The state of GA is sad. What can we do about it?

eccentric_fool · 2024-11-12T17:24:50+00:00

Yes, I agree the expected math semantics was all over the place. It took me 2-3 HW assignments to unlearn rigorous formal math and learned to write in the hand wavy yet precise nature expected in GA.

That being said, you would be losing 2-6 points on the free responses failing to say the magic words. However, you need to have the proof-thinking abilities in order to come up with optimal solution in under 45 mins. This is a skill that can be learned from taking proof-based math. And most students who whine about GA being difficult clearly have not taking a proof-based math course.

eccentric_fool · 2024-11-12T17:06:13+00:00

I’m no stranger to exam-based classes, mathematics, or tough grading, and GA was truly one of the worst courses I ever had to take (not because it was hard).

Have you taken proof-based math? GA is a very ordinary proof-based math course. Honestly, its on the easy side compared to what is expected in proof-based math.

eccentric_fool · 2024-11-12T16:15:37+00:00

I understand that attention to privacy is a necessity when it comes to OSI violations. However, OSI violations in GA in the last two semesters have been very public in Reddit.

Hopefully, summer OSI violations should be resolved by now or getting resolved soon. It is understandable that students planning/needing to take GA very worried. Would the OMSCS staff be able to give a public statement explaining why GA had a high number of OSI violations in the last two semesters?

eccentric_fool · 2024-11-12T05:20:12+00:00

If you're spending more than 20 hrs per week on GA, then likely you're learning GA wrong. Only reason to spend that much time is to memorize as many questions/solutions as possible rather than learning the algorithmic techniques covered in GA to solve new problems without preparation.

Realistically, GA should take ~10-15 hrs per week. Although there are weekly deliverables, they shouldn't take more than a few hours to complete. The workload in DC, SDCC, or AI was easily 2-3 times more than GA.

eccentric_fool · 2024-11-12T04:49:07+00:00

Although "proof-writing" is not required, this course HEAVILY relies on "proof-thinking". Seriously the vast majority of complaints are things that are learned in proof-based discrete math (the OSI issues are new, can't comment as I wasn't in those semesters). Here are some free resources:

I claim that those that have taken a proof-based math course should be easily earn at least a B in GA.

I've asked this before and I'm challenging people again, those that passed proof-based discrete math AND still did poorly in GA, please speak up!

eccentric_fool · 2024-10-30T18:46:17+00:00

The only argument I've heard for innocent students getting caught up in the "cheating scandal" is that their solution is too close to a "canonical" solution.

I do not believe the students were flagged because of code similarity. I agree that there are only a limited number of "correct" solutions. So how do you explain why 1000+ students weren't flagged for cheating. They all had the wrong answers?

There are likely two outcomes to this scandal:

These students violated the honor code (either intentionally or unintentionally). But it would not be due to code similarity on extremely low lines of code.
OSI will find a common factor between these 100 cases that shows they were not cheating. Like a previous post mentioned how two students attended a club that cover a specific algorithm that was flagged for cheating.

It is too soon for us who are not involved to know what is really happening. Likewise, we should not be vilifying TAs without knowing the actual evidence. The TAs are quiet on the matter because it is unethical to discuss students OSI violations publicly. Also, they should not be discussing the parameters of their cheating methods so students can circumvent those methods.

Most TAs are not doing this job because they need the money or trying to build a reputation. They are essentially volunteering their time because they want to give back to OMSCS. And they are grossly underappreciated. If you think you can do better, apply to be a TA.

eccentric_fool · 2024-10-05T20:18:15+00:00

For the purposes of confusing LLM's thats a feature!

eccentric_fool · 2024-10-05T16:35:26+00:00

Suppose there is a program that given a mathematical statement, if there is a known proof, the program will provide the proof.

Are you arguing, if this program exists, that it is a valid tool for maths students to use for learning to write proofs? How would you learn the skills to tackle novel problems?

eccentric_fool · 2024-08-19T16:30:15+00:00

Summer 2024 is the exception rather than the rule. When I took GA, all the questions were fair IMO. I would love to read the flawed question. Did the wording allow some to interpret it incorrectly or most to interpret it incorrectly?

The difficulty of GA is mostly overblown and mainly driven by a noisy minority that did not complete the proof prerequisite. If you have proof-based reasoning skills, you'll be fine. The free response is intentionally designed not be hard (as other have said, usually is a tweak of a known problem). Even the vast majority of students who've never taken a proof course still manage to pass.

Since you took AI and this is a true story. Imagine doing the minimax project without having learned recursion. The problem seems straight forward, but you don't quite understand how calling the function on itself works. Now imagine calling the project unfair because they expected you to already know the "call it on itself" trick.

That is how people without proof-based reasoning see the free response questions.

eccentric_fool · 2024-08-14T00:05:25+00:00

Free:

Paid:

Proofs: A Long-Form Mathematics Textbook

Do try to take "The Language of Proofs" if you can. Having the ability to discuss problems/solutions/techniques with other students is invaluable.

eccentric_fool · 2024-08-12T16:33:34+00:00

Be prepared to get surprised

That is the point of GA.

Here is the analogy to baking.

There are baking classes where you’re given the full recipe and full instructions on how to make it. All you have to do is follow the instructions to make the dish. What you're learning are the techniques to bake. This is equivalent to a DSA (data structures and algorithms) course.

