I have a criteria for what I demand from scientific courses that I would like to share with you. It is as follows:
The course must be quantitative. I enjoy courses in economics, mathematics, and physics much more than biology, geography, and geology. This is especially true if the course is supposed to be quantitative in nature. For example, a physics course that does not have even a single equation is not right to me.
The course must not be so easy that it is not interesting, nor so difficult that it is impossible to get through. This means that a course that simply involves manipulating variables is off the map, and so is something equivalent to economics courses at LSE or courses taught at the graduate level in mathematics - especially if it is not a graduate course or a course at LSE.
There must be some precise basis for the mathematics; I cannot learn when equations are simply ‘dumped there.’ I don’t mean that the material must be extremely rigorous - but that would be fine; I mean that when you present an equation on the board or in the textbook, please use some kind of mathematical or verbal argument to justify what’s presented there.
The course must have a cohesive structure. Therefore, please do not do any of the following: 1) change the format of the exams in the middle of the course without informing students, 2) if the course is quantitative, teach material not presented in prerequisite courses, 3) lecture on material not in the textbook without providing any hard-copies at all, 4) teach something different from the syllabus of the course presented in the school calendar. There may be more criteria missing, but these are just a few of the problems that I have been having.
The design and grading of assignments and exams must be objective and fair. This means that the exams are marked by someone in a proper position of authority and they are designed to measure a level that is generally equal to the abilities of the students at the school.
Lately, my school has been violating almost every one of these principles; I have taken economics courses that are not even remotely quantitative, I have been taught courses in statistics more difficult than at LSE (I even looked that up), in some science courses, equations have simply been dumped there without explanation, and absolutely every one of criteria 4) has been violated. I also recently took a course online at another school and criteria 5) was violated - assignments were ‘peer-graded’ instead of graded by a real professor or TA.
Therefore, am I not being realistic? Is my criteria too stringent? Is the school wrong? What is wrong here?
I think you are not being realistic. You will never finish a degree if you have a “Goldilocks zone” of requirements for your courses (STEM or otherwise). Persistence, adaptability, and resilience are qualities that will serve you well in college and in the working world. No real job would meet these criteria, and work expectations change without warning and with a lot of pressure attached.
Instead of writing a manifesto of what is wrong with how your courses are taught, you need to figure out how to roll with the variations and still do as well as you can.
But you know nothing about me - how hard I have worked, what I have achieved in high school, what I have achieved on the SATs, and what grades I have gotten in other courses (all high achievements). I guess I didn’t tell you about myself, but how could you say it’s my fault when you don’t know anything about my situation? I was actually posting this hoping to get some reassurance, but then you blame me… Is there something you know about academia that I do not that would justify the classes being taught that way?
Funny thing about life is sometimes when you ask a question you get an answer you don’t like. You can either ignore the answer or take it to heart and learn from it. FWIW I think @inparent answered your question quite nicely, didn’t blame you, or find fault with anything you said. Just offered insight into how the real world works. Good luck
Your attitude is not realistic.You are not in a position to DEMAND how a course is taught and what the content is. Maybe that is your learning style but classes don’t revolve around you. Maybe there is necessary content that you find boring, you can’t DEMAND the course be at just your perfect interest level. It’s your responsibility to take notes and not DEMAND a professor give you a hard copy of material that he taught beyond the textbook. You can’t DEMAND that the professor not allow a TA to grade your exam. Thinking every course is going to meet your expectations is going to set you up for constant disappointment.
One of my kids is a PhD student in a hard science. She has hit plenty of speed bumps in some of the areas you talked about. She figures it out. Doesn’t always get an A, but she is still doing the work she wants to do in her field of study. It didn’t matter what your test scores and history are. You have to adapt.
223Mom456: so the courses are always taught properly, and I have to ‘just deal with it’ no matter what the circumstances? What about the fact that I already have a degree in the sciences - computer science - with straight A’s? What about that my GRE scores are good enough for computer science at Harvard? This is what I was not telling you. You cannot come up with one coherent or consistent argument why it should be this way without huffing and puffing and pointing the finger at me…
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
You asked a question with an expectation of receiving responses. You are receiving responses. With those responses, you have 2 options:
• Accept the advice
• Ignore the advice
That’s it. Notice that I did not say arguing with the responses is an option - it’s not. You asked the question, so expect answers that you may not like. But at the end of the day, College Confidential is not a debate society. Describing responses as “huffing and puffing” is not a strategy which will keep this thread open for long.
I’m not sure why you think your CS degree or your GRE score are relevant. What do these have to do with anything? Do you think you’re the only person to ever complete a technical undergraduate degree with a high GPA and score well on tests? A good argument stands on its own merits, not on the shoulders of the one making it.
Furthermore, you’ve accused others of not “justifying” themselves when all you’ve done is presented a list of demands with no justification for why you believe they should be given any credence. Finally, your tone is hostile–quite frankly, nobody here has been “huffing and puffing” except you. I’m sure nobody minds a well-mannered and well-intentioned discussion or debate (I know I certainly don’t), but insulting everyone who replies is not the right way to do so.
Appeals to perceived authority and ad hominem attacks make for poor debates.
In life you are not always calling the shots. In your classes you’ll learn to adapt to your professors. You should focus on the learning and not the logistics of the course.