5 ms·

I think a certain amount of blame has to go to the teachers though as well. My personal anecdote, I did extremely well in Calc AB in high school, aced the AP e

I think a certain amount of blame has to go to the teachers though as well. My personal anecdote, I did extremely well in Calc AB in high school, aced the AP exam, aced first semester Calc III in college, then had a professor in linear algebra who, in hindsight many years later, was a terrible teacher. He zoomed through everything, didn't explain, and just presented rather than taught. I still remember his comment to help us understand - "if you're having trouble picturing 11 dimensions, picture a 3D picture, but in 11 dimensions." Thanks! My last math course, Partial Diffs I did well again. To a certain degree I feel "math is math" but how it's taught is different from prof to prof.

beejiu 12y ago
Mathematics is not a spectator sport. This is why lectures should be there to present, not to teach. You have to teach yourself.
- aianus 12y ago
  I had an excellent math teacher in High School who would intersperse questions in his lectures, turning around and waiting long enough for a few hands to go up and then choosing someone to answer. I was never able to adjust to the recitation-style math lectures in University and ended up having to, as you say, teach myself by reading the book and posing questions to myself as I went along. I was and still am angry that quality of education I was receiving in exchange for tens of thousands in tuition was considerably poorer than what I was used to receiving for free in public High School.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    I feel your pain. But part of college is learning how to learn things on your own. It varies a bit by field, but in theory by the time you end your undergraduate work you are almost out of work that other people have done before, and now it's up to you to figure out new things. Probably one reason (among many) I didn't bother trying for a PhD.
    - nmcfarl 12y ago
      Learning on your own is certainly core to college - but lectures that just where the TA just takes an outline from the book and regurgitates it are a waste of time. I certainly never attended those classes. I imagine they are useful for auditory learners but I’m not one of those. Even at the college level there are plenty of class formats where either teaching was done, or at the very least was done via discussion. The "here’s are the course materials read to you by a very bored smart person who has better things to do", isn’t a class format - it’s a series of exams.
jimktrains2 12y ago
Are you me? Halfway through Calc III it was interesting to watch the visual students, who normally would do very well, have a rough time, while other students, who just treated it as an abstract system had more overhead/trouble/were slower when learning initially, but it paid off when getting to un-visualizable systems.
- Steuard 12y ago
  In my experience, virtually all of Calc III is "visualizable" (even somewhat esoteric stuff like Lagrange multipliers[1]), because it's mostly about vectors (which have a natural geometric interpretation). My claim would be that to be really good at math, you need to be skilled at both visualization (and other intuitions) and abstract systems. They complement each other well. [1] E.g. http://www.slimy.com/~steuard/teaching/tutorials/Lagrange.html http://www.slimy.com/~steuard/teaching/tutorials/Lagrange.ht...
  - magoghm 12y ago
    Great explanation! Thank you.
  - jimktrains2 12y ago
    It's hard to visualize 4d and 6d systems. That's what I was referring to.
  - j2kun 12y ago
    Lagrange multipliers are esoteric? Oh man, I was under the impression that they formed the basis for most many useful optimization techniques :)
lostcolony 12y ago
My intro physics class was kind of like that. There was a departmental standard that all the profs were instructed to use, and it apparently just involved showing us equations and how to derive them (generally after we had already had to derive them on online coursework). The tests were actually applying those equations, being able to pull apart a problem into what bits of information you had, what bits you needed, and being able to combine and substitute out formulas to get the missing bit you were asked for. In hindsight, I can vaguely see how the instruction might have helped on the test (I'd have gotten used to substituting out and deriving new equations from the old), and I can see how I might have done better on the tests (write out what equations I remembered. Write out what data I was given. Write out what data I was missing. Start substituting things out until I found a way to calculate the thing they asked for), but at the time, the only thing that helped me pass was actual instruction and practice outside of class on solving problems.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
danielweber 12y ago
I still remember my linear algebra course notes that said "most numbers are close enough to non-zero numbers that this method should work everywhere."
bglazer 12y ago
Geoffrey Hinton uses this same "picture a 3D picture, but in 11 dimensions" quote in his Neural Networks Coursera class. Honestly I think it's the only way to imagine >3 dimensional objects.
thaumasiotes 12y ago
> I still remember his comment to help us understand - "if you're having trouble picturing 11 dimensions, picture a 3D picture, but in 11 dimensions." Thanks! To be fair to the prof, you cannot actually picture 11 dimensions. That looks like a joke to me (hey, I laughed).

