My own observation has been that when parents and students complain about the stress they will point to the quarter system as the source. Boyer has also spoken out about the “relentless pace” of the quarter system - he’s on record there. So there are people who perceive it as a real obstacle and a stress inducer. But - talk about crying! - my kids would be bored to tears if the same material were stretched across five additional weeks, which is what tends to happen at least according to faculty I know at other places that did the transition. It’s water under the bridge right now because the university examined its academic calendar last year and decided to keep the quarter system and shorten the number of weeks. That caused a bit of complaining on prior threads, till Covid changed the subject.
I agree that most probably adapt. It’s hard for the first and second years who are still pretty well connected to high school friends who were having all sorts of fun in college. Of course, that’s all changed as well. And as for getting sick, remote learning has removed an obstacle there - it’s still possible to be sick and still attend class.
Question for people at other schools: is Imposter Syndrome an issue there? It apparently is at UChicago, although I don’t know the extent.
JB: GPA’s are known to increase in upper level courses, i.e., once you are pasta the GE’s, in pretty much every college. Which makes senses, when you think about it. All the premeds get weeded out with low grades in Gen Chem or Bio 1 and finally go find something more to their liking where they can do much better than a C+/B-. Plus, one presumably has more interest in their major courses, so will tend to do better in them when they take them after GE’s/Core. And finally, upper division courses tend to have a much more generous average grade distribution, i.e., ‘curve’.
btw: I attended an undergrad on a quarter system and yes, its stressful, but since so many other colleges offer such a calendar, my point was that such stress is not uncommon.
I don’t believe that 151 is all that different - perhaps it’s a tad more theoretical and runs at a faster pace. Another parent and I once mapped out the differences between 130’s and 150’s based on the text books and they are a bit more stark than the course descriptions would lead us to believe. UChicago wants kids to place into 130’s but still do most STEM subjects. While I can’t say that’s unrealistic, I don’t believe that 130’s will help if bio or physical sciences or math or stats is your desired major. However, 130’s is probably fine for most of the social science majors, even the standard track of economics (others might disagree).
Not sure how it is now, but Class of '23 couldn’t switch down their math placement. If you were placed there, you had to stick it out or petition the math department and prove to them that you were drowning. We were concerned about my son’s placement in 152. He didn’t need to start there in order to do his prospective major, and I was expecting 151 or 130’s based on his sister’s placement a couple years before. It did turn out that he was correctly placed after all. I think the math department puts a lot of care into figuring out your placement and they have the data to back up their decisions. You can also appeal, if you feel that’s appropriate, but I think that works for one direction (not downward).
That’s interesting. I suspect you are under-estimating the amount of mathability that is coming into UChicago, but then I have no data to back that up specifically. I do know that a Calc AB score of 5 will get you placed into 151 automatically, not 152. And a Calc BC score of 4-5 will get you automatically placed into 152, not 153. However, your placement exam results combined with AP performance might kick you up higher, and a 5 on the BC will also secure an invitation for Honors Calc or Math 183 (for physics or molecular engineering). Not sure how that compares to other places. UChicago completes the Calc sequence in a year but I understand from others who track this more meticulously that you are a few weeks shy of completing what is known as Calc III elsewhere. So, perhaps, you do 2.5 or 2.67 semesters in those 30 weeks.
UChicago calc (probably 150’s and 160’s) is also known to be relatively more proof-based than elsewhere. I just have one anecdote about that. My husband and I attended different colleges but had the same calculus text and the same curriculum (we compared notes in grad school about that. Geeks represent!!) He and our son would discuss the latter’s p-sets occasionally and my husband recalls one in particular at the end of the quarter that my son showed him that was “extra credit.” My husband has a PhD in an applied math subject and took the “math prelim” as one of his qualifying exams. He does a lot of math in his line of work (which is theoretical in nature). He was of the opinion that my son’s Calc II extra-credit problem was notably more proofy and more difficult than what he himself did in calculus as an undergrad Econ and C/S double major (with a side of electrical engineering) at Duke. Of course, this was a few decades ago. Maybe all calculus courses are stepped up a bit now.
