4 ms·
I would argue the opposite problem: those who are interested in math at the college level are forced to sit through two years of applications-based mathematics
by flatline 15y ago
I would argue the opposite problem: those who are interested in math at the college level are forced to sit through two years of applications-based mathematics before ever touching the theory behind it. Nearly all of higher-level undergrad mathematics is hidden behind courses designed to teach engineers problem solving techniques using calculus. As a result, the intro calc courses don't do a particularly good job of imparting either theory or applications, unless you have an unusually talented professor. I came out of Calc II being able to solve some nasty integrals only to realize that you really only need a couple simple techniques, and with no idea how to set up problems until I went through a few physics courses. What was the point of all that - we could have learned integration by parts and u-substitution in a two week session and moved on, or actually spent a semester of analytical work preparing for higher level math.
(edit: differentiation -> integration)
- March_Hare 15y agoAs a senior in CS and math, I completely agree. Calc II, III, elementary differential equations, and matrix theory classes are about 85% engineers at my university. As such, theory was not the focus. All I had to do to get an A was learn an algorithm and apply it. Most of my friends in CS seem to think that higher level math courses are the same and if that is the general assumption I don't blame people for not pursuing math degrees.
- jerf 15y agoI wasn't sure about flatline's post, but I'm sure about yours: You should read the PDF I posted. You certainly aren't disagreeing with me (or Lockheart).