4 ms·

Part of the difficulty with emotional views of problem sets and tests at universities is not so much that these sorts of problem sets are emotionally trying the

by cge 4y ago

Part of the difficulty with emotional views of problem sets and tests at universities is not so much that these sorts of problem sets are emotionally trying themselves, but that from the student perspective, going between institutions and class levels, the style, grading and expectations for problem sets and tests can change quite quickly. While I strongly prefer the sorts of problem sets being described, and preferred them as a student once I got used to them, it is likely helpful to have these sorts of explicit clarifications, even in situations where you might assume that students will already be acclimated to a particular style. For students taking unusual pathways through courses, they may not have been around for previous mentions in prior classes, may be taking a class out of their field or usual level, or may be more used to a institution, field, department, or simply instructors, with different expectations. Going from secondary school or community college to lower division undergraduate classes, upper division undergraduate classes, and graduate classes, depending on circumstances and field, you can, in a few years, go from assignments where you have 60 questions you are expected to be able to answer, and getting 50 right will result in a poor grade or even failing, to assignments where answering 3 out of 5 is considered great. Without context, it can be terrifying to get a problem set where you assume that having trouble with a problem means you don't understand the material well, when in reality it's expected that you won't finish it perfectly even as an excellent student. In my undergraduate experience, going from a community college, to upper division undergraduate physics courses, to graduate physics courses taken in my senior year, I went, from the finals one term to the midterms of the next, from classes where I walked into tests expecting that I should be able to answer every question perfectly, to classes where my 70% score on the midterm (of a handful of questions) was considered an excellent result, with no explicit indication beforehand that this would be the case. That switch was only a year before I was in a small graduate class where answering two out of four questions correctly on an assignment merited a congratulatory email from the professor. Even rationally having a sense that the expectations and styles were changing, it can be a massive, rapid shift.

abdullahkhalids 4y ago
I can give you prof perspective on this. Going between different stages of education, you can't really double or triple the amount of time you study, but you need to change your study and thinking techniques to learn 2x or 3x more [1]. The problem is that if the teachers try to set up too easy a ramp at the start of a new stage, many students refuse to upgrade their study/thinking techniques. They continue to use suboptimal methods from their last stage, because its easier. But before they know it, they progress to a point where their suboptimal techniques are wildy unrealistic. At this point, they try to upgrade, except its much harder to upgrade your techniques at MATH301 then it is at MATH101. One way out of it is to jolt incoming students with assessments where the old techniques simply don't work, and they are forced to upgrade immediately. It is kind of cruel, but it works well. [1] For instance, a freshman PHY101 Mechanics course covers the same material as 1-1.5 years of high school with higher difficulty.
- overgrownzygote 4y ago
  Could you elaborate on what those "upgrades" look like? At least for math, I found that by around Calc II I had to start grinding problem sets to do well on exams, and I can't imagine what the next "level" would look like for something like a graduate-level math course.
  - abdullahkhalids 4y ago
    There is no concise general answer to that question, especially one that covers many fields. What you are saying is correct - from grade 1 to phd, the best way to learn is to solve problem (sciences) or create art pieces (arts) etc. As you solve problems, there are a few things I can say about how you can upgrade. * If you are level N, you should only be learning techniques at level N. If you find that you are struggling even a little bit with level N-1 techniques, adopt an immediate no-nonsense attitude about eliminating those confusions. Eg. I have seen far too many students in my second year(!) differential equation struggling with solving with quadratic equations. This means they have to constantly jump between different levels of abstraction (algebra and differential equations) and that makes the question much harder to get right. A few hours of serious review should eliminate any confusion for something that probably took 2 weeks in high school, and probably give them an entire grade bump in differential equations. * Figure out the meta-techniques at level N and take-off the training wheels. For instance, in graduate level applied math, you are working with a lot of theorems. Something that needs to become part of your study is generating positive and negative examples of each theorem as soon as you encounter it (something the book/prof did for you in undergrad). Nobody is ever going to teach you this at the grad level, as there is very little a grad prof can say to help you learn such meta-skills. But they will hit you with novel theorems in exams (or you will encounter new theorems in research), and you need to have the skill ready. * Length of each study session and intensity of your study. In high school, a smart student can watch TV and still learn everything for an exam. A undergrad can listen to engaging music while still thinking about their problem on an assignment. A grad student needs the discipline to sit in a quiet room and fully engage with the problem for several hours. A PhD student might need to think about the problem and only the problem from the second they wake up all the way to when they go to sleep. Andrew Wiles might have to lock himself away for 6 years and immerse his whole life and being into solving Fermat's last theorem. P.S. Not very happy with my answer. I need to chew on this for a few days or weeks.

by cge 4y ago

abdullahkhalids 4y ago

I can give you prof perspective on this. Going between different stages of education, you can't really double or triple the amount of time you study, but you need to change your study and thinking techniques to learn 2x or 3x more [1]. The problem is that if the teachers try to set up too easy a ramp at the start of a new stage, many students refuse to upgrade their study/thinking techniques. They continue to use suboptimal methods from their last stage, because its easier. But before they know it, they progress to a point where their suboptimal techniques are wildy unrealistic. At this point, they try to upgrade, except its much harder to upgrade your techniques at MATH301 then it is at MATH101. One way out of it is to jolt incoming students with assessments where the old techniques simply don't work, and they are forced to upgrade immediately. It is kind of cruel, but it works well. [1] For instance, a freshman PHY101 Mechanics course covers the same material as 1-1.5 years of high school with higher difficulty.

overgrownzygote 4y ago
Could you elaborate on what those "upgrades" look like? At least for math, I found that by around Calc II I had to start grinding problem sets to do well on exams, and I can't imagine what the next "level" would look like for something like a graduate-level math course.
- abdullahkhalids 4y ago
  There is no concise general answer to that question, especially one that covers many fields. What you are saying is correct - from grade 1 to phd, the best way to learn is to solve problem (sciences) or create art pieces (arts) etc. As you solve problems, there are a few things I can say about how you can upgrade. * If you are level N, you should only be learning techniques at level N. If you find that you are struggling even a little bit with level N-1 techniques, adopt an immediate no-nonsense attitude about eliminating those confusions. Eg. I have seen far too many students in my second year(!) differential equation struggling with solving with quadratic equations. This means they have to constantly jump between different levels of abstraction (algebra and differential equations) and that makes the question much harder to get right. A few hours of serious review should eliminate any confusion for something that probably took 2 weeks in high school, and probably give them an entire grade bump in differential equations. * Figure out the meta-techniques at level N and take-off the training wheels. For instance, in graduate level applied math, you are working with a lot of theorems. Something that needs to become part of your study is generating positive and negative examples of each theorem as soon as you encounter it (something the book/prof did for you in undergrad). Nobody is ever going to teach you this at the grad level, as there is very little a grad prof can say to help you learn such meta-skills. But they will hit you with novel theorems in exams (or you will encounter new theorems in research), and you need to have the skill ready. * Length of each study session and intensity of your study. In high school, a smart student can watch TV and still learn everything for an exam. A undergrad can listen to engaging music while still thinking about their problem on an assignment. A grad student needs the discipline to sit in a quiet room and fully engage with the problem for several hours. A PhD student might need to think about the problem and only the problem from the second they wake up all the way to when they go to sleep. Andrew Wiles might have to lock himself away for 6 years and immerse his whole life and being into solving Fermat's last theorem. P.S. Not very happy with my answer. I need to chew on this for a few days or weeks.