<p>econ/cog psych double major. I still stand with my point though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How about:</p>
<ul>
<li>Big fish in a big pond (e.g. top of the class at Big State University).</li>
<li>Little fish in a little pond (e.g. bottom of the class at Small College).</li>
<li>Big fish in a medium sized pond full of big fish (e.g. in a highly selective Elite University).</li>
</ul>
<p>?</p>
<p>A big fish in a big pond is an impossible scenario. I define a “big” pond as Elite University, and a “big fish” as one in the top of the class, relatively. A big fish in a big pond is essentially a big fish in a small pond because “the top” and “success” are relative.</p>
<p>If one is at the bottom of his class at Elite University, is he considered a success? In his context, no.</p>
<p>So elite universities have no superstars?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s true, but I think in such cases more material would be covered on the quarter system. Take CS 70 at Berkeley for example; at Stanford it’s split into two classes, CS 103 (discrete math) and CS 109 (probability), and covers topics in both in far greater depth.</p>
<p>On the other hand, Berkeley’s CS 61A, 61B, and 61C are largely the same as Stanford’s CS 106A, CS 106B, and CS 107. In the latter you just spend less time dwelling on each topic, so you cover it in a year rather than a year and a half.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So does spending less time dwelling on each topic mean that those topics are covered in less depth?</p>
<p>In any case, whether Stanford’s courses are more or less intense than those at some other school has nothing to do with quarter versus semester system. If Stanford switched to the semester system, it could still have the same material in CS 106A, 106B, and 107 taught over 30 weeks (with the same amount of class time, assignments, etc. per week) in two semesters instead of three quarters. The main difference would be that you would get two final exams, each covering 15 weeks worth of material, instead of three final exams, each covering 10 weeks of material.</p>
<p>Indeed, any school can make its version of any course more or less intense, regardless of semester or quarter system. For example, with the “standard” freshman calculus sequence, some schools still vary. MIT’s 18.01 (and variants like 18.014 and 18.01A) cover what is an entire year of freshman calculus at most other schools in one semester. And then there is Harvard’s Math 55a and 55b.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the crux of my point: intensity is measured as depth over time. In many cases the expectation is that students gain the same or similar depth, but with less class time spent on it, instead requiring more independent effort. And they’re given less time to do it, which is what makes the quarter system more intense at certain schools and subjects: they require the depth of a 15-week course, but in less time. The ‘excess’ then falls on the student (who’s evaluated in the typical ways - through assignments, projects, quizzes, exams, etc.). That’s why it’s more intense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, it could do that, but given the logical divisions in subject matter, it would likely do what Berkeley does: spread it over 45 weeks instead of 30. That would make it less intense. Of course, if it switched over to the semester system, it could maintain the intensity it has on the quarter system by increasing the amount of material covered, i.e. the depth. So you’re right that a school on the semester system could be as intense just by increasing the requirement of depth in the given amount of time. But the assumption implicit throughout this discussion is that such is not the case; since semesters are the more traditional and common term, the status quo is such that (at some schools and in some subjects) on the quarter system the traditional semester material is taken and condensed into 10 weeks. So for whatever amount of material is traditionally covered in 15 weeks on the semester system, it would be covered in 10 weeks on the quarter system - again varying by school and subject (even class).</p>
<p>That’s why I chalk up much the increased intensity at Stanford to the quarter system - sure it doesn’t have to require the depth of 15-week material, but it does (in many cases). The intensity, as is the case for every ‘rate,’ is a function of more than one factor. I’m focusing on time, here expressed by the number of weeks on the quarter system. You’re focusing on depth. We’re both technically right on this point, but your emphasis of the depth doesn’t detract from the importance of time, i.e. the role of the quarter system. They both necessarily contribute to ‘intensity,’ which is inherently a rate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, whether this is true is more course specific, rather than school specific or quarter versus semester system specific. If it were really the case that quarter system = higher intensity, would you say that courses at Foothill College are more intense than those at MIT, because Foothill College is on the quarter system while MIT is on the semester system? (Foothill College is an open admission community college near Stanford.)</p>
<p>Also, even if a quarter system course is a semester course compressed into a quarter, it may be given a higher credit value. So a student may be taking fewer such courses in a term, even if each course is “larger”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why would you ask that if you just denied the answer that I’ve given several times? That it’s school-specific. You attempt to straw-man my point by denying that such is possible.</p>
<p>By “school-specific,” I mean that at some schools, it will be more common for such courses to be more intense. If you admit that it’s course-dependent, then you also admit that it’s possible for a department to have a higher proportion of courses that follow this policy of increased intensity (i.e. 15 weeks condensed into 10) - thus subject-specific. You then also must admit that it’s possible that a school could have a higher proportion of departments that follow this policy. Stated another way, if it’s course-dependent, then it’s possible that some schools will have a higher proportion of courses that follow this policy. That’s what I mean by it being “school-specific.” Which goes back to my point that Stanford is one of those schools where such is often the case.</p>