Looks like Chicago makes its own math placement test mandatory for incoming frosh, and students take the higher of the AP placement and Chicago’s own placement. But it looks like the AP placement is made lower than the likely placement by most who have those AP scores so that Chicago’s own placement overrides it.
Most other colleges do not use their own math placement testing for courses higher than calculus 1, so they recommend placement based on AP scores, though students sometimes choose to repeat their AP credit hoping for an “easy A” (not always getting it).
Some students may actually be less ready than their AP scores indicate, if they are ones who tend to be quick to forget, or if the faster pace of college math is difficult for them after the slow pace of calculus AB or a two year calculus AB-BC sequence that some high schools use.
Students at many public universities seem to repeat Calc 1 even if they had high grades in Calc BC in HS. Is that not the case at UChicago? If not, kudos to them for pushing themselves and not chasing grades.
Chicago makes its own math placement tests mandatory, and students must take the math course indicated by the placement score (i.e. they cannot choose lower). The only way for a Chicago frosh to take a lower math course would be to do worse on the math placement test (which is possible to do intentionally).
I don’t doubt that the majority of of Chicago kids took calc in high school, but that doesn’t mean that a general ed class that may be taken by humanities majors assumes all kids are are familiar with calculus, without providing any kind of calculus prereq or mention of calculus in the course description or syllabus.
It seems that every year for which the course has been available has had the same oversight about not listing the calculus requirement (as listed on archive.org) in the course description. Professors also seem to make the same oversight in all versions of the syllabus I could find online, which mention requiring familiarity with high school math like algebra, but not requiring familiarity with calculus. It also seems like quite a coincidence that all exam questions I could find online also happen to be the questions that don’t use calculus and instead used the HS math listed in the syllabus. Sure, it’s theoretically possible that the class completely changed this year, but they forgot to update the course description to reflect that recent change. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. In any case, it seems to be one class of many possible examples, not a singular anomaly.
If you make a sweeping statement about “other universities have far more choices for gen ed science than does UChicago”, there are likely to be a lot of specific colleges that are exceptions since there are many types of general ed requirements besides just the ones at Chicago and Stanford. For example, Caltech requires all students take similar versions of freshman math, biology, chemistry, and physics as part of their core. Students don’t have a lot of options to avoid these highly rigorous classes. Caltech is far from only example. As general rule, smaller colleges tend to have fewer options, although there are many specific colleges that are exceptions.
Nearly every highly selective private college has higher average GPAs in the upperclassmen in major classes than the underclassmen “intro to …” type general ed classes, with a large portion of non-majors . I am not aware of any colleges that are exceptions.
As I mentioned above, when my son started at UChicago a couple years ago they had to register where they were placed. That was a switch from a few years earlier, when it was common to opt to repeat even if you were placed higher. With Covid impacting registration decisions this year, I’m not sure what the policy is.
This is the previous final exam of UChicago Math 162, the last course in the supposedly most “rigorous” version of its required calculus sequence: http://math.uchicago.edu/~dana/final_162_W20
I’m less than impressed.
Oh good - I’ve always been curious about how rigorous 160’s is. 1NJ - can you please walk us though it?
Edit: Whoops - that’s the March 2020 Exam. It was optional and scaled down, if I recall correctly, due to the exodus from the dorms around the same time. All exams were take-home.
That’s probably true if by “most other colleges” you mean the majority of 4-year colleges in the United States. However, among highly selective private colleges, the vast majority of colleges I am familiar with use their own placement tests for math placement recommendations rather than just AP scores.
For example, Stanford’s placement test helps select which of 4 math starting points is most appropriate (19, 20, 21, 51). It doesn’t matter what your AP score is, you have to take a placement test, if you want to enroll in this sequence. They also have a variety of alternative course sequences for the post HS Calc math 51 classes, which is largely up to student’s choice for the later courses. These alternative course sequences often target students interested in a higher rigor or a specific field of study, so it’s not appropriate to just go by placement score. Some examples are below. Some highly selective colleges have placement advisers to help select which among courses like these is most appropriate for a particular student’s goals and background.
