<p>It can be a problem that many of the professors teach “pure” mathematics, and they lack of interest to teach vector calculus in respect with engineering.</p>
<p>At CCNY, this is how calculus and vector calculus works.
For calc 3, which is mutli-variable calculus, basic vector calculus (everything until vector fields and beyond are not consider as basic vectors) are taught. So you learn cross product, dot product, finding tangent line, parametric equation, double and triple integrals.</p>
<p>But beyond basics, the actual vector calculus, that is starting from parameterizing a curve, line integral, vector field, green’s theorem, Stork’s theorem, surface integral, and beyond are taught in vector calculus. </p>
<p>In fact, for engineers and scientist (mainly for engineers and physics major), we combine linear algebra and vector calculus together into one course, instead of two like other schools do. </p>
<p>My professor has background in physics and mathematics, so in class he talks a lot about the applications used in engineering and physical science. I only have two problems: hand writing sucks, and he speaks too quickly - not too informative, which I would love to do. The mathematics - he just teaches us how to do the problem, unlike my previous calc3 professor who writes copious notes on the board, and does pure math explanations.</p>
<p>But it’s very difficult to find a perfect candidates that match everyone’s taste. </p>
<p>I think that could be a potential reason why some mathematicians claim Math =/= Physics.</p>
<p>I read this a few weeks ago when I started vector field in class. At this point I am still not able to interpret the concept of field (which is totally outside of our scope - that’s a pure math thing).
<a href=“http://www.physics.orst.edu/bridge/papers/calculus.pdf[/url]”>http://www.physics.orst.edu/bridge/papers/calculus.pdf</a></p>