110011

There are so many presumptions in your comment (and your comment below) that I don't know where to start, but I find it very amusing :)

My original comment was based on the reading of the title of this thread and the first few sentences in the referenced article both of which mention the word learn. I would call all five mentioned books a poor choice to learn CS/programming from. The book by Sedgewick is an especially bad one (he has a few in this line of mixing algorithms with a programming language, and I despise all of them, and would never recommend to anyone for learning anything).

Now your comment is typically something I wouldn't respond to, but in a public forum it's different, so I am taking time to write this.

Calm down, control your emotions, and don't divine too much into the motives behind what people write when you don't take time to even read what is written.

"Ana Bell, lecturer in the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, chooses the best books to learn computer science and programming."

Her recommendations are poor. You dont read books on software development methodologies when "learning to program". Nor would you learn type theory. That's like suggesting to someone who wants to learn to sail, the intricacies of weaving cloth fibers into a sail.

There's a huge tower of abstractions to deal with in learning any new discipline, and it's important to enter at an appropriate level, ie, one that engages the learner to continue because the relationship to the end goal is clear (to the learner).

I would suggest CLRS to someone mathematically mature for the best introduction to algorithms. I don't have a book suggestion for learning to program in some language, but I do consider this a far less difficult and important obstacle compared to learning to think algorithmically.

When the interest is piqued people will naturally dig deeper and eventually find out for themselves, other aspects in the tower, be it silicon doping or reinforcement learning.

Sorry but neither the article nor the subject can be said to pique "intellectual curiosity".

Working hard and winning an unheard of competition? Yeah very fascinating.

Understand that anyone can rewrite their past to draw out a cock and bull story of succeeding against all odds. Want to hear mine? This is fairly banal. A narrative like this is best reserved for people who succeed in affecting something bigger than themselves or are at the very top of their profession.

Why is this on HN? Irrelevant, poorly written, lacks credibility.

Have a goal in life. What do you want to achieve in the long term?

This is a very hard question. Most people don't think about this because they are too depleted in the short term addressing problems in the lower levels of Maslow's hierarchy. Often these are very real, hard, if somewhat mundane and unfair problems that they must solve (unfair in the sense of inheriting those problems by virtue of where they are born or what standing their parents have in society, etc.)

Once you are past the point where your basic needs and material comforts (including reasonable employment, vacations, healthcare, disposable income, etc.) are satisfied you have fought for and struggled to come to a station in life where you can redefine yourself because you are past the point of fighting the system now.

But it is an illusion to think that this station in life is "comfortable" and that the choice to redefine yourself is a literal option. And this is where I think many people end up becoming depressed (no science, just based on my empirical observations). Rather it's important to realize that you have to redefine yourself now and set yourself a higher goal.

Again, what do you want to do with your life? Think about this really hard, look at what you enjoy doing, where your natural talents lie, and which pursuit will bring you the greatest satisfaction.

Once you decide what that is for yourself, you need to relentlessly prioritize progress on that goal for the rest of your life, in the present (aka, Time is the most valuable thing on your hands). This is hard, and there are ups and downs along the way, and many opportunities to "soft quit" (like being distracted by other goals which have greater allure in the moment), but if you stay the course it is guaranteed to bring you great satisfaction, and self esteem, the great barrier between you and depression. You will realize your true potential in running up against the wall between you and your goal everyday, and the recognition that you are capable of such perseverance, and the continual progress you make in the long run will become a great source of satisfaction.

Jesus, can you be more melodramatic, self-congratulatory and pointless all at the same time?

You claimed a contradiction but didn't present it. And you go on to assert exactly the things that I said. I am saying that the system failed the students by forcing them to prepare relentlessly for these exams, which the students come to realize is really the only path to success, robbing them of some of the aspects of a normal childhood.

If the system / economy were capable of providing a more varied set of jobs like acting opportunities, regular gigs for bands, apprenticeships in various blue collar jobs, etc. then people will be able to choose professions that better match their interests and skill sets. Why force someone who likes to work with wood into a degree in engineering or science. This is largely what is happening in India.

