Facing a terminal cancer diagnosis, Stanford professor Bryant Lin refused to abandon his students. Instead, he integrated his experience with esophageal cancer into his final course, "Living With Cancer," offering a uniquely personal and real-time perspective on the disease. He openly shared his treatment journey, physical struggles, and emotional reflections, providing students with invaluable insights into the medical, social, and ethical dimensions of cancer. Lin's dedication to teaching and his willingness to be vulnerable transformed his classroom into a space of shared humanity and learning, inspiring students even as he confronted his own mortality.
The original poster is deciding between Physics PhD programs at Stanford and UC Berkeley, having been accepted to both. They're leaning towards Stanford due to perceived stronger faculty in their specific research interest (quantum computing/AMO physics) and the potential for better industry connections post-graduation. However, they acknowledge Berkeley's prestigious physics department and are seeking further input from the Hacker News community to solidify their decision. Essentially, they are asking for perspectives on the relative strengths and weaknesses of each program, particularly regarding career prospects in quantum computing.
The Hacker News comments on the "Ask HN: Physics PhD at Stanford or Berkeley" post largely revolve around the nuances of choosing between the two prestigious programs. Commenters emphasize that both are excellent choices, and the decision should be based on individual factors like specific research interests, advisor fit, and departmental culture. Several commenters suggest visiting both departments and talking to current students to gauge the environment. Some highlight Stanford's stronger connections to industry and Silicon Valley, while others point to Berkeley's arguably stronger reputation in certain subfields of physics. The overall sentiment is that the OP can't go wrong with either choice, and the decision should be based on personal preference and research goals rather than perceived prestige. A few commenters also caution against overemphasizing the "prestige" factor in general, encouraging the OP to prioritize a supportive and stimulating research environment.
Summary of Comments ( 3 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43186717
HN commenters discuss the Stanford professor's decision to teach a class about his cancer journey. Several praise his bravery and openness, viewing it as a powerful way to educate students and destigmatize illness. Some question the emotional toll on both the professor and the students, wondering about the appropriateness of such a personal subject in an academic setting. Others express skepticism about the framing of the NYT piece, suggesting it's overly sentimentalized. A few commenters also share their own experiences with cancer and teaching, drawing parallels to the professor's situation. The potential for triggering students facing similar challenges is also brought up, along with concerns about the blurring of lines between professional and personal life.
The Hacker News post titled "When This Professor Got Cancer, He Didn't Quit. He Taught a Class About It" (linking to a New York Times article about Stanford professor Bryant Lin's cancer journey and his decision to teach a class about it) generated a moderate number of comments, primarily focusing on admiration for Professor Lin's approach and broader discussions on the nature of education and facing mortality.
Several commenters expressed deep respect for Professor Lin's courage and his innovative approach to dealing with his diagnosis. They saw his decision to create and teach a class about his experience as an act of incredible strength and a testament to his dedication to education. The vulnerability and openness he displayed resonated strongly with many, who viewed it as inspiring.
A significant thread of discussion emerged around the transformative potential of education, particularly when dealing with profound life experiences. Some argued that Professor Lin's class likely offered a unique learning opportunity, not just for the students, but for himself as well. The process of structuring his experience into a curriculum could have provided a framework for processing his emotions and finding meaning in his struggle. Others highlighted the broader societal benefits of open discussions about illness and death, suggesting that such conversations can help destigmatize these topics and foster greater empathy and understanding.
Some commenters shared personal anecdotes about their own experiences with cancer, either as patients or as caregivers. These stories often echoed the sentiments expressed about the value of community and open communication during challenging times.
A few commenters also touched upon the practical aspects of Professor Lin's situation, acknowledging the pressures of academia and the potential challenges of balancing teaching with medical treatment. They admired his perseverance and dedication to his students.
While there wasn't a dominant, singular "most compelling" comment, the collection of comments painted a picture of widespread appreciation for Professor Lin's approach to his illness and the broader conversation it sparked about education, mortality, and the human experience. The comments overall leaned towards expressing respect, admiration, and thoughtful reflection on the topic.