[2669] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Recommendations for new GIRs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Morton)
Tue Oct 17 17:57:36 2006
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:29:20 -0400
From: Sean Morton <sean_m@mit.edu>
To: Sarina Alyse Canelake <sarina@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.62L.0610171104280.10064@all-night-tool.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
Ditto on that. I took "21L.001: Foundations of Western Culture I" in my
freshman fall, along with 7.012 (woo no teal), 18.02, and 3.091, and
12.001. My HASS was far and away my most exciting and intellectually
stimulating class, in a large part because I was in a class where I was
actually interacting (oh noes!) with upperclassmen, and not just scared
whiney frosh. Freshman fall, I took an intermediate level literature
class. I think I was the only frosh in the class, and I was able to
take it because I was able to take a class of my choice frosh-fall
term. Again, it was my favorite class that term, and kept me sane.
As far as I can tell, with the implementation of the Freshman
Experience, I would not have been able to actually experience these
great classes and learning opportunities as a freshman.
So yeah, like Sari said, I also think this is a fucking terrible idea.
Also, I fully agree with Tony that 8.02 should be required (minus TEAL,
but that's another debate for another time). The idea that people would
be able to graduate from MIT without ever being exposed to Maxwell's
laws -- perhaps the most elegant quantification of nature ever -- is an
outrage, and wholly unacceptable.
~s
Sarina Alyse Canelake wrote:
> 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
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
--
- - - - -
Sean Morton
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
sean_m@mit.edu
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
