Not even college, high school. Really misleading/unfortunate title.
As an aside, why would anyone need to drop out of anything to become a poet?
It’s myth-making, and shouldn’t be confused with “dropping out to take care of your sick parent” or “dropping out and going to work at McDonald’s”.
I believe Einstein dropped out of high school and traveled a bit through Italy.
We definitely need a world where more young people can drop out for a few years.
In your country, how easy is it for someone to professionally work on their _art_ - i.e. have a career not just art-adjacent, like doing creative work as a graphic designer or animator or tattoo artist, but actually their own art, such as original paintings, poetry, or novels - which pays the entirety of their bills (presuming their bills actually include rent, food, transportation)?
In your country, is their any pressure on an individual working in the arts to work another job?
Can they sustain a family?
Do artists typically live with their parents or receive familial support until they hit it big?
Do they live out the starving artist stereotype or are they given a less meager existence?
Of the people that grew up poor that you know, do you know how many of them wanted to be artists, but had to take care of family or their own survival ahead of pursuing their art?
Of people you don't consider wealthy growing up, how many of them could afford a year at a prestigious private school for a year ahead of high school? (Relevant to the author here)
If you can answer these, it may give you some insight on SK. I can give you more if that's not enough.
I don't see how this relates to South Korea, maybe it's the same maybe it's not. What familiarity with South Korea do you have to be able to present an informed judgement on this issue and call someone else disingenuous for not sharing your view?
The answer to that question has nothing to do with my own ignorance on this topic, and the fact that you keep dodging this tells me a lot more about who in this conversation is the actual asshole.
Where's the myth making?
Looking into it, I think they actually translate their version of it as GED too:
https://www.ice.go.kr/en/cm/cntnts/cntntsView.do?mi=10019&cn...
Are you talking about his family specifically, or South Korea in general? What makes it extremely strong or privileged?
The fact that his parents were math and literature professors who entertained him dropping out of school to write poetry. If I had done that my parents would have offered me exactly three choices, get a job, go back to school, or pack your bags and pay your own rent which would have forced me to get a job, understandably so because as working class people they didn't have the resources to sponsor me for another decade while I go soul searching
Sinply put, most working class parents simply don't have the financial respurces to support an older child's artistic pursuits. It is a privilege, i.e., an _advantage_, to have those means and werewithal to do so.
My point being that it’s not about finances, it’s not that much more difficult for most working class families to support an extra mouth to feed, especially when it’s an adult. It’s more about the difference in perspective and future financial stability.
While typing it, I realized it is actually more expensive in US than just a mouth to feed. Medical insurance, car insurance, car payments (you need a car), all add up to much more.
I would say that was a pretty brave decision, or perhaps he is special
You've probably seen that thing where ChatGPT cracked Enigma[0]. It used several orders of magnitude more computational power than a Bombe (even given Moore's Law, still thousands of times more electrical power), and still took two dozen times longer. You would literally be better off doing brute-force search with a German dictionary. Thus is it with mathematics: a brute-force search is usually cheaper and better than trying to use a language model.
Terry Tao is one of the staunchest knowledgeable advocates of GPT models in mathematical research, and afaik he doesn't even bother trying to use the models for proof search. It's like trying to build a house with a box of shoes: sure, the shoe is technically more versatile because you can't use a hammer for tightening bolts (the shoe's sole has enough friction to do this) or foot protection (the shoe is the right shape for this) or electrical isolation (the bottom surface of the shoe is largely rubber), but please just use a hammer if you want to manipulate nails.
[0]: https://www.techradar.com/news/we-watched-an-ai-crack-the-en... – and I know that's not the original ChatGPT®, but I am not rewarding this company for such a wasteful and pointless publicity stunt.
Somewhere inside openai is a reinforcement learning loop that looks like:
current_code = read(code_base_from_file.txt)
modify_prompt = "some prompt to modify code with expected outcome"
result = model.run(modify_prompt, current_code)
if check(result):
provide_positive_feedback(model)
provide_negative_feedback(model)
the current models are being trained for coding, but theres no reason this couldnt be tried for other domains, like pure math.
There are very few people in pure math that care about transformers; they have had practically zero impact on the sort of research mathematics that the Fields Medal is concerned with.
"Don't be curmudgeonly."
You're responding to an after action review comment by moderator as to what might have caused the flag.
Seriously, a well written article including the accessible explanations of his work. Plus, LoL funny. Thank you.
