3 ms·

This is ludicrous - I was taught by Professor Ogus, and he had an excellent grasp of didactic techniques. He dedicated a large amount of time to having me come

This is ludicrous - I was taught by Professor Ogus, and he had an excellent grasp of didactic techniques. He dedicated a large amount of time to having me come in during office hours so I could do a mock lecture before it was actually delivered, and I could compare notes when he delivered his. Yes, he was exacting and demanding, but it made me a better student. The fact that a lecturer with low standards happens to be popular with students is irrelevant. The math department has a large presence on campus because it is the best in the world. My advisor was Robin Hartshorne, and I took advantage of courses with a Fields medalist. That sort of department has standards that it enforces because it demands quality, not coddling. This is all underlined by the fact that the lecturer in question states he has a breakdown of some sort due to the stress of the position. We're to take this seriously? I feel for the man, but it clearly indicates that the criticisms might be divorced from reality. If you're too weak to excel in an environment filled with the world's top researchers, and where you are responsible for your own achievement, then find another school where they let prop comics teach math and spoon feed you.

chris_wot 11y ago
I'm still learning mathematics. I'm in fact largely teaching myself. I can assure you, though, that a Fields medalist is not required to teach me Differential Calculus (Math1A). In fact, I'd prefer it if they didn't.
- principal0 11y ago
  Likely you don't care because you have no intention of pursuing mathematics in a research capacity at any point. However part of the experience for those who care more about math than an easy "A" is ensuring you have access to amazing role models early on. People who take an interest in you, and spend some of their incredibly valuable time shepherding you through a unique, beautiful field. Where is your sense of wonder, or your desire to know these exceptional people while observing how they think? How myopic. If you're at Berkeley, you're wasting your time being bitter and hopefully you'll transfer. That isn't a personal criticism, so much as recognizing that a top research university isn't for everyone, and the unique resources and access it provides should be given great weight or you shouldn't be using them. Professor Ogus cared, as did almost all of my professors. I was amazed I could take classes and spend time with people who are shaping our understanding of mathematics. It's the same shock you have when you go to the SFMoMA and realize that some of the greatest post-Impressionist works in the world are sitting entirely unprotected in front of you. It impacted me, it impacted the way I think, and I will always value what they did for me. An adjunct simply can't provide that experience, and if you're just looking to pass Math 1A go to a community college for those credits. If you want to make a mark and know some of the brightest minds of our age, go to Berkeley.
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    No, that's not it. My reasoning is very simple - in all likelihood an extremely advanced mathematician will be incredibly bored by very simple mathematics, and not want to spend much time explaining it clearly. Unless they are that rare commodity - the extraordinarily talented mathematician who can remember what it was like to struggle with the basics and who is able to keep the teaching of concepts simple enough it doesn't go over the head of the class, or go too fast - then I would prefer to be taught by someone who cares about imparting the basics of mathematics in an understandable and reasonably paced way. I've been to lectures where a clearly brilliant mathematician was teaching basic maths, and it nearly turned me off maths. You speak of killing wonder: well, there you have it. (P.S. I'm an Australian who will never get the opportunity to go to Berkeley, and I'm definitely not bitter! If I was doing highly advanced math, then in that case I'd want a Fields medallist teaching me!)
ytinifx 11y ago
100% agree. Others posting regarding this issue have no idea about any facts in this issue. The much more plausible reality is, this guy didn't get an extension as a lecturer and is butthurt and attacking the math department which he believes to be hiding evidence about his "amazing teaching prowess" and is getting rid of him because everyone wants to take his class instead of from full time faculty. Seems to me like he is disillusioned. Maybe his teaching is effective and maybe he is a good lecturer, I can't argue for or against that. But he didn't do his job in a way that the department expected and was let go. Live with it. It is completely over the top to become suicidally depressed because your boss told you that you have to assign homework and tell your TAs what to do. Sorry, but this really takes away from his credibility as a person.
- thatswrong0 11y ago
  > It is completely over the top to become suicidally depressed because Holy shit, are you a robot? Are you really just going to trivialize his depression? Just think about the kind of person you are for a second. To me, you have absolutely no credibility if you can't conjure up an ounce of sympathy for the guy. But I guess that lines up with the fact that you support the Mathematics department here. Having gone to Berkeley and experienced the mediocrity of STEM education there, I have no idea how you can be on their side.
kriro 11y ago
"""If you're too weak to excel in an environment filled with the world's top researchers""" What kind of attitude is this? Seems pretty cruel and horribly antisocial. If you're too weak...what is this the animal kingdom? And I'd think that it would be way more interesting if a Fields medalist would be freed up to teach more courses about his/her specialty instead of the intro to calculus stuff (or arguably not teach at all but I disagree with that position).
- principal0 11y ago
  First, because I implied it rather than stated, let's explicitly scope that statement to students. I am saying that if weaker math students like a professor because he has easier material, they should find another school. Top research universities should not be diploma mills, and students should appreciate and take advantage of unique resources at these schools. It may be the last time a student has exposure to a world-class mathematician. The reality is that top math departments are very competitive places. It's realistic, not cruel. And feelings, yours or mine, aren't the ultimate arbiter of truth. I, for example, am a weak football player. It's okay to say you're weak on certain dimensions, and it's in fact very important to assess as impartially as our limbic system allows because it prevents you from wasting time. I wouldn't break down trying to run the football field with Gronkowski because there were some elbows thrown. I don't feel entitled to be a football player. I'd recognize the nature of the game I'm playing and find another one better suited to my skills. I also wouldn't try to turn football into a different game. Suggesting a student go to a liberal arts college focused on teaching rather than a major research university isn't "cruel and horribly antisocial". It's allocating scarce resources effectively.
  - kriro 11y ago
    How exactly do you arrive at the conclusion that they like him because he has easier material? He even says that he wanted to conduct harder tests but was forced to dumb them down/reduce the scope. And why is it only weaker students that appreciate the class? As far as I know the class is open to anyone no matter how smart they are (assuming they are Berkeley students) He's simply significantly better at teaching if the provided data is correct. The takeaway here should be...why are (other) Berkeley math professors so bad at teaching? I guess you could question the reported statistics and if it makes sense to rely on evidence based teaching. Feel free to suggest a better approach.

