<p>I hate professors who give tests over material they haven't covered in class. I hate professors who all they care about are their biomedical conferences and their research but when they get into the classroom, they stumble upon a problem they solved in their office only to find out the answer is wrong .</p>
<p>Get used to it. There are going to be a lot more of those that you run into over the time you spend in school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not incredibly good with this either but you can learn a lot on your own without a professor teaching you. Personally, I am working on being more independently driven but I am far from the target. You are probably a lot more capable than you think.</p>
<p>Read this (just for fun!) <a href=“http://www.ams.org/notices/199608/comm-zucker.pdf[/url]”>http://www.ams.org/notices/199608/comm-zucker.pdf</a>. I read this recently and it helped me reflect on what the expectations are like in the real world how to improve to meet them completely and exceed them.</p>
<p>Professors shouldn’t have to cover everything in lecture. Lecture is a supplement to your textbook, notes, and homeworks. It is not all-inclusive.</p>
<p>Also, exam problems shouldn’t be regurgitation of material explained in lecture or in the textbook. When you get into the real world, problems won’t be exact replicas of something covered in class. You will need to apply the fundamentals to a different setting, and exams should reflect this ability to apply theory.</p>
<p>I think you guys are way off. Explain how a couple of chapters of entropy have anything to do with a test over enthalpy and calculating the efficiency of a jet engine without quantities such as delta h of formation,etc.</p>
<p>Does the book cover it? Problem solved.</p>
<p>IndianPwnerDude, thanks for the link. I agree 100% with it. </p>
<p>The best students are those who can teach themselves and the best professors are those who can not teach efficiently (because those professors are the most challenging ones).</p>
<p>I’m tired of fellow students who expect the professor to hold the student’s hand. You are in college now, time to let those testicles/ovaries drop.</p>
<p>I was actually just having a discussion at lunch today with a bunch of guys in my lab about this very topic. The very best professors find a happy medium somewhere. They teach you enough to get you heading in the right direction but don’t hold your hand; they still expect you to make some of those connections on your own. If you don’t learn how to do that, you likely won’t be a very good engineer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is really the key. Wow so concise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Eh, I would beg to disagree with this. The best professors are those who come to class well-prepared and use lecture time effectively to teach core ideas that are most difficult for students to learn independently and who expects students to go through example problems thoroughly and to really understand the theory and applications. Teachers who hold the hand too much really waste students’ time. You are not paying ****loads of money to regurgitate notes or to party with friends; college is preparation for a challenging job or graduate school.</p>
<p>But I agree that it is never an excuse to do poorly simply because the professor is unclear. As long as there is any student who is doing better, there is a way to learn to improve. One must dig through the library and learn what they are being taught no matter what it takes.</p>
<p>I don’t know if saying someone who can’t teach efficiently is a good professor. I think a good professor is someone who can use the class time to teach to a different thing than what’s being covered in the book/homeworks, and uses that class time to offer a deeper understanding than what’s easily accessible from reading. </p>
<p>Also, the audience needs to be kept in mind. I imagine most engineering and science students feel about proof-based math classes the same way they feel about having to take an English class on Beowulf. Sure, at some level it’s educational, but wouldn’t a course based around understanding the way to effectively use calculus or write a technical paper be more beneficial to the student?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed.</p>
<p>Suck it up, considering you are at UT-Austin, it’ll happen even into your senior year… might as well get used to it. This is just one of aspects that sucks about being an engineering major. You have to realize that many of these state school profs are dignified researchers, and could care less about their teaching style. Often times teaching undergrad classes just bores them and ****es them off, so they take it out on you.</p>
<p>I enjoyed and agreed with the sentiment posed by the author of the article shared by IndianPwnerDude. Students need to realize that lecture is only a piece of the pie when it comes to understanding course material. However, how do you guys reconcile the fact that students are paying tens-of-thousands of dollars to attend universities who tell them that most of the work they need to perform to understand course material is “university independent”?</p>
<p>It’s not independent of the university. First of all, the university isn’t just academic value. There are a variety of social functions, career opportunities, research opportunities, etc. associated with attending a university independent of academics. But when it comes to academics, faculty establish the framework for learning - syllabi, selecting books, selecting relevant courses, etc. In addition, universities collect leading experts to explain material to you. Then they establish metrics to certify your understanding of the material. That’s worth the price of admission.</p>
<p>One thing about choosing college is to find out the teaching. Is it a large university? Larger school usually means larger student body, and if the latter is true usually means classes house more students. If you need personal attention then larger school isn’t the right choice.</p>
<p>I have to admit that when it comes to learning I go crazy. I attend lecture and I go home reading tons of sources if I don’t understand the concepts. Either I overload my brains with information that I don’t need for the class and did bad on the exams, or I have the information and I still get A in the class.</p>
<p>Now that’s ironic,isn’t it.</p>
<p>If I ever have a professor that only comes in and talk about their conferences, I absolutely would love to slap his face because I pay to learn the stuff that I need to know, and not about your conference. I would even record his lecture and report it to the dean.</p>
<p>Before the exam I ask the professors what chapters are covered on the exam, and if he put questions that are beyond the current scope of our learning, then either he made a mistake, or he’s just being ****.</p>
<p>@jwxie: thats what I meant. If you go to a review session and the professor CLEARLY states a certain chapter/section will be on the test, but then gives a test that’s totally the opposite of that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, this can be quite problematic. One solution would be to join a fraternity. Fraternities often keep copies of previously distributed tests so you can get a grasp of the types of questions that the professor asks. Or you could ask the professor for tests he previously gave out. As often sais, past behavior is the best predictor for future performance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is never the solution to any problem. haha</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, get used to it. I know it is annoying if they do that, but do you honestly think that the professor should be required to even hold that review session and tell you what is supposedly on the test? The class is the review session. Just as a rule of thumb, any time a professor says certain things are on the test, study for those first, but assume that anything is fair game that he has taught you so far. Once you have taken his/her first test, you will know a lot more about his/her style and can more easily predict what is on the exam the next time around.</p>
<p>OP, use this time to train your research skills. When you get out of undergrad and into the real world, you will quickly realize how “whiny” your position is. Buck up, boy/girl.</p>
<p>Well the point isn’t about the review session. </p>
<p>@iambored10,
If the question require knowledge of later chapters which haven’t been taught in the general lecture, then the professor is definitely wrong, because no one can solve that problem.
But if the question can be solved using a different approach - using what you have learned so far, then the test is fair.</p>
<p>If those chapters have been covered, but he didn’t mention it during the review session (note he held one so he agreed to - not that he was forced to do it), this professor is also responsible for the misleading information. However, as a student you should also be prepare. You should really speak to him about this concern. Not that in college you are responsible for every thing. Literally professors can throw an exam on any chapter he wants - but I guess nobody would ever take his class again if there is such a professor.</p>
<p>Ok, I see the problem now. </p>
<p>The OP attends UoT @ Austin, a public research university (undergrad student body >38k). Long story short, the OP’s class is a “weeder” class where the # of prospective engineers is artificially reduced in order to cut down on engineering training costs at the upper division classes. The engineering faculty determined that it is more cost effective to teach those individuals who need the least amount of academic help.</p>