The B.S. changed my life. I graduated, you will too.
So grateful to the late Jim Simons for funding basic research and its popularization (and Quanta Mag.)!
Even if we accept he didn't he still went to college and had an unusual experience as an undergrad in being mentored by an excellent mathematician.
That he took a gap year in h.s. doesn't seem that noteworthy to me.
He dropped out to become a poet – now he’s won a Fields Medal (2022) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37010709 - Aug 2023 (75 comments)
He dropped out to become a poet – now he’s won a Fields Medal - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31985400 - July 2022 (136 comments)
I wonder if this helpful service of integrating past comments on the same story ould be easily automated by looking for repeat URLs (and perhaps clustering old and new comments to integrate them so they can be presented as topical threads).
People do this because there are certain admission categories where the university only looks at the test results. So they go “okay, by not going to school, my child can fully focus on exam instead of wasting time on useless subjects like art and PE. And school math curriculum is too easy anyway”
This really saddens me because schools should be more than gateways to universities, but I digress.
> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4064129
How does this paper relate to GP's comment?
Universities should be looking at more and discouraging 1 dimensional applicants
Sure. Like there is a whole field of consultants who would help your child to develop a suitable profile.
Moreover, I the US I heard there is an industry for generating experiences for the "young minds" (if their parents are rich enough) e.g. discovering rennaissance via a trip to Italy etc.
Also remember the tennis scam for admissions? Gordon Ernst from Georgetown U.
I navigated the system alone for myself then again to help her after I had learned from all my college friends. We both went to “prestigious private schools” with single digit acceptance rates and have similarly “prestigious” jobs
Here’s the truth: yes, like everything else in this world it’s a LOT easier with money. But it’s not impossible if you’re willing to understand the expectations and put in the work to meet them.
Not really convincing. How many poor kids did not even come to an understanding of how the admission system works? How many kids did not even know what work was to be put in?
I am also someone born at the bottom (my first passport was a convention of 1951 passport), who went to a world famous university. As I've gotten older, I've realized it's not really a useful way to think about it. We like to say "you can do it if you really try", but it's just not true. Not only is it not true, it's a thought-ending statement that makes it easier for rich kids and harder for poor kids, because why would you need to support the poor kids if they can just work really hard?
Even you have to be able to see that you got lucky. When I applied, the entrance rate for my course was about 8%. I had no idea that I could have tried easier courses, or that I could have filled the form in slightly differently for a better shot. A single-digit acceptance rate is a lottery. You could do everything the same again and not get in. You don't realize it when you get in, because you happen to get questions that you can answer, but there's a heck of a lot of questions an Oxford professor can ask an 18 year old that will make him look bad.
When I arrived, of course all the other kids were ordinary upper middle class kids. People went to feeder schools where they teach you how to do the Oxbridge interview. People who didn't grow up pinching every penny. What happened to the poor, hard-working kids? They're mostly not there.
Optimizing hard for some rat race for some soulless (or soul crushing) office jobs among high functioning sociopaths that management inevitably always is. Most of those folks are not properly happy by any measure, thats not a win in life to end up there nor something to respect.
We are in rather unique period of time, especially folks here, that life fulfillment and happiness can be achieved for almost everybody and not just some top 0.1% if correct direction is taken. How about we realized that and focused more on actually long term important aspects of life?
(here is another guy who went the proverbial rags-to-modest-riches on my own but I would never had such mindset, when talking about successes of my life its about countries I've travelled, people I've met and intense experiences that shaped me more than career paths taken)
I live in a bit of a bubble where pretty much every kid's parents are professionals. Some of these people are off to London before the kids are in school, and arrive back home after they are asleep.
People spend a lot of money on top of private school to get a tutor in order to get into the grammar schools. This is a pure loss for society: the wrong kids get in, since not everyone can afford to learn this particular test. And money is spent on reducing the kids' free time for exploration.
How many others have tried to put the work you did and didn't achieve it?
I think that's the crux of it, being possible doesn't mean anything if it shuts out the majority of the ones who attempt it. It's possible to become a professional athlete and still a lot more kids fail to achieve that even if they put the work for it. Contrary to being a professional athlete, good education is both much more accessible and much more needed.
Exactly because you managed to achieve it that I believe there should be more empathy for how fucked up the system is, imagine how much less suffering you would have gone through if there was a better way? Why not work for it to be a better way even though it's already possible?
