[2635] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Recommendations for new GIRs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Anthony Kesich)
Tue Oct 17 11:41:39 2006
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:40:25 -0400
From: Anthony Kesich <akesich@mit.edu>
To: grace <gkenney@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.62L.0610171117350.18126@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
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that 7/5 were less important, I was just
trying to point out why 8.01 was left mandatory. As for 7.01x and
5.11x, I also believe ever MIT student should take them. I am course 8
and have yet to touch anything course 7 related or use anything beyond
basic chem, but I would feel slighted if MIT did not require me to have
a basic understandings of the fields which then allows me to communicate
with people in other fields about the research enough to have an
appreciation for it and not blow it off as "hand-wavy sorcery". An MIT
grad should not have a blank stare when you mention the Creb's cycle or
Lygase or Lewis structures.
-Tony K
grace wrote:
>
> i agree that everyone should take those classes [and yes, the
> self-enclosed nature of those 8.01/2 is something that bio and chem
> don't have.] however, i don't think that the fact that bio and chem
> are not "self-enclosed" means that they are somehow less vital. the
> topics are nothing less than than essential: what is all matter built
> out of, what are living things composed of, and how do those systems
> work? we may not be able to describe every detail at this point, but
> we've got most of the basic stuff in both fields worked out. [it can
> be argued that some of the classes don't address this at the right
> level, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the basic
> information is important for students.]
>
> furthermore, understanding how things are determined experimentally
> [and studying some of the most basic examples - for example, early
> chemistry experiments] is also very valuable for MIT graduates. not
> everything _can_ be derived from a handful of basic equations, and
> it's not inappropriate to provide exposure to fields where the
> information's derived from empirical evidence - after all, that's what
> most scientists [and in some ways, engineers] _do_, to various extents.
>
> -grace
>
> gibbering like hunter thompson on a revolutionary drug,
> akesich@MIT.EDU said:
>
>> Ignoring the the "percentage of majors" argument you brought up, 8.01,
>> and even 8.02, can be argued for because they are the first science
>> classes that are, for lack of a better term, self-enclosed. Unlike
>> Biology and Chemistry where most of the information you need to know
>> comes from someone empirical evidence, 8.01 can be, thought is not
>> always, completely derived from Newton's three laws. Same thing goes
>> for 8.02 with Coulomb's law and the Biot-Savart law. Granted, the
>> results are then back up by observations, but I diverge.
>>
>> The point is 8.01 is a class that is almost all about learning how to
>> approach problems, not just memorizing laws and their exceptions. All
>> of 8.01 can be boiled down to half a page of equations. The reason the
>> class takes a semester is you need to learn how to use your set of
>> tools. 8.01 (and, in my opinion 8.02) should be required because they
>> are all about learning how to problem solve which is a critical ability
>> of any MIT graduate.
>>
>> -Tony K
>>
>> 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
>>
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