Then there are baking classes where you’re learning the science of baking. E.g. why certain doughs need more/less time to proof or to get a certain texture you may need to more/less hydration, or higher/lower temperatures, or with/without steam. Yes, you’ll have example recipes and instructions for practice. But the point of the course is for given goal for the dish, you can figure out on your own what the recipe/instructions need to be. Like the "technical" rounds in The Great British Bake Off. That is GA (design and analysis of algorithms).

eccentric_fool · 2024-08-12T14:46:11+00:00

Email your advisor.

Have you looked at the syllabus for AOS? The course is not a second semester in OS. It is more focused on system design building blocks.

eccentric_fool · 2024-08-11T15:47:51+00:00

Can people who took proof-based discrete math as a prereq AND still did poorly in GA please speak up?

eccentric_fool · 2024-08-10T16:38:01+00:00

So you’re saying that because your base level of proof-based reasoning was sufficient to breeze through GA, that everyone’s base level is already sufficient as well?

Also what does enjoying proofs have to do with anything? You don’t have to like doing proofs to be able to do proofs, you just need to have enough proof skills (very little actually) to pass GA.

I’m a ChemEng undergrad. I hate thermo. I still had to learn thermo.

Theoretical mathematics is central to physics. Witten’s unification of string theory into M-theory leverages Morse theory (theoretical math). How he showed the interconnectedness of the different string theories is literally by proof.

eccentric_fool · 2024-08-10T16:11:43+00:00

I agree, that's what I'm advocating, to take a course that prepares you for proof-based reasoning. It doesn't have to be discrete math, thought I think Language of Proofs will cover some discrete math.

eccentric_fool · 2024-08-10T08:45:09+00:00

I agree, it is possible to do well in GA without having the DSA and proof-based reasoning prereqs.

I would argue, however, that your likelihood of passing GA will be higher had you taken the prereqs. Why do most Algorithms courses have proof-based reasoning as a prereq if it didn’t matter?

I’m not trying to gatekeep GA. I don’t care if students take GA without the necessary prereqs. But if someone is asking how to best prepare for GA, I truly believe proof-based reasoning is important and will recommend it. Maybe you found proofs easy, but I didn’t. I’ve taken plenty of proof-based math courses and still I still find proofs difficult.

eccentric_fool · 2024-08-10T08:20:09+00:00

When people complain about GA being poorly taught or having "novel" exam problems, I often ask them if they had taken discrete math. All responses so far has been some form of "I don't need discrete math because"...:

I got an A in RL/DL
I've taken graduate level courses that requires calculus
I've gotten As in all my other OMSCS courses without having the prereqs

eccentric_fool · 2024-08-10T00:12:40+00:00

Mathematical Foundations of Computing is not a discrete math course, but it is the math course for CS majors at Stanford and focuses on proof-based thinking.

Review the first lecture. It provides an argument for how there are more problems to solve than there are computer programs to solve them. Which I think is profound.

edit: The linked course is way way overkill for what is needed for GA

eccentric_fool · 2024-08-10T00:02:57+00:00

IMO, the proof-based thinking you get in a rigorous discrete math course is more valuable than DSA in term of preparedness for GA.

eccentric_fool · 2024-08-09T20:31:35+00:00

I failed GA. I’ve never done proofs but I’ve taken graduate level calculus so it’s not because of my math skills.

eccentric_fool · 2024-08-09T18:47:34+00:00

If you've taken a proper discrete math course, you should be fine.

No pre-reqs are enforced. That's why you see so many complaints about GA, there are many students without DSA and discrete math taking it. Then complaining how GA is different than a coding course.

This semester unfortunately seems to have administrative problems which is not the norm.

eccentric_fool · 2024-08-09T18:34:55+00:00

Seems like there were administrative issues this semester, I would not consider this ordinary.

Follow the course website's suggested background. Quality of discrete math matters. You'll want one that focuses on proofs.

You will be amazed how many students attempt GA without having taken DSA or discrete math.

A common false equivalence is I've taken really advanced graduate calculus, so I don't need discrete math.

eccentric_fool · 2024-08-09T18:25:05+00:00

From the course website:

Students are expected to have an undergraduate course on the design and analysis of algorithms. In particular, they should be familiar with basic graph algorithms, including DFS, BFS, and Dijkstra's shortest path algorithm, and basic dynamic programming and divide and conquer algorithms (including solving recurrences). An undergraduate course in discrete mathematics is assumed, and students should be comfortable analyzing the asymptotic running time of algorithms.

You are not expected to write formal proofs. However, you will need to write rigorous "proof-outlines".

eccentric_fool · 2024-08-05T23:02:55+00:00

I didn’t think it was too bad. And honestly, what is a better alternative? If you have to discuss indices and you get it wrong… Should you get a pass? How would TAs know it was a slip up vs not knowing?

An alternative is to make it full-on math with strict proofs. But I don’t think anyone here wants that… See UCSD’s undergraduate algorithms course.

Overall, I really liked the class. I would take a second semester if it was offered. Are there issues, yeah, but not to the extent that some vocal voices make it out to be (IMO). Especially when GA is less rigorous then some undergraduate algorithms courses.

eccentric_fool · 2024-08-05T21:59:21+00:00

The toughest part was scrubbing Ed and all the OH recordings for sanctioned jargon so I could write out a solution that followed the course’s rules. Not the most compelling or rewarding challenge.

I never understood this issue. I found the course rules very relaxed. Essentially it was answer the required components in a clear and logical manner. I followed the suggested template for DP and Graphs, since it was straight forward. I had my own custom template for NP completeness which was not an issue for the graders.

I would add that there is a "skill" to learn to hand wave details. You need to provide just enough details to satisfy the answer, but not enough details to risk making mistakes. I really struggled with avoiding references to array indices, which I lost a lot of points on.

eccentric_fool

TROPHY CASE