<p>These aren’t new qualifications. I qualified my point when I first made it, and emphasized that it is school-, subject-, and/or course-specific.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, I feel like most of the time, differences in curricula between good schools really aren’t very important, except in rare cases like this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Only *your[/] assumption. So far, I haven’t seen any supporters of your theory, sorry.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If they were geniuses, they wouldn’t be going to Berkeley.</p>
<p>That was a legit burn. Even I felt the burn.</p>
<p>The flames of justice rain down hard.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>/thread=over</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s because the only people engaged in the discussion are supporters of schools with semester systems.</p>
<p>But the ‘implicit assumption’ is one of logic: which is more likely, that a semester system school is adding even more than its previous 15-week material to make it more intense, or that it’s maintaining its 15-week material and the quarter system (at some schools) is taking the same material and condensing it into 10 weeks? Which better explains why the quarter system is more intense and stressful at many schools/subjects/classes? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>The point is that whatever amount of material is being covered in 15-weeks, the same amount is covered in 10 weeks - again, varying considerably by case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And you know that, how? Another (fact free) “assumption”? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps there are more than those two alternatives? But if you start out with the premise that a quarter system automatically equals more work, you’ll never think of other possibilities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because they have been open about their affiliations with other universities? And the person who agrees with the added intensity of a quarter is at UChicago, which his/her ‘location’ clearly states? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I didn’t start out with that assumption. I have long considered many other possibilities, but none of them can explain it better than what I have offered. And the evidence I have found supports my conclusion that in many cases the quarter system does cover the same amount of material as a 15-week semester but in less time.</p>
<p>bluebayou, you have so far engaged in this line of discussion without actually engaging at all. Why don’t you offer your own arguments rather than just saying “no perhaps you’re wrong”? Explain what your objections are and offer a better alternative, or don’t bother.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps the intensity is because it is Chicago, not because of the quarter system. Do you think that CSU Los Angeles, Western Washington, Foothill College, etc. are intense because they are on the quarter system? Do you think that MIT and Harvard are not intense because they are on the semester system? Do you think that Stanford or Chicago would be any less intense if they switched to the semester system?</p>
<p>Perhaps if you can wait, ask some Ohio State students who will switch from quarter to semester in fall 2012 to see if they think that intensity increased, decreased, or stayed the same after the switch.</p>
<p>But it is very likely the school or the department that defines the intensity of the courses, not the quarter versus semester system.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“It’s intense because it’s Chicago” is circular reasoning and thus not a valid argument. The question really starts at, Why is Chicago intense? Did you not consider that perhaps Chicago has this reputation for intensity because it’s on the quarter system? In fact, it created the quarter system, so perhaps it’s gotten down the intensity bit for a long time, long enough to get a reputation for being difficult?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have asked this several times and I’ve made my answer very clear. I’m not going to repeat myself again.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think MIT’s intensity lies in the fact that some 85-90% of the undergrads are in STEM fields; that’s why it has a reputation for ‘drinking from the firehose.’ And I have not once said that those on the semester system can’t also be intense (in fact, I said the opposite a few posts back), but rather those like Stanford and Chicago are more intense than, say, Harvard. **Not in all cases, of course, as it’s highly dependent on subject/course.<a href=“I%20bold%20this%20not%20out%20of%20annoyance%20but%20to%20emphasize%20the%20qualification,%20so%20that%20neither%20you%20nor%20someone%20else%20pulls%20the%20argument%20from%20incredulity,%20thinking%20I%20stated%20this%20%5Bi%5Dabsolutely%5B/i%5D%20about%20Harvard.”>/b</a></p>
<p>Either way, your questions are leading because you’re asking me to make an overall statement of intensity on an absolute scale (something which I’ve intentionally avoided, because it makes no sense), in an attempt to straw-man my point and make it look absurd. But I’ve already qualified that many times and stated that you have to view it by school, subject, and course, and further that you must look at each proportionally, which would give an idea of intensity. And I have intentionally made no absolute statements without qualification about intensity at any given school, only relative statements. (Thus, X school is proportionally more intense than Y.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course the department decides - as I said before - but so do the professors who create the curricula. Since you haven’t contested what I previously stated in my definition of intensity, I assume that you accept its truth: that it’s defined as depth over time. And since departments (and professors) set the depth, it’s by definition true that they set the intensity. They can choose to require the same 15-week depth but in 10 weeks. So your statement says nothing about the role of the quarter system. The point is that at X schools, in Y departments, for Z courses, they will require the same depth but in less time (because of the quarter system). X, Y, and Z vary considerably. Do I need to express this in propositional logic?</p>