[2627] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Recommendations for new GIRs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sarina Alyse Canelake)
Tue Oct 17 11:13:50 2006
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:09:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sarina Alyse Canelake <sarina@mit.edu>
To: grace <gkenney@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.62L.0610171024490.18126@biohazard-cafe.mit.edu>
Cc: Tyson C McNulty <tmcnulty@mit.edu>, mit-talk@mit.edu,
Tim Abbott <tabbott@mit.edu>, random-hall-talk@mit.edu,
ec-discuss@mit.edu, Mike Barrett <radmike@gmail.com>,
Laura Nicholson <lnicks@mit.edu>
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
Do they really not understand what a fucking terrible idea a freshman hass
class is?
My first term freshman year sucked. 8.01, when I hate physics (plus TEAL,
eewwwww!). 18.02, when I suck at math. 3.091, moderately okay, but still
a huge class and sometimes overwhelming. my HASS class--- awesome, 20
people, lots of discussion, met a ton of new friends who were like juniors
& seniors, had really interesting talks because of the breadth of
experience & age in the class. My HASS was the only class I had perfect
attendance in. If I had had to take a huge "freshman experience" hass, my
desires to leave MIT, instead of being like 60%, would probably have
creeped up into the 80s-90s. Seriously. Small classes kick ass, and why
take the one opportunity for freshman to experience that away?
Also, just saying, they should offer an alternative to TEAL. I just
dropped 8.02 again because I can't deal with it.
-sari
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, grace wrote:
>
> i was wondering this as well. today's tech says "five pilot project-based
> [science GIR] subjects and three freshman experience HASS subjects are under
> development and will be offered in the coming semesters, according to
> margaret s. enders, associate dean of faculty." this rather makes it sound
> like the fix is already in - is it even possible to make major structural
> changes [e.g. ditching the 5/6 science GIR structure or the frosh hass
> class]?
>
> as for myself, i can't think of much in either 8.012 or 8.02t that i've used
> later. [for that matter, speaking as a chem major, 3.091 was sorta useless
> too.] i honestly don't think there's a decent argument for making 8.01
> mandatory but 5.11x/7.01x not mandatory, unless you focus on "percentage of
> students who will find this class useful for their major." even that, i'm
> doubtful about - courses 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 20, blah blah blah all have some
> reason to take chem or bio classes, and i'm sure i'm forgetting others. for
> that matter, from a science literacy standpoint, biology, due to its medical
> relevance, is probably more important than physics for people today to
> understand. there's also the fact that everything's so interdisciplinary
> these days - having a basic background in other fields can give you a
> starting point if you find yourself working on an interdisciplinary project.
>
> [anyways, i'll ask the chem dept. about what they think of the
> recommendations. i'm curious.]
>
> -grace
>
>
> gibbering like hunter thompson on a revolutionary drug, radmike@gmail.com
> said:
>
>> What sort of process is in place in terms of who decides what "final plan"
>> to implement? I kind of thought that this report was the result of
>> so-called
>> community feedback, but obviously they either already disregarded some of
>> the ideas people've been bringing up, or they didn't get enough feedback in
>> the first place. But is it Deans who decide? The different departments?
>> Will
>> the student body, and faculty all vote on some final plan? Or is it the
>> taskforce?
>>
>> By the way, how do the chem/bio departments feel about their GIRs not being
>> mandatory anymore? And are there people out there that think 8.01 could
>> just
>> as easily have been put in the same category? As an engineering major I
>> would have had to take it anyways under whatever plan, but what about
>> people
>> in HASS, Course 9/7/18 etc.? I mean, once you open the door to not creating
>> a common science vocabulary, etc. why did 8.01 stay on there while the
>> other
>> two got non-mandatory'd? Don't get me wrong, I only used the 5.112 (which I
>> stupidly took over 3.091) once in my other coursework, and it just involved
>> knowing which side of the periodic table was left or right. And I never
>> touched any bio stuff since AP bio, so I don't really care too much about
>> those two being voluntary. But I'm just wondering if the same argument
>> holds
>> water for 8.01 as well.
>>
>> mike
>>
>>
>> On 10/16/06, Jessica H Lowell <jessiehl@mit.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> There's going to be a survey and online forum up soon, and a town hall
>>> meeting
>>> at 2pm in the Bush Room next Sunday. The SAC to the Task Force, which is
>>> a
>>> group of students, will be compiling opinions and writing a student report
>>> in
>>> response to the task force report over IAP. You can get involved with
>>> them by
>>> emailing edcomm-sac@mit.edu.
