<p>Do classes typically give you the relevant formulae? Even on tests?</p>
<p>if there are a lot. and if they are unreasonable to memorize.</p>
<p>mostly it depends on the class, and how rigorous the math is. 8.012 gave very few equations, because, really, there were very few basic ones, and you derived the rest from them, and it mostly tested theoretical knowledge, like how you think. 18.02 was somewhat (meaning very slightly) formula-heavy but you had to memorize all of them because, really, that was the entire course... you were tested on very little theoretical knowledge which is what made the class easy. 8.022 is theory-heavy so they're not expecting you to know the exact formula for a curl in spherical coordinates.</p>
<p>finding curl in spherical coordinates.....</p>
<p>yum........I don't know if I recall that.</p>
<p>If you would anwer my question, since I am not a MIT student yet (getting the decision in a week), 8.012 is a calculus-based physics class? How hard is it compared to AP Phys C?</p>
<p>I dont' know if self studying Phys C is going to do much good at MIT...</p>
<p>oh, it won't do you any good at all. The Physics C kids struggle along in 8.012 with the rest of us. Sometimes it may even be considered "better" to not have had much exposure to physics at all. The approach is very different in 8.012 and in that case you wouldnt' have to FORGET everything you learned before and then RE-learn it the rigorous and detailed way, you'd just have to learn it for the first time. </p>
<p>That's something I love about this place. For the most part, you have a clean slate. Prior experience/opportunities matter very little compared to your ability to absorb new information because the classes are so damn hard.</p>
<p>Contrasting view: my gf (MIT '08, 8.012+8.022 last year) says that her high school AP Phys C course made these classes more manageable for her than they were for her classmates who hadn't seen the concepts before. For instance, her AP physics teacher had done such a good job explaining precession that she found those explanations far more conducive to understanding than the equation-crunching that dominated the 8.012 lectures on this topic. As a consequence, she had an easier time on the homework and tests. (After all, the equation-crunching is tedious but fundamentally trivial. One rarely gets any insight out of a page of algerba.)</p>
<p>She did have a really excellent teacher, so this is probably a somewhat exceptional case. And of course, this not my firsthand account, but I have no reason to believe she is misleading me about this :)</p>
<p>I think if you studied physics seriously in high school as part of an AP course, the stock of intuition can't hurt. Even the analytical mechanics one does with Laplacians and Hamiltonians (which is obviously beyond 8.012+.022 in rigor) is easier and more meaningful if one has a good high school level gut idea of how a phenomenon works. At the very least, that gut idea can guide you and help you define what to expect from the equations.</p>
<p>In brief: rigor and detail are good, but only if they commune with physical intuition. To say that one conflicts with the other -- or that you should erase your high-level intuition before learning it in this allegedly "real" way -- is absurd; physics is not done that way.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do classes typically give you the relevant formulae? Even on tests?
[/quote]
There are also classes which allow you to make your own formula sheets with anything you want to put on them -- for 5.60 (Thermo/Kinetics) last term, by the final exam we were allowed 4 front and back formula sheets; for 5.07 (biochem) I think they're allowed 8 or 12.</p>
<p>I'm actually taking a test today (and I took one last week also) that's open-book/open-note.</p>
<p>These tests generally aren't trying to trick you on the basis of memorized minutiae. The fact that they're giving you the formulas (or you're providing them in your notes/formula sheets) doesn't make them easier, it just means that the type of problems put on the tests can be much more thought-intensive.</p>
<p>This brings me to one of the reasons I applied to MIT -- the emphasis on thinking, above memorizing and merely learning from a textbook. The exams, the psets, and the lectures all seem to emphasize, if not necessitate, true learning. (If only I had better conveyed this desire of mine in my application!)</p>
<p>One must keep in mind that in the real world we aren't going to have "closed book" tests.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To say that one conflicts with the other -- or that you should erase your high-level intuition before learning it in this allegedly "real" way -- is absurd; physics is not done that way.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh crap, you told me. I have been 'doing physics' COMPLETELY WRONG.</p>
<p>Uh... I didn't mention anything about intuition. We're talking about different high school experiences. I think you had something you wanted to say real badly (something about your girlfriend) and jumped the gun a little here. Too eager to disagree when we're not actually saying anything different. </p>
