4 ms·

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 bec

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 think the reason why students might like a lecturer is because they find the lecturer can impart mathematical concepts more clearly than other, and possible "smarter" lecturers. Whilst someone who teaches must clearly understand the material they are teaching, that's not enough. They must also be able to explain it clearly, and preferably find a way of engaging with students. Their subject matter expertise probably needs to equal or even be slightly less than their pedagogical skills. I fear you are mistaking the concerns here with the teaching of higher level math courses. Teaching lower level math like Math1A means teaching students who are NOT going on to be professional mathematicians. There are a raft of fields where you need to know foundational mathematics - like civil engineering, electrical engineering, physics and even economics. A good grounding in maths is very important, but students in these courses don't have to be doing ground breaking mathematical research.

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 think the reason why students might like a lecturer is because they find the lecturer can impart mathematical concepts more clearly than other, and possible "smarter" lecturers. Whilst someone who teaches must clearly understand the material they are teaching, that's not enough. They must also be able to explain it clearly, and preferably find a way of engaging with students. Their subject matter expertise probably needs to equal or even be slightly less than their pedagogical skills. I fear you are mistaking the concerns here with the teaching of higher level math courses. Teaching lower level math like Math1A means teaching students who are NOT going on to be professional mathematicians. There are a raft of fields where you need to know foundational mathematics - like civil engineering, electrical engineering, physics and even economics. A good grounding in maths is very important, but students in these courses don't have to be doing ground breaking mathematical research.