> You can expect the future to take a definite form or you can treat it as hazily uncertain. If you treat the future as something definite, it makes sense to understand it in advance and to work to shape it. But if you expect an indefinite future ruled by randomness, you’ll give up on trying to master it. Indefinite attitudes to the future explain what’s most dysfunctional in our world today. Process trumps substance: when people lack concrete plans to carry out, they use formal rules to assemble a portfolio of various options. This describes Americans today. In middle school, we’re encouraged to start hoarding “extracurricular activities.” In high school, ambitious students compete even harder to appear omnicompetent. By the time a student gets to college, he’s spent a decade curating a bewilderingly diverse résumé to prepare for a completely unknowable future. Come what may, he’s ready—for nothing in particular.
> A definite view, by contrast, favors firm convictions. Instead of pursuing many-sided mediocrity and calling it “well-roundedness,” a definite person determines the one best thing to do and then does it. Instead of working tirelessly to make herself indistinguishable, she strives to be great at something substantive—to be a monopoly of one. This is not what young people do today, because everyone around them has long since lost faith in a definite world. No one gets into Stanford by excelling at just one thing, unless that thing happens to involve throwing or catching a leather ball.
Cramming entrance exams is not super useful, but it does select for motivation and ability to focus intensely. Much more useful measure than having your parents set up a fake charity for you to volunteer at.
I agree that "well-rounded" people without depth are not as interesting or as valuable as people who've picked one or more topics to learn in detail, especially since the latter can often be well-rounded and also have an area of expertise. However, a bit part of their value comes from their ability to do something without anyone telling them to do it. An engineer who spent six months writing a protein folding simulator out of obsessive interest is a much better pick for a computational chemistry course than one who spent that time in a cram school.
To me this reads as claiming "making fragile choices is good", which outside of very niche situations I'd say is bad advice: like telling a college basketball player to not waste time outside of practice and later watching him go undrafted in the pros.
He's giving this advice to make his life better, not necessarily to make your life better.
> THE MOST CONTENTIOUS question in business is whether success comes from luck or skill. What do successful people say? Malcolm Gladwell, a successful author who writes about successful people, declares in Outliers that success results from a “patchwork of lucky breaks and arbitrary advantages.” Warren Buffett famously considers himself a “member of the lucky sperm club” and a winner of the “ovarian lottery.” Jeff Bezos attributes Amazon’s success to an “incredible planetary alignment” and jokes that it was “half luck, half good timing, and the rest brains.” Bill Gates even goes so far as to claim that he “was lucky to be born with certain skills,” though it’s not clear whether that’s actually possible.
> Perhaps these guys are being strategically humble. However, the phenomenon of serial entrepreneurship would seem to call into question our tendency to explain success as the product of chance. Hundreds of people have started multiple multimillion-dollar businesses. A few, like Steve Jobs, Jack Dorsey, and Elon Musk, have created several multibillion-dollar companies. If success were mostly a matter of luck, these kinds of serial entrepreneurs probably wouldn’t exist.
> In January 2013, Jack Dorsey, founder of Twitter and Square, tweeted to his 2 million followers: “Success is never accidental.”
>Most of the replies were unambiguously negative. Referencing the tweet in The Atlantic, reporter Alexis Madrigal wrote that his instinct was to reply: “ ‘Success is never accidental,’ said all multimillionaire white men.” It’s true that already successful people have an easier time doing new things, whether due to their networks, wealth, or experience. But perhaps we’ve become too quick to dismiss anyone who claims to have succeeded according to plan.
> Is there a way to settle this debate objectively? Unfortunately not, because companies are not experiments. To get a scientific answer about Facebook, for example, we’d have to rewind to 2004, create 1,000 copies of the world, and start Facebook in each copy to see how many times it would succeed. But that experiment is impossible. Every company starts in unique circumstances, and every company starts only once. Statistics doesn’t work when the sample size is one.
> From the Renaissance and the Enlightenment to the mid-20th century, luck was something to be mastered, dominated, and controlled; everyone agreed that you should do what you could, not focus on what you couldn’t. Ralph Waldo Emerson captured this ethos when he wrote: “Shallow men believe in luck, believe in circumstances.… Strong men believe in cause and effect.” In 1912, after he became the first explorer to reach the South Pole, Roald Amundsen wrote: “Victory awaits him who has everything in order—luck, people call it.” No one pretended that misfortune didn’t exist, but prior generations believed in making their own luck by working hard.
