7 ms·

> Scientists who spent 25 hours in the workplace were no more productive than those who spent five. Anecdotally this is a concept I've run into in many areas o

• Cyph0n 9y ago
  Exactly. I view school as an optimization problem where the goal is to find the minimum amount of work that will get you the maximum performance (grades, effective learning), while also minimizing the negative impact on other aspects of your life. I was a straight A student all though my major (EE), but I never hesitated to take a B+ if I felt the amount of work needed for an A wasn't worth it. In addition, I made sure to enjoy my free time and work on stuff that I love (software dev, for instance!). I think I was successful: IIRC, I pulled 1 all nighter in my 4.5 years as an undergrad. Obviously, I didn't graduate with a 4.0, but I got a high enough grade to get admitted to an excellent school for a PhD.
  • vikiomega9 9y ago
    A point of note is finding that minimum amount without sacrificing future growth in terms of learning/skill set, ie. learning to learn or understanding a fundamental.
    • Cyph0n 9y ago
      Good point, otherwise cheating would be a valid strategy (ethics aside).
      • smokeyj 9y ago
        But cheating is a valid strategy.. Colluding when everyone else is competing is exactly what intelligent people do. Not following the rules because they're stupid is what intelligent people do. It's not mutually exclusive to understand the fundamentals and cheat. The idea that we should compete with our peers for a chance at higher education is like a dystopian hunger games novel.
        • Cyph0n 9y ago
          It is a valid strategy when you end up learning as much as a person not cheating. But in general, this is not the case because students see cheating as an alternative to hard work.
          • erkkie 9y ago
            You can also learn a ton about how to bend rules when cheating, something that's often useful out in the real world. I feel like half of what I learned in school was how to be better at avoiding doing things (including cheating, when applicable). There's various ways to go about morals in general but "following the rules" in itself is not a good basis for morality.
            • Cyph0n 9y ago
              Not sure about you, but my university was very strict with cheaters because of how widespread cheating was. Gaining an extra 10 points on tough exam wasn't worth the risk of expulsion. I suppose that deciding whether to cheat or not is an optimization problem in and of itself. If no one else is cheating, the gains are huge, but if there are a lot of cheaters, it might not end up being worth the risk. Actually, there never was a time where I felt that cheating was worth it. On the contrary, the amount of time I'd need to prepare a strategy (compile cheat sheet, figure out how to use it, where to sit, etc.) probably exceeded the time I'd take to just study for the exam! I agree, always following the rules isn't beneficial to society, but I'd argue it's better than the case where no one is following the rules.
    • jtraffic 9y ago
      I totally agree here. Sometimes I've been frustrated at the lack of flexibility to use assignments in a self-directed way. I like the idea that you should "never waste a good deadline." I've always admired students who find creative ways to learn what they want while still getting credit. The assignment from which I learned the most and which I had the most fun on was totally open ended other than some general methods.
  • rustlerpride 9y ago
    Exactly what I did. I didn't realize I was approaching it as an optimization problem, but I knew that I wanted to get enjoyment out of college and have a degree and GPA that would get me a good job. I switched from a Computer Science Engineering major to just Computer Science. It saved me 100 more credits of work and gave me the chance to take great courses like beer brewing, samba drumming, plant identification, and history of rock'n'roll. Not to mention all the time I had to spend with friends and enjoy my hobbies. Graduated with the bare minimum GPA (to a 0.01) required for Honors, and got a great job. Life is definitely more important than the 4.0, and the fancier degree.
• smokeyj 9y ago
  > I suppose because it's so easily quantified. I wonder what's being quantified.. intelligence or obedience. This would be like rating a strong-man competition by how much time was spent in the gym and how much unnecessary pain was self-inflicted. It's like there's a culture of "pain enthusiasts". They do things like talk about running until it hurts, they tend to get injured often, and of course they have nothing to show for their dedication. I'm realizing that there's a mentality about these people. The idea of working smarter and not harder literally offends them. The idea that the amount of work is less important than the effectiveness of work offends them. These are often the same people that voice their concerns about working from home and why it can't work. My suspicion is because their value is measured by "time in the gym" rather than tangible real-world results.
  • tyoverby 9y ago
    "time in the gym" is way easier to measure than tangible improvement. It's not surprising that people try to optimize things that are the easiest to graph in Excel :P
    • maloney 9y ago
      Really? Lifting more weight, running a faster mile or losing weight are just as easy to measure.
      • Verdex_2 9y ago
        You're right I think, but what's actually interesting (I think at least) is that time in the gym is more likely to make you a significant social member of a certain group (gym => office, lab, bar, etc). Time spent present is easy for the social group to measure. Everyone might be impressed by the guy running the 4 minute mile, but after he leaves we're much more interested in Greg improving from his 7 minute mile to a 6:30 minute mile and that 4 minute mile guy was kind of a jerk anyways. Finding a way to get a 4 minute mile without the trackmaster 2000 and the protein shakes, who does he think he is.
