This article does not surprise me one bit.
How can a student stay motivated if the the class average for midterms is routinely below 40%? Most math, physics, and engineering professors do not teach to the regular student, nor do they care: their target is the hardcore nerd who will eventually get a PhD in math/physics/engineering. The remaining 90% of students are there because their majors force them to take these ridiculous prerequisites.
Does a civil engineer really need to prove the convergence of a limit? Do computer programmers need to know how to do triple integrals? Do any doctors know about invisible numbers?
No, no, and no.
The moment when your linear algebra teacher spends the entire fifty minutes of lecture talking about useless concepts, with you walking out of there with glazed eyes, a headache, and no retention of what he said is when you seriously reconsider what the hell you're doing with your life.
"Research confirmed in the 1990s that students learn more by grappling with open-ended problems, like creating a computer game or designing an alternative energy system, than listening to lectures."
Bingo.
All throughout college I knew I wanted to create computer applications, yet I was forced into taking dozens of classes that had no meaning in anything related to programming. The only math or computer science class that was useful and interesting was Math 157 - Software Techniques for Scientific Computing. The professor engaged us and gave us a project that had real-world applicability: build a computer program that graphed equations for use in a medical or engineering office (or something like that). He didn't simply lecture on and on without caring who understood. He made the class fun and gave everyone an idea of how it was like to be an actual programmer. All other CS or math classes were shit. (The Program in Computing, or PIC, classes were good since they taught you how to program in C++ and explained concepts of object-oriented programming.)
I understand the concept that taking these difficult STEM classes increases critical thinking and quantitative analysis, but when your professor gives you 1 out of 50 on a test because he didn't like the way you proved a theory (which, by the way, was exactly how the TA explained it), you just want to tell everyone in Boelter Hall to go to hell. Seriously, how many demoralizing classes does one need before s/he understands how to think critically? (Hint: not that many.)
I applaud the rethinking of these curriculums and hope the South Campus programs at UCLA take note.
How can a student stay motivated if the the class average for midterms is routinely below 40%? Most math, physics, and engineering professors do not teach to the regular student, nor do they care: their target is the hardcore nerd who will eventually get a PhD in math/physics/engineering. The remaining 90% of students are there because their majors force them to take these ridiculous prerequisites.
Does a civil engineer really need to prove the convergence of a limit? Do computer programmers need to know how to do triple integrals? Do any doctors know about invisible numbers?
No, no, and no.
The moment when your linear algebra teacher spends the entire fifty minutes of lecture talking about useless concepts, with you walking out of there with glazed eyes, a headache, and no retention of what he said is when you seriously reconsider what the hell you're doing with your life.
"Research confirmed in the 1990s that students learn more by grappling with open-ended problems, like creating a computer game or designing an alternative energy system, than listening to lectures."
Bingo.
All throughout college I knew I wanted to create computer applications, yet I was forced into taking dozens of classes that had no meaning in anything related to programming. The only math or computer science class that was useful and interesting was Math 157 - Software Techniques for Scientific Computing. The professor engaged us and gave us a project that had real-world applicability: build a computer program that graphed equations for use in a medical or engineering office (or something like that). He didn't simply lecture on and on without caring who understood. He made the class fun and gave everyone an idea of how it was like to be an actual programmer. All other CS or math classes were shit. (The Program in Computing, or PIC, classes were good since they taught you how to program in C++ and explained concepts of object-oriented programming.)
I understand the concept that taking these difficult STEM classes increases critical thinking and quantitative analysis, but when your professor gives you 1 out of 50 on a test because he didn't like the way you proved a theory (which, by the way, was exactly how the TA explained it), you just want to tell everyone in Boelter Hall to go to hell. Seriously, how many demoralizing classes does one need before s/he understands how to think critically? (Hint: not that many.)
I applaud the rethinking of these curriculums and hope the South Campus programs at UCLA take note.
Like your writing style....
ReplyDelete