculum. Would you not test them on calculus then, in JEE ? So my point being, it is not the knowledge per se, but more of application of that knowledge. Different departments using separate criteria is not feasible, so I am not going to go there. Once again I repeat - when you are selecting candidates for Bachelors level studies - lets say for CS. They are not testing your experience, extent of knowledge in CS/Maths. PCM ( and all forms of sciences) has this common abstraction layer - you have given set of established facts, rules and language/symbols/grammar - you have to work within them to explore new stuff, solve problems - using logic, backtracking, perseverance. Physics is almost same as Maths, and Chemistry is also not too different. I would go as far as saying that - a XII level student who has done something significant at international level in Chemistry - or lets say is capable of solving chemistry problems beyond his age (lets say Bachelors Final year) - will do well in CS, if he chooses to. And even stronger case for someone talented in Physics.
akshayxyz Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 So, in terms of logical problem solving.. I would say Maths~CS~Physics ~~~Chemistry..........Biology/Medicine, even though also logic/facts/rules based science, goes a bit too far from Maths/Physics/CS style of problem solving..
akshayxyz Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 Lets take some example. http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01-physics-i-classical-mechanics-fall-1999/ Look at the exam papers, and tell me if you still feel that someone who is supposed to solve that, can not do math/CS. And that is only UG level first year course. Level and type of Maths required in Chemistry is little less, but it still is logical problem solving. Have a look at some sample subject. http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/chemistry/5-60-thermodynamics-kinetics-spring-2008/ And anyway, we were talking about entry requirements/test for UG level. And everyone knows what is required for UG CS.. just SAT level of Maths. Look at what MIT says for UG entrees for CS. http://www.eecs.mit.edu/academics-admissions/undergraduate-programs/prospective-students-faqs How do I get admitted to MIT? MIT Admissions can tell you everything you need to know about undergraduate admissions at MIT. Departments do not participate in undergraduate admissions and do NOT make specific recommendations to the Admissions Officers. There are no departmental entrance requirements for admitted MIT freshmen.
akshayxyz Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 http://www.cmu.edu/admission/forms/2012/apply_freshman12.pdf Looks like CMU also has lost it. Its high time Mcenley publishes his research on "how to select prospectivs CS UG - 101"
Recommended Posts