4 ms·
>I asked her if she was ok, and she said she didn't understand why she had to sit in the lecture learning Laplace transforms when she "only wanted to be a prima
by tmh88j 7y ago
>I asked her if she was ok, and she said she didn't understand why she had to sit in the lecture learning Laplace transforms when she "only wanted to be a primary school teacher"
What university did you attend that Laplace transforms were part of the standard calculus curriculum, let alone a requirement for primary school teachers? From my experience in the US, universities typically offer different sets of calculus classes based on the major. Undergrads in business school might have to take a simplified calculus class or two, but the content is not as in depth as the calculus classes required for STEM majors. I learned about them in a signal processing class, not from the math department. I can't think of a single reason why a primary school teacher should have to study them.
- alfiedotwtf 7y agoNah, not an intro to Calc... it was second year Electrical Engineering calculus, but students were from all different courses (I was doing Compsci at the time).
- tmh88j 7y agoMaybe I wasn't clear enough, but I wasn't referring to intro classes either. I had to take several calculus classes that were for STEM undergrad students and I still didn't encounter laplace transforms until a signal processing class. Students in other majors like business or education had their own separate set of less in depth calculus classes, if they had to take any at all. I find it odd that laplace transforms would be part of the general calculus curriculum, but even more odd that non-STEM students are required to take those classes.