Independent Learning

I'm using MIT's OCW to complete 6 core undergrad math subjects that I need before I enrol in Columbia's M.Sci quant course. I may have to redo some of the courses in a certified course to satisfy pre-reqs for admission, but that wil at least be easier if I'm already up to speed having dinner the OCW courses.

I use the Samsung Galaxy Tab for lectures. I can have the lecture video playing in one video and a note taking app in the other for taking notes with the stylus. I use the Lecture Notes app for note taking.

I recommend using abebooks.com to pick up cheap copies of course textbooks to accompany online learning. I also get the solutions manuals for textbook questions so I can better understand when I get practice questions wrong.

thebrofessor:

taking a class from Wharton in the fall, we'll see how rigorous it is then I can give you a more thorough answer. I'm of the mind that the benefit from college is because adcoms serve as a barrier to entry. I'm a firm believer that the basic calculus class you take at Harvard isn't substantially different/more difficult than the same thing at UNC, which isn't substantially different/more difficult than the same thing at a school like Arizona State (which has a super high admissions rate), the subject matter is all the same.

but here's the thing: who looks better as a candidate: someone with a math degree from ASU or someone with a math degree from Harvard? you don't need to be a rocket scientist to answer that.

I think it's just one more arrow in your quiver. for example, if you went to Chicago and were taught high level finance theory, you might round out your knowledge by taking some courses from Wharton or some Dan Ariely stuff from Duke (all on coursera). another thing is sequential learning: almost every class that I learned a substantial amount from in college had a series of pre reqs that were essential to understanding. for example, you can't take calc if you don't understand algebra and rules around exponents. you can't take econometrics without some understanding in prob/stat, and so forth. what I've noticed about coursera (possibly falsely, haven't used the others, I've dabbled in iTunes U a bit) is that most of the classes can be taken in isolation and only require a minimal understanding of certain things.

edit: as I wrote this, I visited coursera, saw that UK just put up advanced chemistry, Johns Hopkins just put a dozen courses on data analysis & biostatistics, etc. so I guess there's variety.

Possibly the entry level classes are similar, but I've found that math degrees in general and specific courses in particular vary widely from school to school. Have you looked at the coursework for Math 55 at Harvard?

thebrofessor:

taking a class from Wharton in the fall, we'll see how rigorous it is then I can give you a more thorough answer. I'm of the mind that the benefit from college is because adcoms serve as a barrier to entry. I'm a firm believer that the basic calculus class you take at Harvard isn't substantially different/more difficult than the same thing at UNC, which isn't substantially different/more difficult than the same thing at a school like Arizona State (which has a super high admissions rate), the subject matter is all the same.

but here's the thing: who looks better as a candidate: someone with a math degree from ASU or someone with a math degree from Harvard? you don't need to be a rocket scientist to answer that.

I think it's just one more arrow in your quiver. for example, if you went to Chicago and were taught high level finance theory, you might round out your knowledge by taking some courses from Wharton or some Dan Ariely stuff from Duke (all on coursera). another thing is sequential learning: almost every class that I learned a substantial amount from in college had a series of pre reqs that were essential to understanding. for example, you can't take calc if you don't understand algebra and rules around exponents. you can't take econometrics without some understanding in prob/stat, and so forth. what I've noticed about coursera (possibly falsely, haven't used the others, I've dabbled in iTunes U a bit) is that most of the classes can be taken in isolation and only require a minimal understanding of certain things.

edit: as I wrote this, I visited coursera, saw that UK just put up advanced chemistry, Johns Hopkins just put a dozen courses on data analysis & biostatistics, etc. so I guess there's variety.

I took intro to finance with Robert Shiller - the economist / recent nobel laureate who teaches at Yale. Not a bad course, although I did get to learn from a notable figure, I don't really think its that much different from what I received at my community college.

PaloAltoθBurn:

I've taken some classes from edX and I've enjoyed it so far. I am currently looking to enroll in the Georgia Tech OMS CS program, my employer will be footing the bill. It would cost easily 50k or more just in tuition to attend a masters program part time at a state school. Via GT it'll cost less than 7k. Ultimately I think these advances in technology are going to drive down the cost of education significantly. Especially on the foundation level classes, odds are the quality of education is better through an online format with recorded lectures and access to an Ivy league professor vs a TA teaching the class and regurgitating information on mid terms. Especially if that TA and class is at an out of the way state school. Right now universities are bleeding students dry through irrelevant courses and the debt these students are walking away with just isn't sustainable. As far as usefulness, I'm sure having more transcripts will be useful if I ever apply to get an MBA from Stanford, not sure if I'd get in or if I even need an MBA.

I was looking into taking that masters as well. Mind if I PM you?

Loki777:

I feel like technical majors will soon be forced to switch or adapt. For CS, there are so many great resources, or at least 4 month intensive training programs, that can prepare people for development roles, and I know many who have had success. Some of my liberal arts friends realized how hard it was to get a job, so they went through codeacademy then a 3 month intensive training, and they are all junior developers now making 60k with basically 6 months education in development....which is pretty good considering the 6 months training

yea its pretty crazy that employers want what you learn in 6 months, not 4 years of irrelevant theory. obviously a university education is better if the student is resourceful, but its tough when your engineering prof is forcing experimental design down your throat when the industry moved to numerical methods decades ago. Same with finance and biotech. programming, math, and project management skills are wanted, but schools stick to the same curriculum. its even worse in primary schools. i don't even understand why calculus is standard apex math course when statistics is much more useful.

seems like administration cant keep up with the job market, but boot camps can.

apologies for grammar, on my phone