Am I learning anything in my CC?

College Majors Engineering Majors
1

<p>Hey guys,</p>

<p>Im in a community college right now taking my basics because I chose to goof off during high school ;). In my Calculus 1 class we have learned limits, differential equations, integration, extrema graphs, and volumes of disks and stuff. Which is pretty easy. But, Im looking at my buddy's calculus 1 from Texas A&M and hes figuring out velocities/acceleration from word problems. We have never done that. The deepest we have gotten into velocity is one word problem that my teacher briefly went over for 10min, we didnt even test over it.</p>

<p>I guess Im just a little scared that I am not learning the stuff I will be needing when I transfer to A&M or UT next fall. Maybe in my physics mechanics class next semester I will start getting into that kind of stuff. Maybe they break it up into different classes, like phys covers the applied uses of calc while calculus just covers the broad terms. What do you guys think? I thought going to a CC would save some money rather than going to Tech or University of Houston for some sub-par engineering program. (Not insulting it, its just lower than A&M/UT..)</p>

<p>Thanks for your guys's input.</p>

2

<p>I remember a few years ago when I was in Cal III and the diff equ a few people from CC's transfered, and almost all dropped out the classes because they were inadequatley prepared for the class.</p>

<p>Having said that, I dont think all CC's are bad. I think you get out of an education what you put into it. You are most likely using the same textbook as your friend, so just make sure you can understand all the practice problems in the book, and read through it and study it. And make sure you learn the technique's of integration well and by heart, because they WILL come up in Cal III, diff equ and engineering classes. They will expect you to know it.</p>

3

<p>I didn't see much physics in my calculus classes; on the other hand we often used calculus techniques in my physics classes, so the connection does come. I think they only talked about velocity, acceleration ect. in my early calculus classes because it's an easy connection to make between derivatives and position to velocity to acceleration.</p>

4

<p>Are you in a universit now? How are you doing in it?</p>

5

<p>i know this problem and i think it usually arises because math teachers arent physics teachers. at the same time, physics teachers have to know math to know physics.
im in multivariable calculus (also known as calc 3) right now and i hate it, in part, because my teacher has a pure math person and has no real understanding of what this complex math means in real life (he admits so...). however, i have poked around a few upper division engineer text books where thinks like gradient cureves are used quite frequently.
i tihnk this is part of why engineering programs have such high dropout rates, kids dont see the connection between the pure math they are often learning and the applications to engineering they want to do.</p>

<p>think about it like this: math teachers = square, physicist = rectangles. all rectangles are squares, but not all squares are rectangles.</p>

6

<p>Take a look at MIT's</a> Open Courseware material on Calculus for as a benchmark.</p>

7

<p>In calc 1 we learned about displacement and velocity. In calc 2 we did some more particle motion and work. The teachers didn't really emphasize any of the other physics besides displacement and velocity. They simply mentioned certain applications, then went over an example or two to show that the concepts were applicable to real world situations. Stewart's calculus book has a section in each chapter featuring various applications.</p>

8

<p>
[quote]
think about it like this: math teachers = square, physicist = rectangles. all rectangles are squares, but not all squares are rectangles.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>that is completely wrong. a square is a special case rectangle and, therefore, always a rectangle. i will attempt to salvage this analogy for you:</p>

<p>math teachers = rectangles
physics teachers = squares</p>

<p>all squares are rectangles (all phys know math) but not all rectangles are squares (not all math know phys).</p>

<p>sorry everyone... that just REALLY bothered me.</p>

9

<p>^ haha ^</p>

<p>Yeah I have looked into that MIT open course ware. I prefer looking at Amy</a> Austin's Home Page because she has online videos with her actually working the problems out on some program. It also has all the tests/lecture notes. Its great too because its the stuff the kids at A&M are learning so I guess Ill just devote my winter break to catching up with all the kids at A&M.</p>

<p>Yeah its really odd. The wierd thing is that my CC is apart of Texas A&M's transfer program. So in reality we <em>should</em> be learning the same stuff. I dunno, just wierd. I thought I was doing something smart taking courses at a CC rather than taking them at texas tech... I guess not.</p>

<p>Ill be sure to never mess up like I did in high school in my next live ;)</p>

10

<p>
[quote]
<br>

[Quote]

think about it like this: math teachers = square, physicist = rectangles. all rectangles are squares, but not all squares are rectangles.