<p>I learn physics by intuition. (That's what I find frustrating about 8.022 as opposed to 8.012. 8.012 is more difficult in terms of problem solving but 8.022 is much less intuitive.) 8.012 teaches you intuition if you can absorb it quickly enough. And high schools (from my experience with rundown public ones) do not give students an intuitive understanding of physics, but an arsenal of poorly define equations. Sorry, but your girlfriend's the exception, not the rule. Maybe she went to a private school unlike some 70% of MIT, maybe she went to a really good public school, or maybe she got some rare glistening gem of a physics teacher. There are always the kids cruising along at the top of the class based on pure genius and experience. Maybe she was one of them. Whatever. But your one example doesn't live up to my... oh... 40 or so examples of kids who've never seen physics before and kids who got 5's on Physics C struggling along at the same pace. She's not misleading you but you also sure haven't taken 8.012. By rigor and detail I mean the intricacies associated with each equation each concept. Instead of just learning to use the equation, we learn how to derive it.</p>
<p>Really, I was one of those people who came into this school shaking uncontrollably from head to toe. I went to a craphole of a public high school, was told at one point not to worry about cross/dot products because I will never see them again, at another point that the "dx" at the end of the integral is mere 'formality'. And really was counting the days until I fail out of this place. So I worked hard (or harder than necessary for P/no record) first semester to prove something to myself, and that is that it doesn't matter if you're from TJ or Exeter or a garbage can somewhere in Durham, North Carolina, you're here because you CAN learn, not because what you HAVE learned.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think you had something you wanted to say real badly (something about your girlfriend) and jumped the gun a little here.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, pebbles. You said something that was complete nonsense:
[quote]
The approach is very different in 8.012 and in that case you wouldnt' have to FORGET everything you learned before and then RE-learn it the rigorous and detailed way, you'd just have to learn it for the first time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For a significant fraction of people, high school physics knowledge isn't an impediment that you have to forget or would be better off forgetting, but a foundation on which to build more rigorous and detailed knowledge. You are overgeneralizing in an absurd way based on your (apparently very bad) high school experience. Not everyone has to erase their first exposure to physics as some kind of harmful detrius that will interfere with the holy truths revealed in 8.012.</p>
<p>For the benefit of ultimatemath, who asked the question, I wanted to point out that not everyone thinks that AP Physics is completely unhelpful. You are the one making the ridiculously sweeping generalization, and I am just pointing out that it has an exception even in the set of my friends who are now at MIT, which is not that big a group, so it stands to reason that there are lots more exceptions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
She's not misleading you but you also sure haven't taken 8.012. By rigor and detail I mean the intricacies associated with each equation each concept. Instead of just learning to use the equation, we learn how to derive it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You probably don't need to explain to me what "rigor and detail" a la Klepner & Kolenkow means, since I took a class at Princeton that was rather harder than 8.012 (... and 8.022) when I was a high school senior. (Yes, jumping the gun again. I just wanted to brag about how much physics I know.) Moreover, this explanation makes your point no stronger. Knowing how to derive something from the Newtonian laws of motion (or better, by solving the Lagrangian equations) often yields little insight about how the phenomenon "really works". This was exactly the point my girlfriend kept making as we discussed this... most 8.012 kids stared at the long derivation of precession baffled (even though all the individual steps are easy) whereas she understood it easily because she had lots of experience thinking about the idea.</p>
<p>Finally, since you apparently think taking 8.012 makes you a big deal (and need a dose of humility almost more than I do) consider this: your next mechanics course, which you'll probably take your junior year if you stay in physics, will explain that the mechanics and electrodynamics you are doing now is an awkward special case of a more elegant theory, and there is really a much better way of looking at these things. Will you then argue that 8.012 and 8.022 are harmful, since they don't do it the "real" way?</p>
<p>Science (unlike math) is inherently iterative. You learn something a rough way, then more finely, then more finely yet. Just because you've reached the second floor, you needn't tell everyone below that what they're learning is useless nonsense that won't help later. I promise there are a lot more people on floors above yours who could tell you the same, if they were as misguided as you are.</p>
<p>Right offf the MIT website</p>
<p>
[quote]
Physics
