<p>What do I do? Do you really have to be naturally good in math</p>
<p>To major in engineering (civil/mechanical). When I take my math classes</p>
<p>It does take me a while to get it. I keep on practising all the time even though I
Do work 2 jobs. (I'm poor :) hehe )
I'm not the best but I was one of the few students who passed my class. We started
With 35, ended up with 6. Only 4 people passed. I got an A in my department final but
That was only in college algebra.
I have never taken SAT because we didnt have it in my country. I moved
In the states about 4-5 years ago so i dont have an idea how I compare to others.
I really want to learn it and I want to
Put in the work but I'm afraid practise wont be enough. Do you know someone
Who is like this too? Should I just go for something more practical? Any advice....</p>
<p>From what I hear, unless the mathematics is proof based (higher level Math major maths), it wonât be a problem. The earlier courses like the Calculus sequence are all practice makes perfect-type courses. So just do problems whenever you can to really fine tune your skills. You got an A in algebra, thats great. But make sure you really understand the subject, many fail Calc because they donât have the necessary foundation in Algebra. Its like a ladder, to get to the next step, you need to firmly have one foot in the current one. I donât think civil engineers use nearly as much maths as EEs though!</p>
<p>I have been studying engineering for over three years now and will be the first to admit that I am not naturally good in math. If you work hard in your math classes, you will be fine.</p>
<p>This should be a last resort. Ideally, you need to learn math not from a pattern-matching and problem-solving perspective, but from a higher level conceptual perspective. You need to know what a derivative or an integral is and what it actually means, not just how to compute one. In my experience, those who try and pass the class by means of extreme repetition and pattern matching donât come to truly appreciate what it is that those concepts actually mean and have a harder time applying it later on. Admittedly, I fell into this trap early in my studies and had to fight my way back out of it.</p>
<p>So, back to the OP:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, you just have to be motivated to overcome your perceived shortcomings in natural mathematical prowess. Over the course if your studies, if you play your cards right by approaching the courses with an open mind and the willingness to work, you may even find out that it never was an issue of natural ability but simply that you were approaching mathematics the wrong way and arenât as bad at it as you originally thought.</p>
<p>I vehemently disagree. People are different, and there is no universally right way to learn things. I was subjected to the conceptual way of teaching math in HS and never grasped it. I flunked Intermediate Algebra.</p>
<p>While in the Air Force, I took a class called Applied Calculus at the local community college. It was straight-forward, plug-and-chug problem-solving applied to real-world problems. First, I was shocked that math was actually useful for something - that was never brought up in HS. Second, there were no proofs and pointless letter-juggling. I did spend A LOT of time doing the homework problems, and usually did each one multiple times just to make sure I knew what was going on.</p>
<p>I got my first A in math since grade school, and gained enough confidence to end up getting a CS degree with a minor in math and statistics. (And later a Masters in IE.)</p>
<p>The guy sitting across from me, an excellent engineer, is, by his own admission, lousy at math. His rural HS only went up through algebra. In college, he probably spent 3x as much time on math homework as most students. The guy is a testament to perseverance.</p>
<p>One strategy is to make friends and study with one of the really math-smart kids. A person who has a real understanding can often explain the concepts 2 or 3 different ways and help you develop a better way of visualizing the problems.</p>
<p>Edit to Add: About 75% of engineering students are the plug and chug types, about 25% have an intuitive conceptual grasp. Both types work just fine in the end. The trick is to know your own tendencies to be able to spot your mistakes.</p>
<p>Its a little bit of both. I am still in HS, but I struggled in early mathematics. I had to use the repetition method for much of Algebra before I could truly hammer it into my head. But after going through the beginning of Calc, I used the conceptual method more, as it was much more fascinating than Algebra to me. But regardless, hard work is needed to truly do well in Maths.</p>
<p>You donât have to be naturally good at math, but you do have to be willing to achieve the level necessary for your profession. It may be harder work for you than for someone who is naturally very quick at picking up new math skills, but if youâre willing to put in however much time it takes, then youâll be fine. You donât have to be a mathematician; you just have to be able to pass the classes and do whatever math you would be expected to do on the job.</p>
<p>And what âconceptual methodâ are you referring to? I wasnât referring to a specific method, but an idea. I mean that the idea that just rote memorization can make you proficient in mathematics is foolish.</p>
<p>My point is that you can memorize your multiplication tables and the derivative of sin(x) and the fact that the indefinite integral is the anti-derivative and use it all to pattern match and solve problems and even get an A on some exams and courses, and many people do this. Those people are almost invariably the same ones that struggle later applying the concepts in higher level classes. Many high school and college professors donât do their students any favors in this regard either, often writing curricula that lend themselves to studying for the test instead of actual learning, especially in lower-level courses like calculus where it is usually the newer, greener faculty running the class.</p>
<p>Iâm living proof that you can succeed in engineering with lousy math skills, if you work hard. Civil is not THAT difficult math wise, not like EE at least; but you have to study hard and go for a 5th year type or be willing to accept all round grades for math (C :)).</p>
<p>boneh3ad, you sound like youâre an adherent of âNew Math.â That was the era I grew up in, and it was deemed a failure. The math I was taught was irrelevant and too abstract. Plug-and-chug was discouraged, and concepts were stressed instead. Students were somehow supposed to jump instantaneously to the level of mathematical enlightenment. </p>