I am not saying that there are no actors or bands or bike mechanics in India. Rather, it is assumed that everyone needs a degree from college and even if this is an entirely ridiculous proposition for many people (based on their interests) and they endure four years in college doing something they don't enjoy in some of the formative years of their life.

So the people who might have benefited from an apprenticeship or taking a year or two off from this career sprint suffer the most, and the final allocation of people to jobs is dismal (the fact that hundreds of thousands of Indians work at call centers is a symptom). The system fails by not providing such kinds of alternate opportunities at the scale that is necessary for a country so huge.

Finally, all middle income Indian parents will continue to pick some career in a STEM discipline for their kids very early on, preventing any investment of time in discovering their interests, keeping this carousel spinning.

The people referenced in the article, who attend several years specialized coaching preparing for these exams, paying large sums of money in the process, are hardly doing so in "a desperate attempt to escape poverty."

They are simply trying to prepare better than the competition.

Also you seem to get wrong some basic facts about how well the global economy is providing for and improving the state of people around the world. There are no billions that are attempting to escape poverty in the light of some shrinking funnel.

The answer is a bit nuanced and I am suggesting that it is the case, perhaps about the same instead of being exactly the same. You can argue that the apparent cost of not studying hard in is wildly different in these two countries (basic welfare support vs complete lack thereof). Yes, I agree that when you look at providing for basic material comforts in dire circumstances it obvious which country a person ought to choose, when presented with this hypothetical choice.

But that simply fails to capture the stresses of everyday life. The average person on welfare checks can hardly be assumed to happy and is probably facing intense, if subtle, negative societal feedback for the choices he is forced to make. Do you think this person is happy to eat at McDonalds and wear cheap clothes when everyone around him is upgrading their smartphones. That's why I say that providing for basic material comforts hardly does much to improve the mental well-being. The pressure to succeed is present everywhere, and failing to do so is stressful in all such circumstances, and I would imagine that it would be roughly the same.

Again this is an article on suicides and it is the most extreme form of pressure that anyone can face. The extent to which we can compare the stress on people that aren't doing well (by societal norms) is hard to pin down exactly, and I don't want to make any bold claims there that the stresses must be exactly the same. But I do see that there is a basic similarity here.

The pressure to succeed is immense everywhere, this is hardly a notable feature of Indian society. Others have mentioned this already on this thread but let me paraphrase, basically no one is satisfied with some objective notion of success (like a high standard of living), rather success means to do better than those around you. So if you have three cars parked in your garage in the USA and are living an impossibly comfortable life, materially, by all measures, it is nevertheless almost surely the case that you feel the "pressure to succeed".

Without a doubt all the years of exam preparation in the teenage years come at a steep cost. For a young person in their teens to not have the time to reflect, be self-aware, and explore what life has to offer, is necessarily a failure of the system as a whole. But that is the reality in India, and if students must trade all that for studying hard then it simply reflects their (I would argue correct) perspective on the potential rewards of a solid career and securing your future from the certain chaos that awaits the uneducated or even poorly performing students in India.

In that sense I would say it is unfair to claim that Indian students graduating from an IIT can't do this or that; it is actually an achievement in and of itself that they managed to get there and out without turning out to be entirely dysfunctional. While I would not argue that competition in India (in the context of these national examinations) is much higher than the competition in the West in various spheres (sports, sciences, tech, etc.), the reality is that the breadth of options to a good place in life is extremely limited, and the competition is rather concentrated to a few possibilities. You cannot opt to become a YouTuber, pro basketball player or a digital nomad if you're born Indian. There is essentially a bunch of careers in science, engineering and medicine, and a few top institutions for each of these ends, whose pedigree can get you very far, and failing that, there is much uncertainty to be faced. And most Indian students, while unable to articulate this, clearly feel these pressures and act accordingly.