[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 45 KB, 500x338, college.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10965069 No.10965069 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

>Your textbook was great (just a chapter ago) for Calc 1 & 2.
>Your textbook is not good for this class.
I actually read the textbook.
>Examples in class are from the book.
>"You can look at the full proof in the book."
>Projects book on screen for examples.
>Pulls quiz and exam questions out of book.

What did my teacher mean by this?

Pic my nose

>> No.10965075

America is fucked up bro.
Education here is free at the point of use.

>> No.10965077

Different standards set by the Department of Education

>> No.10965083

That's every undergrad education, you go to class to socialize or sharpen up on some of the material, learning in class is a waste of time since most professors are working drones

>> No.10965088

>going to classes
Only classes I've ever physically gone to are ones that don't have full online class, mostly the ones with labs. I don't see what going in person to a math class would benefit you.

>> No.10965134

Forgot to add.
>Mandatory attendance.
>Graded homework.

>> No.10965297

is that graph any good?

>> No.10965332

Sure seems like its accurate from ground level. Maybe reverse image search it if you wanna know more.

>> No.10965342

>most professors *in high volume classes* are working drones
Engineering students make up about a 3rd of my school. Calc 1-3 were fucking terrible, 100 students per lecture, professor was god awful, textbook sucked. In my advanced calc I, II and real analysis classes the professor was actually good, he was witty, humorous, and he was one of the best lecturers I ever had in undergrad. The textbook was succinct and helpful as well, and the classes had maximum 20 people and everyone actually wanted to be there, we pretty much worked on the assignments together. This "professor bad" meme is only for the brainlet-tier classes.

>> No.10965384

What happened around 1970?

What's the difference between "Calc 1" and "advanced Calc 1" , and why would you take both?

>> No.10965430

Advanced calc is not a standard. In America advanced calc could be called intro to real analysis, it's basically a proof-based version of calculus, you go over topics like Cauchy sequences, supremums, partitions, ect. in order to build the real number line from the axioms up. My real analysis class, the sequel to advanced calc, focused of topics like the Fourier transform, measure theory, basic topology ect., but your mileage may vary. Calculus 1 - 3 is focused on computation of basic limits/sums/integration/derivation and stupid topics like the limit tests, partial fractions and elementary vector analysis. Calc 1 - 3 is considered very easy and is used as the mathematical foundation for majors like chemistry, physics, engineering, biology and economics. Advanced calc is basically real analysis and is the brainlet filter for math majors typically.

>> No.10965453

I wouldn't say Calc 1-3 are easy compared to RA or the math major courses distinct from engineering math courses, though some may find them easier. Its all about whether you think execution or critical, abstract thinking is more difficult, through it may be tempting to say the latter is more difficult since most students aren't exposed to that type of a course before hand.

>> No.10965476

>$120k for a 4 yrs in college in 2006?
how much is a 4 yr degree today? $250k?
1/4 million dollars for a bachelor's?

>> No.10965489

True, and admittedly I did better at my analysis classes than my computational ones. Though I did go to a uni known for engineering, so the lower level math emphasized concrete concepts significantly more than defining things as simple as axioms or even basic summation definitions behind integration. To be honest Calc 1 - 3 was hell for me.

>> No.10965534

I will be fucking thrilled the further I get from execution based math. Computers exist for a reason.

>> No.10965539

Which book?

>> No.10965555


Female participation in the workforce becoming mainstream with college attendance to go with it.

>> No.10965561

>William L. Briggs, Lyle Cochran, Bernard Gillett, Eric Schulz - Calculus for Scientists and Engineers; Early Transcendentals.

For the record I really like this book. It has good examples and clear writing and doesn't assume too much from the reader. It even proves or at least derives most of the theorems it teaches you, and extra homeworks often extend those proofs.

>> No.10965576

James Stewart has another good book, coincidentally also subtitled "Early Transcendentals." I have both on PDF - easy to take notes in! Thanks for sharing.

>> No.10965625

Why not just take only advanced Calc then?
I'm asking because in my country there's no "standard" calculus, just proof-based. Pretty much any STEM major has to take 2 years of this. Actual calculations and "execution" is left for recitations and homeworks.
We also don't have any choice of classes, so I'm curious why would you take both "easier" and "harder" version of the same thing.

>> No.10965663

What topics are introduced in your calculus classes? In order to take the "advanced calculus" in the first place my uni stipulated calc 1-3 are a requirement. I didn't have a choice, don't you think I would have moved on to real analysis earlier if I could?

Anyways what was the level of complexity for your classes? A typical lower calculus problem might look like this:

Compute the limit of 1/sqrt(n) as n approaches infinity.

An advanced calculus problem would look like this:

Using only the Archimedean property of R, give a direct epsilon-N verification for the limit 1/sqrt(n) as n approaches infinity.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.