Since Caltech is similar to MIT in so many respects, I thought that it
might be helpful to look over the report of MIT's Task Force on the
Undergraduate Educational Commons (which proposed changes to MIT's core
curriculum) as we reassess our own Core. Here it is:
http://web.mit.edu/committees/edcommons/documents/task_force_report.html
-Neal Bansal
2 comments:
I read through the summary recommendations in the MIT report and it looked to me like they were moving to something that looked a bit like the current Caltech core. If you remove the "project-based experience" class, you are left with:
* Math: three semesters
* Physics: two semesters
* Chemistry: one semester
* Biology: one semester
* CS/Eng: one semester
One big difference is that there is not a single course that satisfies the requirements in each of these areas. So the requirement is not Ch 1ab, but rather 1 semester of chemical sciences (for which any one of three courses can be used to satisfy the requirement).
According to the current (2008-09) MIT catalog, the proposed changes have *not* yet been implemented. Anyone know why?
-Richard Murray
Since I can't post to the main blog, I'm posting in this comment box:
Has there been any discussion about whether Caltech's weekly problem sets structure is the best way to learn material? Sure, it is really good at what it's meant to do: force students to stay on track and learn the material bit by bit off instead of putting it off until the last minute. However, it does cause many students to "live from problem set to problem set", causing burnout/Caltech syndrome. One physics postdoc I've talked to remarked that she found that Caltech students were less likely to take the initiative in the lab than international students, and had to be told exactly what to do next, step by step. Perhaps, as a consequence of the "problem set to problem set" lifestyle, Caltech students have basically been trained to do/learn the bare minimum - just enough for each set - then move on to the next one. The problem sets structure dictate what exactly they must do, and students often just stop learning beyond that. Instead of taking the initiative to learn more, they stop at the end of the set because doing the set has already made them sick of the subject. I'm sure there are many students who just don't have the time and energy to learn the material thoroughly as they'd like because of the strict weekly problem sets structure.
My question: Do you think the weekly problem set structure is the best way to teach/learn the material? Or is there a better way to help students learn without burning them out / stifle their love of learning and intellectual curiosity? Are Caltech students mature enough to take the initiative and learn on their own, or do they needed to be guided week by week with a problem set (I admit, I learn most of my material in my classes by doing problem sets)? I hear that in some universities in Europe, they just have a midterm and a final, but also have tutorial sessions in which you just sit down and work out problems and ask for help when you need it... is this a better solution? Or is the problem with burnout not primarily because of the problem sets, but for other reasons: bad study and work habits (I do know people who start 10pm the night before), in the courseload (students taking/expected to take too many units), etc.?
I'm curious to hear what everyone on the committee thinks.
Thanks,
--Tzong-Lian "will" Tsay
ARC Chair
Post a Comment