Industry has always advertised to scientists. However, this ad targeting biologists is… peculiar:

Source: Owen Kaser.

Got an email a week ago. True story:

Dear prof. X,

I see that you are chair of the certificate program in Computer Science. I want to apply to the certificate program at [insert competing university here]. Can you have a look at my application? I really need to get in!

Thank you.

Some confused student.

Stanford published 10 online Computer Science courses under a Creative Commons license. Each course is made of videos, lecture notres, assignment and homeworks. The University reports that the content is nearly identical to what is offered to on-campus students.

• Programming Methodology — CS106A
• Programming Abstractions — CS106B
• Programming Paradigms — CS107
• Introduction to Robotics — CS223A
• Natural Language Processing — CS224N
• Machine Learning — CS229
• The Fourier Transform and its Applications — EE261
• Introduction to Linear Dynamical Systems — EE263
• Convex Optimization I — EE364A
• Convex Optimization II — EE364B

My only beef is that online videos are awfully boring, irrespective of the lecturer. If only I could convince more people to stop lecturing! Otherwise, the content is well organized and generally beautiful.

It is easy to dismiss these things as marketing gimmicks. But doing so would be like dismissing company Web sites in 1996 as gimmicks. These are the latest seeds of a long stream of seeds that will change higher education forever.

Disclaimer: I teach 3 online-only Computer Science university-level courses, including a graduate course.

Colin Wightman was recently fired from Acadia University. What wrong did he do? Mostly he had a one-time consensual bondage experience with a lady. They also accused him of using the university computers for some cybersex purposes.

The Canadian Association of University Teachers found the dismissal grossly abusive. They call for a censure of Acadia University unless Wightman is rehired.

Disclaimer: I was once a professor at Acadia University.

There is, I believe, a tension between management and innovation. Innovation is fundamentally disruptive. There is plenty of evidence that too much order is a bad idea:

• If your heart becomes too regular, you may be about to die.
• American backyards made of only good-looking grass are high-energy, unstable systems.

However, complete chaos is not productive. What is needed is some form of partially controlled chaos. The solution? Embrace some chaos, seek diversity! But keep your basic sane routine intact.

If you are a researcher, I have a challenge for you: once a year, work on a project and publish a paper that is crazy. It can be a project outside of your normal field of expertise. In any case, it should raise some eye brows. If you have tenure or a similarly stable job, why would you not? You will not get fired for writing one crazy paper a year. But it may greatly enhance the biodiversity of your ideas.

If you are a software designer, design one totally crazy software application every year. Write a piece of software that has nothing to do with your own work, or that goes against all principles you normally apply. Finding time for a wild project is not so difficult. The project itself may not be productive, but it may keep you on your toes.

The idea is not to throw away the much-needed regularity that keeps us productive. But please, inject chaos in your life.

Note: Having kids counts as controlled chaos.

I just reviewed a paper where the authors come up with a nice highly scalable algorithm. And it is really scalable too! But to prove just how fast it is, they process 2,000 data points.

This is correct, strictly speaking. Their algorithm runs in O(n) time, so to know how long it would take to process 1000 times more data, just multiply by 1000.

But where is the fun in that?

Stephen Few few wrote a post on how insane academic publishing is. If you publish academic papers, his post is worth your time. Don’t miss the comments!

Stephen is not in academia. From his point of view, what is required of him makes no sense:

• While he does not expect to get paid for publishing a paper, he expects some kind of symbolic reward like a few subscription to the journal: Is there really any question that someone who takes the time to write an article and go through the lengthy process of working with a publisher, deserves a gesture of thanks equaling the cost of postage?
• Stephen is surprised that reviewers remain anonymous through the entire process: Cloaking the process in anonymity seemed to indicate a level of discomfort with critique that I didn’t expect to find to this degree in academia.
• He is upset with how IEEE handles copyright:”I have worked with several publishers and I have never had to give up my rights as author. Most modern publishers know that they don’t need to strip authors of their rights in order to do their job.“

My own answers:

• Anonymous review is just a system we refuse to question. Speaking your mind is certainly a dangerous thing—more so in some countries than others. However, I believe a scholar should have the backbone to speak out in the open. Do something else with your life if you are afraid to sign your opinion pieces.
• The copyright issue is a shame. However, Stephen should also ask why so many employers ask for non-compete clauses. He should also ask why musicians sign away their soul routinely. I have always been puzzled at how easily TV series are killed: clearly the authors lose their copyright along the way. Fortunately, scholars are pretty bad at reading the contracts they sign…