[/quote]

that is completely wrong. a square is a special case rectangle and, therefore, always a rectangle. i will attempt to salvage this analogy for you:</p>

<p>math teachers = rectangles
physics teachers = squares</p>

<p>all squares are rectangles (all phys know math) but not all rectangles are squares (not all math know phys).</p>

<p>sorry everyone... that just REALLY bothered me.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>yeah, i was wrong. what i was thinking and what came out were wrong. completely my bad.
i cant seem to edit the messed up post, so i hope someone reads the correction.</p>

11

<p>
[quote]
that is completely wrong. a square is a special case rectangle and, therefore, always a rectangle. i will attempt to salvage this analogy for you:</p>

<p>math teachers = rectangles
physics teachers = squares</p>

<p>all squares are rectangles (all phys know math) but not all rectangles are squares (not all math know phys).</p>

<p>sorry everyone... that just REALLY bothered me.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yea I was just gonna comment on that myself; he had that completely backwards. </p>

<p>We did very little physics related material in my calculus classes. </p>

<p>Why is this? Well calculus is really a tool. This tool is used in physics heavily. We constantly use calculus in physics and it is assumed you know calculus when entering physics. </p>

<p>Calculus classes my briefly demonstrate how it is useful in physics but you won't spend much time on that. The objective of calculus class is to teach you calculus. Your physics classes should be teaching how to use calculus in a practical way.</p>

12

<p><a href="%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1061358761-post11.html%5D#11%20%5B/url%5D"&gt;quote&lt;/a> ...Well calculus is really a tool...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>At a minimum Calculus is a tool. At its best, Calculus can foster the development of rich heuristics applicable to all disciplines, even the arts.</p>

<p>Take for example the classic case of determinig the Derivative</a> of the Sine function. </p>

<p>Clearly, students must be comfortable with algebra, but they are also challenged to perform a counter intuitive congitive process. Specfically, introducing a complexity [the angle addition formula: sin(x)cos(h) + cos(x)sin(h)] in place of an entity that is in a simple form [ (the sine function operating on the fixed angle plus and very small increment: sin(x+h)]. </p>

<p>The lesson being that sometimes decomposing and making something more complex will provide downstream insight and simplicity. The study of Calculus provides all sorts of similar benefits. </p>

<p>More food for thought on the study of math's benefits beyond the sciences:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Euclid:</a> The Abraham Lincoln connection</p>

<p>At age forty, Abraham Lincoln studied Euclid for training in reasoning and, as a traveling lawyer on horseback, kept a copy of Euclid's Elements in his saddlebag. In his biography of Lincoln, his law partner Billy Herndon tells how late at night Lincoln would lie on the floor studying Euclid's geometry by lamplight. Lincoln's logical speeches and some of his phrases such as "dedicated to the proposition" in the Gettysburg address are attributed to his reading of Euclid. </p>

<p>Lincoln explains why he was motivated to read Euclid: </p>

<p>
[quote]
"In the course of my law reading I constantly came upon the word "demonstrate". I thought at first that I understood its meaning, but soon became satisfied that I did not. I said to myself, What do I do when I demonstrate more than when I reason or prove? How does demonstration differ from any other proof? </p>

<p>I consulted Webster's Dictionary. They told of 'certain proof,' 'proof beyond the possibility of doubt'; but I could form no idea of what sort of proof that was. I thought a great many things were proved beyond the possibility of doubt, without recourse to any such extraordinary process of reasoning as I understood demonstration to be. I consulted all the dictionaries and books of reference I could find, but with no better results. You might as well have defined blue to a blind man. </p>

<p>At last I said,- Lincoln, you never can make a lawyer if you do not understand what demonstrate means; and I left my situation in Springfield, went home to my father's house, and stayed there till I could give any proposition in the six books of Euclid at sight. I then found out what demonstrate means, and went back to my law studies."

[/quote]

[/quote]
</p>

13

<p>Most of my friends who have transferred from CCs have told me that they were inadequately prepared for university major courses. But the lack of preparation did not stop them from excelling once they transferred. They just studied a little harder than others and they caught up eventually. Don't worry too much. Focus on getting good grades and good luck.</p>

14

<p>Im going to devote my winter break to learning what I missed out on in calc I at my CC by using that TAMU website that I posted earlier. But, Ill probley end up learning it over again next semester in physics anyways. It kinda sucks how I have been in school since May :(. I havent had longer than a week off from school... (I did get a week, thanks to Ike :)). I guess I am building some endurance for my next year classes. But, Im not going to let CC get in my way of persuing an engineering degree. Although, I would love to major in physics and maybe research the string theory if engineering isnt my cup of tea.</p>