> If you believe your life is mainly a matter of chance, why read this book? Learning about startups is worthless if you’re just reading stories about people who won the lottery. Slot Machines for Dummies can purport to tell you which kind of rabbit’s foot to rub or how to tell which machines are “hot,” but it can’t tell you how to win.
> Did Bill Gates simply win the intelligence lottery? Was Sheryl Sandberg born with a silver spoon, or did she “lean in”? When we debate historical questions like these, luck is in the past tense. Far more important are questions about the future: is it a matter of chance or design?
They really, really do. Admission to top universities has become hyper competitive. They're getting tens of thousands of highly qualified applicants with perfect GPAs and great SAT scores. So what they're looking at is more, "Will admission to this university help them to do something special?" or is admission the end goal for the student. And one way to see that is if the applicant is well-rounded and explorative. Are they setting creative fires everywhere they go?
Often when you look at the other dimensions, it's a way for the admissions office to smuggle in criteria that other people find objectionable.
And once you have that measure, you are now subject to Goodhart's law [1]. There is no escape.
So, your university gives points for applicants who have extracurricular activities? Here comes someone that joined 15 clubs. Oh, do you want them to be leaders in their activity? Here comes someone who is the president of six clubs, and founded two more. Oh, do you want them academically accomplished instead? Here comes someone who in high school published six scientific papers (please don't look too hard at which journals they were in). No, wait, we don't like what that's encouraging, let's just look at standardized test scores... and here come the perfect scores.
Applicants will make themselves one dimensional. They'll tune to whatever dimension you're measuring on, no matter what you try to do to the basis vector of that dimension. And they'll beat out anyone who is just being normal, or even more cynically, just being honest about their actual activities.
The downside is that some great applicants will not enter their top choice of school, and some people who aren't great fits will. But, on the other hand, the perverse incentive of spending the entirety of high-school optimising for some arbitrary metrics will dissappear. Any marginal improvement is corralated with a marginal increase in success, rather than the current system of no pay-off whatsoever, until reaching some arbitrary threshold, where one gets all the pay-off at once.
[1]: https://sohl-dickstein.github.io/2022/11/06/strong-Goodhart....
Ultimately all things are reducible to a function applied to the state of the world. The entire point is that by introducing additional dimensions to the metrics of 'acceptable for admission' the 'representation of the student' ("state of the world") is made out of a higher dimensional variable.
Now, you can game the "one dimensional" student representation or the n-dimensional version. For each of the possible (predictable, finite set) attacks on the function there can be remedies. where there are cases where we can not have effective remedies, that fact itself appears to be independent of the number of dimensions.
Ultimately, it seems hard to argue against a higher dimensional metric given that it is more information rich. And, I venture to guess young teens would also welcome the mere possibility of 'choices' in electing areas to excel.
At least here in the US:
In academics, a grade of A is better than the rest yet still some independent or from outside school results can mean more than grades and even make poor grades irrelevant.
Some examples:
E.g., for getting into a selective college, SAT Math scores (from outside of school) the highest in my high school class made everything else irrelevant. E.g., overlooked my F in Typing!
Actually, the Typing class was very worthwhile and learned touch typing, but the class was nearly all girls, GORGEOUS, who buzzed away with perfect accuracy at maybe 30 characters a second!
E.g., in graduate school, found a problem and in two weeks got a solution accepted right away by Mathematical Programming. Suddenly had an impenetrable shield and all grades and everything else were irrelevant.
E.g., before grad school thought of a problem and had a first solution; in grad school wrote a first draft; wrote and ran the related software; and wrote the document, all independently. Stood for orals and graduated.
Again, course grades are not everything, and good independent work can make everything else irrelevant.
We should remember not to just present results, but to teach, demonstrate and live how to get there more. It's not even abour rich vs. poor education - almost all go through the whole system never seeing this, and for June Huh, sleeper maths genius, meeting that one person changed everything!
My point being that maybe it's not unique sleeper inborn talent, but just learning grit, persistence and well, not being stupid, that will lead to success in life. If one thing doesn't hit, try another. So maybe you don't become a poet, but a math genius, or a soccer player, or a dancer; something else than a TV consumer.
It's not even messing up there, it's a strategic move made by a lot of people. It's important to remember that not every system works the same as in the US.
Otherwise, I’m not particularly moved by another chronicle of superior outcomes in creative pursuits due to hereditary wealth articles.
That is one of the most thought provoking things I have ever read.
pinewurst•3d ago
dang•2d ago