  • jartelt 9y ago
• willholloway 9y ago
  Yes but in the universe of knowledge work, what is work and what is not-work? Do we count work as "being in the office/lab"? Or do we count work as thinking about the problem? If one were building a company like Tesla for example, I would count going to the gym and thinking of the problem domain while running on a treadmill as work. I would also count thinking of the problem while going for a walk as work. If one has really set one's teeth into a nasty problem, things like going to a party, or social calls like seeing friends not engaged in the problem, isn't relaxing, it's frustrating. I think we should redefine the parameters of this conversation into time that depletes the body and time that replenishes it. Being in front of a computer for long periods is hard on the eyes, it can be hard physically especially if the ergonomics aren't perfect. Being at the office for long periods can be draining as well because unlike being at home there aren't places to go that are replenishing on demand. If one has a good sit/stand desk and spends a lot of time coding while standing, 10 minutes lying on a bed is incredibly replenishing for example. The other dimension here is that perhaps it is alienated work that is inherently depleting. Working for someone else, or on something one does not really want to be working on is draining. Working on something you care about is invigorating and I can't see how spending less time in that state can possibly be more productive than more time in a productive, non-depleting state.
  • cgriswald 9y ago
    > If one has a good sit/stand desk and spends a lot of time coding while standing, 10 minutes lying on a bed is incredibly replenishing for example. Pomodoros[0] are life changing. While writing a paper/fiction/code/anything, I force myself to take that break; even if I'm on a roll. Sometimes I leave myself a note "When you get back, solve this particular problem/write this particular part" or I'll scrawl some shorthand solution for the problem on my whiteboard. I'm way way more productive if I do anything else for 10 minutes, whether it's laundry, video games, lying down, reading fiction... doesn't matter. It's almost like my brain is working while I'm relaxing. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomodoro_Technique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomodoro_Technique
• cgriswald 9y ago
  I agree about school. I see people constantly trying to use pattern matching and memorization to pass tests; always doing extra credit; putting too much effort into minor things; and exacerbating all of these problems by taking too many units in an effort to get out early. I don't know how they're not already burnt out. Meanwhile I never specifically study for a test. I've just studied regularly every day, thought about these things regularly, let my subconscious do some heavy lifting, and built associations in my brain that help me derive equations or fill in gaps if needed. For my effort, I've got a ~3.9 GPA and all kinds of free time for dating, exercise, hobbies, and teaching myself useful skills in my field that university isn't teaching me. I think the core problem for most people is that they are attached to the wrong outcome. Their goal is the high GPA. My goal is grokking material and making myself useful; high GPA is almost a given (and frankly redundant) after that, and the only difference between my 3.9 and a 4.0 is the tolerance for BS and busywork... and about a gazillion extra hours of work. It is, of course, understandable, because people think High GPA -> Good Grad School -> $$$$. But I suspect, and your story confirms, that "Reasonably High GPA" + "An Actualized Human Being Who Is Not a Robot"[0] -> Good Grad School -> Richer Life + $$$$. [0] - Not trying to denigrate those who take the other path, but I see them miss out on a lot of life and ultimately not be as developed and awesome as they could be. I'm saying these things not just about random strangers, but also about people I know and love. They've optimized primarily for passing tests.
  • Afton 9y ago
    You're point about the wrong impact is spot on. I have a gift of getting good grades. I know what things will be on the test, I know how to answer questions so that I leave enough wiggle room to avoid exposing ignorance on a topic, and I know how to structure an answer to get partial credit if I really don't know how to answer a question. My GPA in my first undergraduate class was essentially all A+s (curse you intro to the philosophy of language!). For my second undergraduate degree, I just flat out rejected that approach. I exposed my ignorance where possible (and typically as early as possible rather than on the final exam). What was surprising was how little impact this had on my grades. Some, but not much, and I learned a lot more. Now I try to pass that on to my kids, but the structure of school is such that everything in that system is oriented towards the wrong goal. Really pushes me in the direction of homeschooling, I have to say.
• asafira 9y ago
  As a PhD, I want to give a word of caution: Classes in school are really almost nothing like doing research (or taking on any large, difficult project). I still take some here and there personally, but the main idea in this article isn't about finding a optimum point on the grade vs. effort plot (I totally agree with your assessment though!). I'm not sure I buy the "you get diminishing returns for working harder" in general --- yes, you can absolutely burn out, but you could also just do amazing things if you work really hard. Sometimes there are diminishing returns (like the A vs A+ in school), and sometimes there aren't. The most important thing is that progress can be made even if you want to work at a more leisurely pace on difficult problems. And, of course, that's far less likely to burn you out.
  • ahussain 9y ago
    I think also that there is something to be said for 'staying in the game'. The most important thing should be taking steps to make sure you are still around and working on the right problems in 4-5 years. Sometimes that requires taking it easy, sometimes that requires working harder. If you are still around then there is a chance you will also be making progress.