Math 51-53 (listed above) – differential and integral calculus in several variables, linear algebra, and ordinary differential equations (no emphasis on proofs)
Math 61-63CM – covers the material of the Math 50 series at a much more advanced level with an emphasis on rigorous proofs and conceptual arguments
Math 61-63DM – covers the same linear algebra material as the Math 60CM series and otherwise focuses on topics in discrete mathematics, algebra, and probability theory at an advanced level with an emphasis on rigorous proofs
CME 102-104 – versions of classes above that emphasize applied mathematics using Matlab, which I’d expect to be the more common usage for engineering jobs
That’s the only version I found so far. Frankly, I’m a little shocked by how easy these problems are. Maybe last year’s version isn’t a good representation of the course.
Fairly typical for Honors Calculus, all proofs. Not sure what you are looking for but maybe you have comparables from other universities? Proofs in calculus show a solid understanding of the underlying principles.
I don’t see them as trivial, I see them as fundamental to understanding calculus. Maybe you have some idea of proofs that are better or show a more fundamental understanding of calculus that you would like to share?
@Data10, Calculus is actually considered a pretty basic math subject at UChicago. So please forgive the prof for accidentally messing up and using calculus in a “science for humanities” class . By the way, here is someone who agrees with you: Rotten to the Core: It’s Time for a Science Makeover – Chicago Maroon For the record, it appears that the author missed not a few labs (might have been spring 2020 when labs were cancelled). However, his point might be valid, especially when he compares the Hum and Sosc components to the non-major sciences (too many facts, not enough creative experimentation). It would be interesting to hear from other UChicago people on this one. My own point is that his argument is a bit too smooth: you in fact do learn by reading what other people say on the topic - methods are important but so are facts and opinions (that’s definitely true in Hum and Sosc). You also formulate your own thoughts and practice articulating them, either via formal modeling or by a method of argument. Perhaps he blew off the readings and just went by the lectures (which he found to be less than transformative).
Back to Phsc 108, the course description in the registration portal advises you to have some acquired knowledge of chem and physics. I’d heed that advice. Driving home that the earth is round might be harder than one thinks.
Does Cal Tech have humanities majors? Tech institutes are probably not comparable here.
I’d stick to liberal arts programs within the context of a research university so that you can compare faculty resources, latest research, etc. UChicago’s closest comparables in terms of rank are HYPS, Columbia, Duke, NU, etc.
@BlueBayou made the same point also for good reasons: major shake-out as people find what they are good at and gravitate there, get used to the load, curving might be more generous in the upper division, etc. (caveat: Core and intro courses are not graded on a standard distribution. It’ll depend on the instructor). Another consideration is that at UChicago one has the further advantage of taking fewer courses for third and fourth year if they carried a 4-course load through the end of second year. That can help GPA (although you are also taking tougher courses so . . .). So I agree with you both that UChicago’s GPA movement will definitely include factors that are not distinct from other places, or might depend on scheduling advantages, rather than things like “easy” upper division courses. The Core isn’t more rigorous than higher level courses (since it’s suppose to prepare you for taking on those courses . . . ).
What makes the Core itself “rigorous” is probably its curricular design more than anything else. And given that most of the commentary regarding struggling or difficulty revolves around Core vs major courses - and most of the advice is “hang tight and just get through the Core” - I think most would agree that there is a strong perception among the student population that the Core is “rigorous.” We up here in the peanut gallery probably have a fairly limited perspective, especially if our methods of analysis look at the trees and ignore the forest. After all, even Gen Chem is doable if only there were enough time in the day
MIT has American studies, ancient and medieval studies, anthropology, art and design, Asian and Asian diaspora studies, comparative media studies, economics, Latin American and Latino studies, linguistics, literature, music, philosophy, Russian and Eurasian studies, Spanish, theater arts, women’s and gender studies, writing according to Majors & minors | MIT Admissions
Now, whether many students actually choose these majors is another matter.
I’m with @CU123 on this one. @1NJParent since you are clearly shocked, you will need to enlighten the rest of us so that we comprehend your issues better. Some comparisons to the curricula from comparable Calc programs at other places would be most insightful. NB: don’t forget to check out Math 180’s because you might be confusing 160’s Calc with that? Recall that Honors Calc isn’t the end of the line w/r/t accelerated or advanced Core math.
. By the way, here is someone who agrees with you: 