4 ms·

> the typical course is still not that much different 15 years later. For context, I checked your profile to see where you did your undergraduate degree. I am

> the typical course is still not that much different 15 years later. For context, I checked your profile to see where you did your undergraduate degree. I am familiar with the way calculus is currently taught at that university, and it looks quite similar to the "radical [...] era-appropriate" textbook that you linked (at least based on a quick read of a few chapters). Those courses are also taught in a quasi-active learning style (though nothing as extreme as a flipped classroom, etc.). Your observations may have been accurate 15 years ago, but that's thankfully no longer case. There's also pressure from the department/admin to make these changes in upper-level courses. See e.g. https://people.math.harvard.edu/~community/inclusive-classrooms.html#active https://people.math.harvard.edu/~community/inclusive-classro... or materials from https://bokcenter.harvard.edu/active-learning https://bokcenter.harvard.edu/active-learning.

jacobolus 5y ago
I’m glad to hear that. I never interacted with the intro calculus course there. My impression is that most intro calculus courses around the US today still use some book like Stewart, Larson, or Thomas, and still teach in traditional lecture style. In poking around I am also glad to see they switched from Griffiths’s to Townsend’s book for intro QM. Much more conceptually clear with less focus on mindless computation. (Disclaimer: I went to high school with Townsend’s daughter.) I wonder if anything similar can be done for the undergrad electrodynamics course, which was more or less an experiment of “how many gnarly multiple integrals can you grind before burning out?”
- jabl 5y ago
  > I wonder if anything similar can be done for the undergrad electrodynamics course, which was more or less an experiment of “how many gnarly multiple integrals can you grind before burning out?” The classical field theory course was one of my favorites at the master level. Classical EM is beautiful in the sense that by sprinkling some math magic you can basically calculate everything from a few basic laws. Everything sort of fits together in a coherent tight package. TBH, the class did have a fearsome reputation for being math-heavy, and many of my class mates struggled (which was weird, because I was never super-strong in math compared to many of them).

jacobolus 5y ago

I’m glad to hear that. I never interacted with the intro calculus course there. My impression is that most intro calculus courses around the US today still use some book like Stewart, Larson, or Thomas, and still teach in traditional lecture style. In poking around I am also glad to see they switched from Griffiths’s to Townsend’s book for intro QM. Much more conceptually clear with less focus on mindless computation. (Disclaimer: I went to high school with Townsend’s daughter.) I wonder if anything similar can be done for the undergrad electrodynamics course, which was more or less an experiment of “how many gnarly multiple integrals can you grind before burning out?”

jabl 5y ago
> I wonder if anything similar can be done for the undergrad electrodynamics course, which was more or less an experiment of “how many gnarly multiple integrals can you grind before burning out?” The classical field theory course was one of my favorites at the master level. Classical EM is beautiful in the sense that by sprinkling some math magic you can basically calculate everything from a few basic laws. Everything sort of fits together in a coherent tight package. TBH, the class did have a fearsome reputation for being math-heavy, and many of my class mates struggled (which was weird, because I was never super-strong in math compared to many of them).