See interesting course

>see interesting course
>click details
>see this

what do?

Other urls found in this thread:

english.stackexchange.com/questions/132564/why-are-academic-articles-journals-papers-so-hard-to-understand
theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/10/complex-academic-writing/412255/
newyorker.com/books/page-turner/why-is-academic-writing-so-academic
myredditnudes.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>NYU Polytech

Find a video of them speaking. If their English is good, go for it

Most indian CS professors in the US either went to top-tier undergrads here or went to an IIT, both of which are insanely selective. And then they probably went to a top tier CS grad school too, which is also quite selective as an indian male. So if they speak good English they're probably going to be a good professor

Some of my best CS professors have been Indian

Call thr den and says that you dont pay university to be taught by indians

you can either bitch about adversity and hardship like a SJW or you can quietly take the course, ace it, and succeed in spite of all the stupid shit that happens (like a pajeet stumbling through lectures). you know, like white men did before faggots like you showed up.

Pretty sure it's the low quality students who make NYU Poly shit.

Is it shitty? I honestly don't know

If you can pronounce his name right you should probably get a diploma right away

Ask him to rap for you.

>Hotness
What

>Hotness rating

I'm amazed there are college students who don't use this website. No, seriously, it's beyond amazing. You can literally be the dumbest sack of shit on the planet, and use this site to pick out instructors who are known to grade extremely leniently in order to pass. I remember my Discrete Math class in college being stupidly difficult, involving a ten page essay and another ten minute presentation in order to pass. Worked my ass off to get only a B, then I see dumbfuck kids go to a community college over the summer and pass the class with an A because the instructor would literally hand out past exams he's given that were nearly identical to the ones he actually gave out on test day.

if it's the site i'm thinking, then
1) they redesigned significantly in like 15 years, and
2) it's also used for high schools and shit, and sometimes people are interested in this shit.

from a purely functional perspective, a lot of this data is meaningless. if you have to take certain courses (and especially if you have to take it in a certain or somewhat constrained order), you really don't have enough flexibility to shop around using all of these dimensions. you can really only use it to brace yourself for what will likely be an easy or hard course, or a course with an understandable or incomprehensible professor, etc...

so all of this is just navel-gazing, and hotness is just more weird than a difficulty rating because it stands out more as being useless (but honestly, both are).

You've never had an instructor with an ass you wanted to do things to? (besides kick)

Either way, that icon is colored in if people rated them as attractive. Else it's gray.

this is pretty much how I passed 2 math courses and 1 statistics course

i go to a private university (one of the top 10 in the world), so you'd think there's plenty of funding to run myriad instances of the same courses and shit.

barely. you can choose to take a class this year or next year, but you can only kick a can down the road so many times, and at the expense of other plans. if you're planning on taking CS 161 next year because Guibas is teaching it this year and he's incredibly hard, then you have to find something else to take this year. and you only have so many things to switch around before you're looking at courses that rely on 161 for you to get it. yes, you can ignore the prerequisites, but that's not a great idea.

i've been to a public university for my undergrad and shit's a million times worse there. i don't know how i got out with 2 bachelors' degrees on time, because i know people a year or two below me who somehow found themselves staying for a 5th year because they couldn't even get a course they needed (to say nothing of being able to shop around).

>hasn't even started the course
>assumes he already knows more than his professors
Prove yourself first, then you get to talk shit.

>P. N. Rao
>not P. N. Loo
So close

he might be commenting on the professor being incomprehensible, but that's an incredibly lazy reason not to take a class. if you want to see a tough lecture, listen to some of Jure Leskovec's lectures. brilliant person who practically wrote the book on large scale network analysis (nodes and edges, not TCP/IP), but his slovenian accent is so thick i found myself having to pay noticeably more attention to parse his words.

this shit is everywhere. if you're going to wait for white native-born professors to teach all of your courses, you're going to be hanging out for a while.

Look up his credentials and publications. Make a mature, informed, adult decision based upon reality.

Or be retarded and spend the rest of your life jerking off on Sup Forums.

Trust me if he is able to speak good English he is going to be the best. Indians may not get the best reputation but they do get to the point than make it boring.