beejiu 12y ago

Mathematics is not a spectator sport. This is why lectures should be there to present, not to teach. You have to teach yourself.

aianus 12y ago
I had an excellent math teacher in High School who would intersperse questions in his lectures, turning around and waiting long enough for a few hands to go up and then choosing someone to answer. I was never able to adjust to the recitation-style math lectures in University and ended up having to, as you say, teach myself by reading the book and posing questions to myself as I went along. I was and still am angry that quality of education I was receiving in exchange for tens of thousands in tuition was considerably poorer than what I was used to receiving for free in public High School.
- danielweber 12y ago
  I feel your pain. But part of college is learning how to learn things on your own. It varies a bit by field, but in theory by the time you end your undergraduate work you are almost out of work that other people have done before, and now it's up to you to figure out new things. Probably one reason (among many) I didn't bother trying for a PhD.
  - nmcfarl 12y ago
    Learning on your own is certainly core to college - but lectures that just where the TA just takes an outline from the book and regurgitates it are a waste of time. I certainly never attended those classes. I imagine they are useful for auditory learners but I’m not one of those. Even at the college level there are plenty of class formats where either teaching was done, or at the very least was done via discussion. The "here’s are the course materials read to you by a very bored smart person who has better things to do", isn’t a class format - it’s a series of exams.

jimktrains2 12y ago

Are you me? Halfway through Calc III it was interesting to watch the visual students, who normally would do very well, have a rough time, while other students, who just treated it as an abstract system had more overhead/trouble/were slower when learning initially, but it paid off when getting to un-visualizable systems.

Steuard 12y ago
In my experience, virtually all of Calc III is "visualizable" (even somewhat esoteric stuff like Lagrange multipliers[1]), because it's mostly about vectors (which have a natural geometric interpretation). My claim would be that to be really good at math, you need to be skilled at both visualization (and other intuitions) and abstract systems. They complement each other well. [1] E.g. http://www.slimy.com/~steuard/teaching/tutorials/Lagrange.html http://www.slimy.com/~steuard/teaching/tutorials/Lagrange.ht...
- magoghm 12y ago
  Great explanation! Thank you.
- jimktrains2 12y ago
  It's hard to visualize 4d and 6d systems. That's what I was referring to.
- j2kun 12y ago
  Lagrange multipliers are esoteric? Oh man, I was under the impression that they formed the basis for most many useful optimization techniques :)

lostcolony 12y ago

My intro physics class was kind of like that. There was a departmental standard that all the profs were instructed to use, and it apparently just involved showing us equations and how to derive them (generally after we had already had to derive them on online coursework). The tests were actually applying those equations, being able to pull apart a problem into what bits of information you had, what bits you needed, and being able to combine and substitute out formulas to get the missing bit you were asked for. In hindsight, I can vaguely see how the instruction might have helped on the test (I'd have gotten used to substituting out and deriving new equations from the old), and I can see how I might have done better on the tests (write out what equations I remembered. Write out what data I was given. Write out what data I was missing. Start substituting things out until I found a way to calculate the thing they asked for), but at the time, the only thing that helped me pass was actual instruction and practice outside of class on solving problems.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

danielweber 12y ago

I still remember my linear algebra course notes that said "most numbers are close enough to non-zero numbers that this method should work everywhere."

bglazer 12y ago

Geoffrey Hinton uses this same "picture a 3D picture, but in 11 dimensions" quote in his Neural Networks Coursera class. Honestly I think it's the only way to imagine >3 dimensional objects.

thaumasiotes 12y ago

> I still remember his comment to help us understand - "if you're having trouble picturing 11 dimensions, picture a 3D picture, but in 11 dimensions." Thanks! To be fair to the prof, you cannot actually picture 11 dimensions. That looks like a joke to me (hey, I laughed).