[2710] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Faculty meeting discussion of the task force
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Cathy Zhang)
Thu Oct 19 15:10:04 2006
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:07:15 -0400
From: Cathy Zhang <zhangc@mit.edu>
To: Kelsey Byers <kbyers@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62L.0610191329270.2352@white-meteo.mit.edu>
Cc: Michael Lieberman <mathmike@mit.edu>, mit-talk@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
I agree that 18.03 is a lot more useful than 18.02, but I think there
are a few key topics in 18.02 that are prerequisite to understanding
18.03. That being said, maybe there's some way 18.01 and 18.02 could be
merged (with some of the topics in 18.02 cut), the way 18.01A/18.02A
works right now, and then, for people who would normally enter taking
18.01 (people who've never had calculus or had very very very little of
it in high school), they would take a longer version, just like people
who take 8.01L, the longer version of 8.01.
It makes sense to me that 8.01 remains a GIR, but I think 5/7 should
stay on there as well. It's still basic knowledge that one should have,
even if you're "never going to use it ever again in your field of
study." Even if that statement is true, there's still a high probability
that one day, you'll have to communicate your ideas with someone who is
5/7, and you'll be collaborating on some project/idea that you have, but
you can't figure out what's going on because you don't understand
exactly what sugars, lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids are, or something.
For the people who think that they already know all of the stuff from
7.01x/5.11x, then take the advanced standing exam. I tried to take 2
advanced standing exams during my orientation, which really made the
first few days awful because I was trying to study for the exams instead
of enjoying all the stuff that centered around me, as a frosh, so I
totally understand people who would want to take multiple exams because
they want to pass out of classes, but at the same time, don't want to
spend orientation worrying about that kind of stuff. The thing is, if AP
Chem/Bio don't cover enough of the material in 5.11x/7.01x to be
considered enough for credit, then there's no way MIT can give credit
for AP scores, and the best way is through the ASEs.
Personally, I believe that the best way to revamp the GIRs is to have
faculty/students sit down and make a list of what should be taught, and
to what depth, and then plot out a class following that list. It might
even make sense to combine subjects into one GIR class, like combining
5.11x/7.01x into one 12-unit class, or 8.01/8.02 (just throwing ideas
out there).
Regarding HASSes, I'm with the people who don't see any reason to get
rid of the small-class environment and all the great interaction you get
in a HASS class for the purpose of "unifying the freshman class." HASSes
are great places to meet upperclassmen and learn about MIT in general,
and they also make a nice conversation topic, even when you're taking
different HASSes from your friends--you tell each other about what
you're doing in class and what you think is interesting and what's not.
Diversity, right? And choices.
Last thing: Is anyone else alarmed by the seeming turn in focus of
orientation? Why would we want to ruin the orientation experience by
making it focused on academics? I think there's just the right amount of
focus on academics during orientation now--the academic expo, core
blitz, etc--just enough to inform us about our options, but not so much
that minor worrywarts will start worrying. There's plenty of time to
experience the academic side of MIT during one's /four years/ here; why
ruin the first work-free week or so? Orientation should be like
IAP--more fun than work.
-Zek
Kelsey Byers wrote:
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/private/mit-talk/attachments/20061019/5d112734/attachment.htm
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
