Skip to main content

A Master Without a Masters

A couple of years ago, I was interning with a startup called Cookifi. Three mornings a week, I'd board a bus bound for HSR Layout to go to the office. One day, the bus simply failed to turn up, and I ended up sharing a cab with one of my stranded co-passengers. His name was Ravitej, and he worked in a software company. He didn't have a Ph.D. in anything, but he taught me more during a one-hour cab ride than some of my computer science teachers have taught me during entire semesters.

A few years before that, I played video games online with a guy named Luke. Luke was 20 years old at the time, and he worked in a hardware store. He didn't have an MIT education or even, come to that, a masters degree. What he did have, however, was an incredible understanding of vector calculus - incredible enough that his explanations even made sense to me at the age of 14. My "highly qualified" 10th-grade math teacher, on the other hand, couldn't suitably teach me basic trigonometry.

The upshot of all this is that you don't necessarily have to have good qualifications to be a good teacher. Now, don't get me wrong, if you received a doctorate from Stanford and can explain differential equations to a 10th-grader, I'll be first in line to sign up for your class. The thing is, though, I think it's extremely important that a teacher be able to teach well. To me, where they received their degree should be secondary to that.

As a rule, though, I think receiving a high degree of education tends to make it harder to teach well. The reason I say this is because of how someone actually becomes a "doctor of" this or a "master of" that. People acquire degrees by going to university, right? Now, university, to my mind, works great if you want to design airplanes or build websites, but not so much if you want to go out and educate. Mainly, this is because a university education will usually involve learning a lot of "jargon" - technical terms for the things you're learning about. When you go out and try to teach someone what you know, you're going to use the same jargon, and your students are going to have to learn that jargon, too. Basically, you end up wasting a lot of time explaining terms that you could probably have done just as well without knowing.

The other problem with spending 8 years of your life learning about something is that it takes all the romance out of it. For instance, what 11th-grader is actually going to be engaged if you tell him that you'll be teaching him "differentiation"?  What if, instead, you told him what exactly differentiation was? What if you told him that most modern AI uses it to learn, that it's a technique so powerful that Isaac Newton, the man behind the Law of Gravity, invented it and then kept it secret for 20 years? I'd care a lot more for calculus if I'd known any of those things last year, I can promise you that.

A lot of less-qualified teachers tend to know the syllabus they're teaching in great detail and the subject itself only at a general level. Usually, this would be a disadvantage - none of us want a teacher who can't answer our questions, after all. In a school setting, though, I think this is hugely helpful. A teacher who doesn't have an intimate knowledge of subject will tell a student as much as they need to know to be able to make sense of a concept. A teacher who spent a decade of their lives studying something, on the other hand, is more likely to launch into an in-depth explanation, often further confusing the asker. Not all teachers are like this, of course - I'm sure there are plenty of teachers out there who know their subjects inside out but will still tell you exactly enough to make sure you're thorough with your syllabus content.

All I'm trying to say is that whether or not someone has a Ph.D. is no way to judge their teaching ability. Here's hoping fewer schools turn teachers away just because they didn't want to write a research thesis.


Popular posts from this blog

Exam Fever

As anyone currently in the twelfth will tell you, with varying levels of dismay, the final exams are right around the corner. Parents everywhere are seizing their children's phones and taking time off from work. Panicked screaming ensues at intervals.

I don't believe there's a person on the planet who genuinely enjoys exam season. Actually, I take that back - there's no one in India who enjoys exam season. Partially, I think this is our own fault. Exams are the most important things in an Indian student's life, so parents seem bent on bottling up all the worry and concern they have about their kid's education and allowing it to spew forth in a torrent of "No more video games!" and "Delete WhatsApp!" commands during the two months surrounding the exams. Small wonder, then, that at 17, I believe the purpose of exams is to seasonally blot the sunshine from otherwise happy lives.

This whole exam fever thing does have some upsides. Okay, one - it…

No Good Place To Do Mutra Visarjan In This Country...

At least, that's what Chatur Ramalingam seems to think. However, many of our fellow Indians seem to disagree with him. According to them, there are nothing BUT places to do mutra visarjan (for all you poor, masochistic folks - ah, I mean, non-movie-going folks - out there, mutra visarjan means urine expulsion). In case you haven't guessed already, we're going to be talking about one of India's most widely criticized and even more widely practiced issues - public urination.

I'm not exactly saying that it's our people's fault - I mean, come on, we have so much urine-related cultural history! Just in the past 50 years, we've had people who've used their urine for everything from watering plants to drinking it (I believe that some people also flush it down their toilets. How wasteful of them). Besides all the historical precedents, however, we also have some more practical reasons for peeing wherever and whenever we feel like.

If you've ever seen a …

Learning to Learn

There's an interesting concept that's gotten a lot of traction over the past couple of years called "meta learning".  It's a term coined by one Donald B. Maudsley, who defined it as "the process by which learners become aware of and increasingly in control of habits of perception, inquiry, learning, and growth that they have internalized". Translated from Sciencese, Maudsley is talking about how we figure out ways to become more efficient at learning new information.

HR managers (you know, those overpaid dimwits you complain to about your coworker stealing your lunch?) like to call it "learnability". Most people with real jobs don't call it anything at all. In reality, though, it's an extremely useful thing to understand, together with the techniques you would use to get good at it.

Myself, I'm a decent-ish learner. Mostly, that's because I've had to learn things on my own quite often - I had to teach myself web design, app…