[2659] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Recommendations for new GIRs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (grace)
Tue Oct 17 13:55:45 2006
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:54:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: grace <gkenney@MIT.EDU>
To: Roger Hanna <ardonite@csail.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4f03b7d90610171002s75911d3avffc4a30f3142176e@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Anthony Kesich <akesich@MIT.EDU>, 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
not everyone has those opportunities - some people pass out of 8.01 as
well, because they had great ap physics teachers. complaining that the
classes are not well-designed or don't go into sufficient depth beyond AP
level does not mean there shouldn't be course 5 or 7 GIRs. it means that
the existing GIRs need to be overhauled... in which case, i think you
ought to talk to the departments and offer your suggestions. note that i
don't disagree that the classes aren't ideal / don't go into great enough
depth. i do think that everyone _should_ have college-level bio and chem,
though, and the proposed changes will allow even people who didn't have
honors/AP bio or chem in high school to graduate without ever taking
anything more in-depth.
-grace
gibbering like hunter thompson on a revolutionary drug, ardonite@csail.mit....:
> 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