<p>I stole this criticism from Richard Feynman about âNew Mathâ off of Wikipedia -</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I totally agree with Feynman.</p>
<p>Iâve long thought one of the reasons so many Americans are bad at math is because math teachers keep perpetuating what worked for them, while being oblivious to the demonstrated fact that it doesnât work for the majority of students.</p>
<p>Iâm not familiar with New Math. Brief Googling seems to imply that it involved introducing set theory to fade schoolers as an integral part of solving thins like basic algebra problems. That seems silly to me.</p>
<p>It also seems like maybe I am being misunderstood a bit. I donât at all thing applications of the math that students are being taught should be ignored. That is foolhardy. However, Iâve come across too many people, including upperclassman undergraduate engineers, who, for example, still view the derivative as the slope of a line an the integral as the area under a curve. That usually represents people who spend too much time memorizing applications and formulae and not enough time learning what these concepts actually were and how to apply them in ways that werenât given to them previously.</p>
<p>As an example, I once gave an exam problem in a junior/senior-level compressible flow class about an astronaut in a space capsule that was punctured by a piece of debris. I asked essentially how long it would take before the pressure inside was halved (and therefore how long he had to get his helmet on. The problem required students to recognize that the rate of mass leaving the the capsule was not constant, meaning setting up a simple differential equation (first order, completely separable) and then solving. They really struggled and only a few even properly recognized that a differential equation was needed. It means when they learned calculus and/or differential equation, somehow they didnât connect the concept of the derivative and the differential equation with situations involving a rate of change. They clearly all passed their calculus sequence but couldnât extend it to that relatively simple application.</p>
<p>I also know that the way my high school AP Calculus class was taught was a complete joke. I got a 5 on the exam, then got to collee an got slapped in the face by how surprisingly unprepared I was left by that AP class. Too many high school teachers either have never actually applied that math or else treat it as way too applications-based. That is just exacerbated by the fact that many teachers today, with the huge focus on standardize testing (both of the AP sort and the state-required sort), tend to teach students how to pass the exams, not how to understand and use the material. I think itâs a situation where you need to find somewhere in between the two extremes and you have to stop over-emphasizing testing.</p>
<p>As to my overall point from earlier, though, I am trying to say that those who excel in the more advance classes and are the best at applying the mathematical concepts to real-world applications are those who have a strong conceptual understanding of the topics rather than just pattern matching.</p>
<p>New Math was the idea that if you learned math concepts first, understanding how to apply those concepts would come naturally. It was akin to thinking the best way to learn Spanish was to take a linguistics class rather than a Spanish class where you practiced your Spanish. Or thinking people can be taught to compose music before they can read music and play an instrument. Or being taught a+b=c before youâve learned that 1+2=3. </p>
<p>My point is that itâs more natural to go from concrete to abstract than the other way around. Most people have to do a lot of plug-and-chug problems before they start recognizing patterns and concepts well enough to be able to apply them to new and unique situations. It sounded to me like you were giving advice along the line of, âdonât worry about memorization and plug-and-chug. Go straight to the concepts.â</p>
<p>Iâve got a book called âEnergy for Future Presidentsâ by a guy named Richard A. Muller, who teaches physics at Berkeley. He was saying virtually no freshman physics major understands the equations they are dealing with, but as long as they learn the rules for solving the equations, they can âget an A in the course without truly understanding anything.â He then said most sophomore physics majors also donât understand what things mean yet. Itâs not until youâre an upperclassman that you start to get glimpses of abstract, ie, conceptual, understanding.</p>
<p>I started from the first pre req at my community college and I was able to get into upper level math. What many donât realize is that Calculus is basically Algebra courseload. Itâs just conceptually and theoritically a different subject. As long as you know basic Algebra, you should have the cognition to perform Calculus tasks. It doesnât require anymore cognitive ability. Besides, universities have courses set up as sequences, so you would get what you need to learn in order to succeed in a subequent course.</p>
<p>@Simba9, Professor Muller is right. The average student doesnât know or care about the theory or proof behind the work theyâre dealing with. If theyâre not required to, I donât see why they should. Once you know the basics, you could then go back to study the theories.</p>
<p>Thank you guys! I appreciate your replies. I think Im going to go ahead and give it a shot that way I wonât have any regrets. Thanks a lot!!! :)</p>
<p>I would suggest either a small engineering school or a 2+3 type approach where one can get better math education than the flagship state U âletâs see how many hundreds of students we can cram into Calc Iâ environment. I have coworkers who attended small, great engineering schools like WPI and Rose Hulman and the way they taught math there was considerably better than at the large schools I attended or DD1 is attending. A smaller LAC type place where there is more focus on learning could also work.</p>
<p>Second, make sure plenty of resources are available for help. In DD1âs case she asked the tutoring center for a Calc tutor and got one for free for a semester, a senior Math major. The school (a flagship state) also organized study sessions for particular classes, review sessions, and even had such sessions in the dorms where they had classrooms for such purposes. Academic support is critical here.</p>
<p>Third, choose your major / specialty accordingly. Most specialties in Civil are not THAT math heavy, esp. compared to EE. But common classes like Fluid Mech still have enough of a math component to need attention.</p>