Everyone has to have goals, right? But yeah, let's see them get a one-per-month schedule going before we expect one every two to three weeks. I just can't see this happening this year without an incredible string of good luck.
That's fair. This is PR hype which can get away with murder compared to actual scientific publications. Although, it is a misconception that peer review is 100% effective at weeding out B.S.
Everything you said seems to reinforce my argument that we should be talking about computer jobs. Look at the number of CS people the US brings in from India in order to meet demand.
I am a little confused why the article focuses entirely on the high cost of engineering. It seems to me that someone should be pointing out the huge ROI for CS degrees. They cost way less than engineering and make more than every other degree except engineering. Why are we not pushing the idea that computers are still the way of the future and the best way out of poverty invented in the past 100 years?
I've said it before and I will say it again every time one of these "The MIT gods have revealed to us..." articles pops up: MIT is an academic institution. People have to publish to get degrees. If you want a good grade, you have to make your work sound as impressive as possible. There is no requirement for the work to be backed up with real-world evidence. Therefore, the hype will always exceed the science.
Everyone pointing out the invalid assumptions of this study is missing the point. This research isn't about actually improving anything. It's about someone getting their MS or PhD and a couple professors getting their names on something to keep their publication rate up. Academia has no requirement for research to be useful. MIT is no different.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone has to have goals, right? But yeah, let's see them get a one-per-month schedule going before we expect one every two to three weeks. I just can't see this happening this year without an incredible string of good luck.
That's fair. This is PR hype which can get away with murder compared to actual scientific publications. Although, it is a misconception that peer review is 100% effective at weeding out B.S.
Everything you said seems to reinforce my argument that we should be talking about computer jobs. Look at the number of CS people the US brings in from India in order to meet demand.
I am a little confused why the article focuses entirely on the high cost of engineering. It seems to me that someone should be pointing out the huge ROI for CS degrees. They cost way less than engineering and make more than every other degree except engineering. Why are we not pushing the idea that computers are still the way of the future and the best way out of poverty invented in the past 100 years?
I've said it before and I will say it again every time one of these "The MIT gods have revealed to us..." articles pops up: MIT is an academic institution. People have to publish to get degrees. If you want a good grade, you have to make your work sound as impressive as possible. There is no requirement for the work to be backed up with real-world evidence. Therefore, the hype will always exceed the science.
Everyone pointing out the invalid assumptions of this study is missing the point. This research isn't about actually improving anything. It's about someone getting their MS or PhD and a couple professors getting their names on something to keep their publication rate up. Academia has no requirement for research to be useful. MIT is no different.