  • dvtv75 9y ago
    As a counterpoint to this, my second year in CS had four papers (Programming, Data Structures and C, Operating Systems, and Networks). The course was being revamped one year at a time, and right at the beginning of second year there was a problem with the workload: they had set the load and level for Programming to final year level. A dozen (out of 140ish students) dropped out by the end of the first week, and by the end of the course (13 weeks long) more than half of the students had dropped out, and just 37 were in a position to pass. I don't mean that they had completed the work necessary to pass, but they could conceivably do so by the final due date for the course. I don't know how many actually passed, but of the 37, not everyone did. It was so bad that they had to drop the prerequisites and allow in anybody who had completed the other papers just so there could actually be a final year (three year Bachelor of Science). Funnily enough, they refused to refund any fees, even though the person in charge of the course was eventually fired over the mess - one that he didn't even create! He was handed the course and workload, and told "This is it, this is how you must teach it." We were all told "Suck it up and do it." Even the teaching staff had told the professors that it was a badly designed course, which didn't go down well. I passed that paper, failed all my others (no refund: I was told I should just have worked harder than double the standard semester workload), and burned out. Not one of us paid intending to be part of their incompetence. Had I known how badly put together the course was, I would have dropped out in the first week as well. If I wanted the Honors workload, I would have entered the Honors program.
• differentView 9y ago
  Ah, the old "What do they call the person who graduates last in medical school?"
  • criddell 9y ago
    Aren't most medical schools just pass/fail these days? They don't actually give grades or rank students, do they?
    • cgriswald 9y ago
      I can't speak for all medical schools, but at my ex's school they have Honors/High Pass/Pass/Low Pass/Fail; so basically (ABCDF). Other than being required to get at least Pass in order to remain in good academic standing, I'm not certain what effect these grades have.
      • forgotpwagain 9y ago
        As I understand it (from friends in med school), the grades in the pre-clinical classes are important as they affect the Dean's letter, the primary letter of recommendation for residency applications. However, the grades from the time they spend in the clinic are much more important than the pre-clinical coursework.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • jedmeyers 9y ago
    And what do they call a soldier who graduates last in BUD/S class? Graduating is itself a big feat.
• rhodysurf 9y ago
  I subscribed to this school of thought in college. I worked WAYYYYY less than my roommates and got the same engineering degree with a slightly worse GPA (I had a 2.93 at graduation and they had all above 3.2). It didnt hurt my job prospects because I had side projects I thought were fun and was involved in a few extracurriculars. Edit: I also realize that this isn't for everyone
• ThrowawayR2 9y ago
  > You can do a moderately acceptable amount of work on any given assignment and get a C+, work hard for a B/A or work your hands to the bone for an A+, but at the end of the day all three students graduate. Forgive me but I must take you to task for this. The point of post-secondary education is not to graduate; the point is to get an education that enables you to succeed in your career. This may or may not matter if all you're doing is websites and CRUD apps (which should really be taken as a warning about the long-term stability of such a career) but that's not the fault of the degree program. (Some may wish to point that grades don't necessarily correlate with mastery of the knowledge presented, and I'd have some sympathy for that, but that's a different argument entirely.)
  • closeparen 9y ago
    Elite and even state flagship universities do not see their mission as primarily career training [0]. You'll get that in vendor certification courses at your local community/technical college (Microsoft Certified whatever, Oracle Certified whatever, Cisco Certified whatever). Not generally under the heading "computer science." [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/02/05/how-gov-walker-tried-to-quietly-change-the-mission-of-the-university-of-wisconsin/?utm_term=.af380f8ddca2 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/02/...
• abandonliberty 9y ago
  In an environment with few opportunities, a B/A is not good enough. Highly recommend the Indian film "3 Idiots" for a great critique of the pressures that students face in other parts of the world. It's also one of the most accessible and enjoyable Indian films.
  • mythrwy 9y ago
    Seconded. 3 Idiots is fantastic fun film. If you haven't seen it you should!
    • abandonliberty 9y ago
      Genre: Superhero?
• jjtheblunt 9y ago
  This exact strategy is what some competitive athletes apply to win: be strong enough to stay alive and converve maximal energy to live another round. Rich Froning applied this for years in Crossfit competitions, for a very non HN example.
• kafkaesq 9y ago
  At a certain point you get diminishing returns for working harder. Diminishing returns on your health and in actual quality work of done, for sure. But unfortunately you also tend to get "increasing returns" in terms of appreciation by uninspired middle-level managers, who tend to think: "We know he's a good worker 'coz we can see him workin'!". Which is unfortunately the great majority of them. Who themselves tend to be deeply insecure about their own position and how they're being evaluated, and so forth. And so the world keeps going, round and round and roun,
• ljw1001 9y ago
  When I was in grad school, I took a middle ground: I determined to get a B or B- (if it could be done with reasonable effort) for all the courses. This let me have extra time to put into the courses I found most interesting and I would spend longer hours on those with the goal being learning rather than grades. It kept school fun.