>his slovenian accent is so thick
I believe ya
we slavs will always have a problem with speaking english, unless ofcourse you take a some course or something to fix the accent

>Look up his credentials and publications. Make a mature, informed, adult decision based upon reality.
i'm a grad student and this is a terrible idea. research output and teaching competence are not correlated at all. look at reviews of professors and courses, talk to upperclassmen who've taken the course, and maybe even stop in at office hours to talk to them for a few minutes. these are all much, much better indicators of whether a professor will do a good job teaching.

i appreciate that it *seems* like someone who publishes high impact work quite often would be a good teacher because they know what they're talking about, but you don't need to be the most brilliant person in your field to be sufficiently competent to teach a hall full of undergrads some lower (or even upper) division material. a firm grasp on the existing body of work is qualitatively different from a strong publication record.

the best instructor my university has for introductory CS courses is a lecturer. not a tenured/associate/assistant/adjunct professor. he has a BS and an MS and that's it. our department realized not to correlate prestige with teaching requirements (that is, having an extremely prodigious researcher teaching entry level courses) because they realized it's better not to fuck up 400 students' education because you thought it important for an 80 year old genius with poor communication skills satisfy his teaching quota for the year. this flies in the face of the assumption that the most well-published researcher should teach your courses. he should be your advisor and he should certainly be accessible to that end, but we shouldn't waste his time making him teach classes.

So, you're incapable of understanding and evaluating what he has published.

Don't lecture me on professors at a university, son. I've taught comp sci longer than you've been a student.

The real problem here is that you're an asshole that can't into doing your own work. You've already failed and you're too stupid to realize it.

Sup Forums is calling, you will never be anything more.

yep. and the thing is he's inconceivably smart. like it's just insane. and sure, his accent is super thick, but his presentation skills are (otherwise) excellent. writing him off because of his accent would be a career-altering error in judgment. as in if you chose not to take his courses, there's literally nobody else on his level in his research area (at least not at stanford).

Take a look at this illiterate ignoramus complaining about Indians.

>research output and teaching competence are not correlated at all.
FUCKING THIS
When i was a first year i made the mistake of selecting all the professors with highest qualifications

happened with one of my maths courses this year. Professor was a great guy, just sounded like he forgot to switch from chinese to english when lecturing

>So, you're incapable of understanding and evaluating what he has published.
that's not what i'm saying at all. i'm saying that writing a groundbreaking paper and giving a talk (especially on an introductory topic) are two fundamentally different things.

the paper might be well-written, but the assumption that a leading researcher can pop back out to the level an 18-year-old needs in order to understand the fundamentals of computer science falls for the same plato describes in The Apology (where the expert craftsmen know their craft but claim to know things outside of their scope of expertise). articulating these fundamental ideas in ways that resonate with total novices is an activity that good researchers basically never have to practice, except in these courses that they teach.

often the people who think they're really competent instructors seem to be victims of the Dunning-Kruger effect. what do your teaching evaluations look like? do you mind sharing any of the quantitative data? (obviously the qualitative feedback would be asking too much)

also, it's important to clarify the purpose of research papers. they just have to be comprehensible to experts. the thing that's being evaluated is the contribution of the idea, not the way it's conveyed. so there are definitely circumstances where important ideas are communicated really poorly, but well enough for others to understand while the paper is under anonymous review, so it gets accepted and into the research community. and people aren't just going to not cite a paper because it's tough to read. they get better at reading tough papers that don't communicate their ideas optimally, and we all move on.

there's been a lot of complaint about this in academia. if you haven't seen this discussion, see
- english.stackexchange.com/questions/132564/why-are-academic-articles-journals-papers-so-hard-to-understand
- theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/10/complex-academic-writing/412255/
- newyorker.com/books/page-turner/why-is-academic-writing-so-academic
i just heard back from these subcommittee meetings for a conference happening next year and a bunch of people were complaining about all of the incomprehensible writing they had to sift through. some called it "Victorian" writing, which is a spot on allusion; lots of ornate flourishes and stuff.

Good posts, user