[2654] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Recommendations for new GIRs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roger Hanna)
Tue Oct 17 13:03:23 2006
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:02:52 -0400
From: "Roger Hanna" <ardonite@csail.mit.edu>
To: "Anthony Kesich" <akesich@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4534F969.1040205@mit.edu>
Cc: Tyson C McNulty <tmcnulty@mit.edu>, mit-talk@mit.edu,
grace <gkenney@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
Well apparently it didn't help you learn about Kreb's cycle either.
I didn't learn anything in 5.11x nor 7.01x that I didn't already know
from AP chem and Honors Bio in high school and middle school
respectively. They were both in effect a waste of my time.
roger
On 10/17/06, Anthony Kesich <akesich@mit.edu> wrote:
> 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