chris_wot 11y ago

I'm still learning mathematics. I'm in fact largely teaching myself. I can assure you, though, that a Fields medalist is not required to teach me Differential Calculus (Math1A). In fact, I'd prefer it if they didn't.

principal0 11y ago
Likely you don't care because you have no intention of pursuing mathematics in a research capacity at any point. However part of the experience for those who care more about math than an easy "A" is ensuring you have access to amazing role models early on. People who take an interest in you, and spend some of their incredibly valuable time shepherding you through a unique, beautiful field. Where is your sense of wonder, or your desire to know these exceptional people while observing how they think? How myopic. If you're at Berkeley, you're wasting your time being bitter and hopefully you'll transfer. That isn't a personal criticism, so much as recognizing that a top research university isn't for everyone, and the unique resources and access it provides should be given great weight or you shouldn't be using them. Professor Ogus cared, as did almost all of my professors. I was amazed I could take classes and spend time with people who are shaping our understanding of mathematics. It's the same shock you have when you go to the SFMoMA and realize that some of the greatest post-Impressionist works in the world are sitting entirely unprotected in front of you. It impacted me, it impacted the way I think, and I will always value what they did for me. An adjunct simply can't provide that experience, and if you're just looking to pass Math 1A go to a community college for those credits. If you want to make a mark and know some of the brightest minds of our age, go to Berkeley.
- chris_wot 11y ago
  No, that's not it. My reasoning is very simple - in all likelihood an extremely advanced mathematician will be incredibly bored by very simple mathematics, and not want to spend much time explaining it clearly. Unless they are that rare commodity - the extraordinarily talented mathematician who can remember what it was like to struggle with the basics and who is able to keep the teaching of concepts simple enough it doesn't go over the head of the class, or go too fast - then I would prefer to be taught by someone who cares about imparting the basics of mathematics in an understandable and reasonably paced way. I've been to lectures where a clearly brilliant mathematician was teaching basic maths, and it nearly turned me off maths. You speak of killing wonder: well, there you have it. (P.S. I'm an Australian who will never get the opportunity to go to Berkeley, and I'm definitely not bitter! If I was doing highly advanced math, then in that case I'd want a Fields medallist teaching me!)

ytinifx 11y ago

100% agree. Others posting regarding this issue have no idea about any facts in this issue. The much more plausible reality is, this guy didn't get an extension as a lecturer and is butthurt and attacking the math department which he believes to be hiding evidence about his "amazing teaching prowess" and is getting rid of him because everyone wants to take his class instead of from full time faculty. Seems to me like he is disillusioned. Maybe his teaching is effective and maybe he is a good lecturer, I can't argue for or against that. But he didn't do his job in a way that the department expected and was let go. Live with it. It is completely over the top to become suicidally depressed because your boss told you that you have to assign homework and tell your TAs what to do. Sorry, but this really takes away from his credibility as a person.

thatswrong0 11y ago
> It is completely over the top to become suicidally depressed because Holy shit, are you a robot? Are you really just going to trivialize his depression? Just think about the kind of person you are for a second. To me, you have absolutely no credibility if you can't conjure up an ounce of sympathy for the guy. But I guess that lines up with the fact that you support the Mathematics department here. Having gone to Berkeley and experienced the mediocrity of STEM education there, I have no idea how you can be on their side.

kriro 11y ago

"""If you're too weak to excel in an environment filled with the world's top researchers""" What kind of attitude is this? Seems pretty cruel and horribly antisocial. If you're too weak...what is this the animal kingdom? And I'd think that it would be way more interesting if a Fields medalist would be freed up to teach more courses about his/her specialty instead of the intro to calculus stuff (or arguably not teach at all but I disagree with that position).

principal0 11y ago
First, because I implied it rather than stated, let's explicitly scope that statement to students. I am saying that if weaker math students like a professor because he has easier material, they should find another school. Top research universities should not be diploma mills, and students should appreciate and take advantage of unique resources at these schools. It may be the last time a student has exposure to a world-class mathematician. The reality is that top math departments are very competitive places. It's realistic, not cruel. And feelings, yours or mine, aren't the ultimate arbiter of truth. I, for example, am a weak football player. It's okay to say you're weak on certain dimensions, and it's in fact very important to assess as impartially as our limbic system allows because it prevents you from wasting time. I wouldn't break down trying to run the football field with Gronkowski because there were some elbows thrown. I don't feel entitled to be a football player. I'd recognize the nature of the game I'm playing and find another one better suited to my skills. I also wouldn't try to turn football into a different game. Suggesting a student go to a liberal arts college focused on teaching rather than a major research university isn't "cruel and horribly antisocial". It's allocating scarce resources effectively.
- kriro 11y ago
  How exactly do you arrive at the conclusion that they like him because he has easier material? He even says that he wanted to conduct harder tests but was forced to dumb them down/reduce the scope. And why is it only weaker students that appreciate the class? As far as I know the class is open to anyone no matter how smart they are (assuming they are Berkeley students) He's simply significantly better at teaching if the provided data is correct. The takeaway here should be...why are (other) Berkeley math professors so bad at teaching? I guess you could question the reported statistics and if it makes sense to rely on evidence based teaching. Feel free to suggest a better approach.