>>>
>>> - Jessie
>>>
>>> Quoting Tyson C McNulty <tmcnulty@MIT.EDU>:
>>>
>>> > This thread is great and all, but could someone remind me (us) what
>>> > the next point of action is if we want to voice our opinion about
>>> > these potential changes to the people in charge? A petition? A
>>> > survey? It seems like there should be something we could do besides
>>> > repeatedly agree with each other.
>>> >
>>> > Because yes, it bothers me a lot.
>>> >
>>> > -tysoff
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Laura Nicholson wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Originally, I was really pleased with summary of the HASS suggestions-
>>> I
>>> >> was glad that someone with the power to change things said, "hey guess
>>> >> what, the HASS requirements make everyone want to eat lead! We should
>>> >> fix that." However, the more I read of the actual recommendations, the
>>> >> less I liked. It seems to me that they've basically taken the concept
>>> >> of the "HASS-D," narrowed the number of choices in class and timing
>>> >> associated with it, turned them all into CIs, and then renamed them
>>> >> "foundational electives." Yuck.
>>> >>
>>> >> Of course, the most upsetting of the proposed changes is the "HASS
>>> First
>>> >> Year Experience," which in my opinion promises to make students hate
>>> the
>>> >> HASS requirements more than the current overly-complicated guidelines.
>>> >>
>>> >> Throughout the entire report, the task force promotes a theme of
>>> >> "unifying" the first year, which bothers a lot of people. While
>>> reading
>>> >> the report, I was kind of bothered by the underlying question, "Why is
>>> >> it so important to "unify" the first year?" And reading between the
>>> >> lines, I found something of an answer that in turn *really* bothered
>>> me.
>>> >>
>>> >> The report list several fundamental "themes" that comprise the
>>> >> educational philosophy of MIT, namely a persistent passion for
>>> learning,
>>> >> intellectual diversity, an innovative approach to core knowledge,
>>> >> collaborative learning, and education for responsible leadership. On
>>> >> page I-23, the report goes on to claim: "Our early consultations with
>>> >> our colleagues and students confirmed our strong initial sense that
>>> >> themes such as these are not sufficiently well communicated to MIT
>>> >> undergraduates. Ideally, the first year will begin with a dialogue
>>> >> between new students and faculty about this philosophy. More
>>> >> importantly, students must be encouraged- and given the time- to
>>> reflect
>>> >> on this philosophy and become active participants in the educational
>>> >> process throughout their tenure as undergraduates."
>>> >>
>>> >> Are they serious? With the exception of the "innovative approach to
>>> >> core knowledge" (which strikes me as some obligatory tip of the hat to
>>> >> those who think TEAL works), those were the reasons I *applied* to MIT.
>>> >> And I imagine that's true for a lot of people here. But according to
>>> >> the task force, undergraduates are unclear about MIT's educational
>>> >> philosophy, so they should be forced into cookie-cutter first year
>>> >> classes to learn how to be MIT students.
>>> >>
>>> >> Am I completely reading this wrong? Am I nitpicking about something
>>> >> weird? Or does this bother anyone else?
>>> >>
>>> >> -Laura
>>> >>
>>> >>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006, Jessica H Lowell wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> The Task Force on the Undergraduate Educational Commons (the task
>>> >>>> force that was
>>> >>>> reforming the GIRs) released its final report today.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Full Report (158 pages):
>>> >>>> http://web.mit.edu/committees/edcommons/documents/TF_FullReport.pdf
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Summary & Recommendations (11 pages):
>>> >>>> http://web.mit.edu/committees/edcommons/documents/TF_SumRecs.pdf
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> There are some things I like in there, and some things I don't.
>>> >>>> I'm distressed
>>> >>>> that, despite the fact that no student that I've spoken with
>>> >>>> favored the idea
>>> >>>> (and many left comments on the feedback site to that effect), the
>>> >>>> Task Force
>>> >>>> kept in their idea of a Freshman Experience humanities class - and
>>> >>>> in general,
>>> >>>> I find the trend to regard freshmen as separate from the rest of
>>> >>>> the undergrads
>>> >>>> disturbing. For the science core, there seem to have been two
>>> >>>> proposals favored
>>> >>>> by some faction of the Task Force, and I like the one that they
>>> >>>> chose not to
>>> >>>> endorse, that would have combined their computation & engineering
>>> >>>> GIR and their
>>> >>>> project-based experience GIR and still required everyone to take,
>>> >>>> for instance,
>>> >>>> chem and bio, better.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On the other hand, I like the idea of more streamlined procedures
>>> >>>> for students
>>> >>>> to follow who want to study abroad, and merging the HASS
>>> >>>> distribution and CI-H
>>> >>>> requirements.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> What do others think?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> - Jessie
>>> >>>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