For a score of 5 on both parts of the Physics C test, credit will be given for 12 units of subject 8.01, Physics I. If you enroll in 8.012 (the advanced version of 8.01) and receive a passing grade, the 12 units of 8.01 credit earned for the Physics C tests convert to 6 general elective units, and an additional 12 units is earned for passing 8.012. No credit is given for the Physics B test. For scores lower than 5, no credit is awarded.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So I take that 8.01 is the Physics C equivalent, but 8.012 is the harder version? So, if I get 5 on both Physics C tests, and want to go to next level, what class would I take?</p>
<p>If you want to be a physicist (or are seriously considering it) take 8.012 and 8.022 (at least, this is what I would do if I were you). They're harder and will give you a solid grounding in the basics you'll need forever. It's just that AP Phys won't be useless or harmful, pebbles' assertions to the contrary notwithstanding :-P</p>
<p>That sounds good, although I am more of an engineering major.</p>
<p>I need to study physics now. :)</p>
<p>Hey whoa, deep breaths, Ben. When did this become a thing about comparing ***** sizes? When did I talk down to anyone the way you talk down to me?</p>
<p>The student is asking about 8.012. I've taken 8.012. I offered my answer to his question, which is, I saw no difference between how the physics C and non-physics C kids fared. My 'nonsense' was the advice offered me by the upperclassmen here who are, yes, as wise, worldly and weatherbeaten as you are, not full of naive 8.012-induced-arrogance as myself. And that 'nonsense' from the mouth of one such knowledgeable non-freshman, was that I'd probably be better off "forgetting everything I learned in high school" and "starting from scratch". In my case, that was good news, since I didn't really have anything to forget to begin with. </p>
<p>I wasn't advocating against taking Physics C. I'm sure it's a great class, and had it been offered at my school I would have taken it as well. So yes, take Physics C. But also remember, 8.012 is really nothing like Physics C, so don't expect to cruise because you 5'ed the AP. </p>
<p>Maybe I have more to say. But I have class bye.</p>
<p>Woah you two are crazy. </p>
<p>I want to be a physics major (at either MIT or Caltech... eek choices) so I am definately going to try and take the harder 8.012 version (I'm taking Physics C now)... </p>
<p>I swear MIT/Caltech will kill me, but pebbles assertions that people from different backgrounds struggle equally is very slightly comforting. The thought that perhaps all this stuff I'm trying to understand in physics now might help me later is also very slightly comforting. </p>
<p>Thanks! :)</p>
<p>Whoa, WHAT?! Both of us might be correct?!?! OH, the HUMANITY!</p>
<p>But... b-b-but...</p>
<p>I wanna start fights and call people names =( =( >=(</p>
<p>QUICK! Take a side! EVERYONE! (I'm a lot hotter ;))</p>
<p>
[quote]
I wanna start fights and call people names =( =( >=(
[/quote]
<em>sniffle</em> me too.</p>
<p><a href="I'm%20a%20lot%20hotter">quote</a>
[/quote]
I promise I would have called you much worse names otherwise.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I promise I would have called you much worse names otherwise.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>HAHAHA, I can see it now:</p>
<p>"Blahblahblah righteous indignation and disdain. Proper grammar and fluent syntax. Exuding an air of mature supremacy. Arguments intersperced with appropriate citations and footnotes.... Besides, you're ugly. Crawl back into your ugly-hole. kthxbye."</p>
<p>pebbles, your post #33 was sufficiently reasonable that there is no point in arguing further. <em>proceeds to argue slightly further, being a dishonest kind of person</em> </p>
<p>You haven't done a study of whether AP Physics C kids did or didn't do better in 8.012, so we can't be sure how they fared comparatively. What we can be sure of is that your non-freshman friend is wrong in his categorical remark about being better off "forgetting everything [one] learned in high school". I learned a lot of physics in high school, so did lots of my friends (at MIT and elsewhere), and it's served many of us all the way through fairly advanced courses in serious departments. So let's just tone down the generalizations which are (i) wrong and (ii) demotivating to people who are audacious enough to think they can learn something real before coming to college.</p>
<p>
[quote]
8.012 is really nothing like Physics C
[/quote]
depends on where you took it and how much you studied on your own. K&K is sold in fine bookstores everywhere. (Well, not really. But on Amazon.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
don't expect to cruise because you 5'ed the AP.
[/quote]
Yes. On this we agree completely. People whose Calculus teachers were droopy-eared chipmunks with English degrees are probably better off than many overprivileged losers like me, because the former kind doesn't expect to cruise. Assuming you should work really hard is the safest strategy, because at worst you'll overshoot and be pleasantly surprised.</p>
<p><em>Mollie observes this argument quizzically, having gotten a C in (now nonexistent) 8.01X -- which was several orders of magnitude easier than 8.012 -- because she had never taken a physics class in high school</em></p>
<p>Mollie now has gotten into bio grad schools whose janitorial departments are populated by Physics Ph.D.'s who have decided that the pay is better. :-P</p>
<p>So you can live it up.</p>