[2708] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Faculty meeting discussion of the task force
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kelsey Byers)
Thu Oct 19 13:35:38 2006
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:34:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Kelsey Byers <kbyers@mit.edu>
To: Michael Lieberman <mathmike@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62L.0610191205110.3026@ozok-the-destroyer.mit.edu>
Cc: mit-talk@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
> Now I'd like to share my two cents on the specific issue of the math
> requirement. While I don't see discrete math taking the place of 18.02 in
> the requirement, I think it's within the realm of possibility that 18.03
> can replace 18.02. I hope people will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think
> that most majors already require 18.03, while many of those majors could
> do without 18.02. With this change, people would then have a real choice
> for their third math class (either take 18.02, or some form of discrete
> math which is likely more useful to their major). I talked with Professor
> White after the meeting, and he think's it's a good idea with a chance of
> working. What do people here think? (I feel obliged to mention this was
> not my idea, but I stole it from Tim Abbott).
I personally like 18.03 replacing 18.02. I took both classes my freshman
year, and 18.03 is the class that I've used the most. 18.02 was
useful for 8.02 (or something - 8.02 taught concepts sooner in the
semester, but I took 18.02 the previous semester), by extension for
E+M-dependent subjects like 6.002, and possibly for thermochemistry.
In contrast, 18.03 covered material that I've used many times for
practical (non-theoretical) reasons. I can see 18.03 being useful to
almost all majors - certainly for the engineering majors and for basically
all the science majors as well. For people majoring in other subjects,
it's probably still more useful than 18.02 will be.
Plus, which would you rather study? Little squiggly lines with circles
drawn around them or differential equations of the tiger-person
predator-prey relationship? *grin*
But yes, 18.03 >> 18.02 for usefulness in my book. They just need to
improve it if it becomes a GIR so not as many people have to take it more
than once.
- Kelsey, who happens to be Course 7
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
