CHanges to Mathematics @ UNSW (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter §eraphim
- Start date
velox
Retired
Is that true? ^ Is Bsc (adv) better at unsw or usyd?
nit
Member
usyd without a doubt, velox 
Disclaimer: opinion may be a tad biased :uhhuh:
Disclaimer: opinion may be a tad biased :uhhuh:
velox
Retired
Ah ok, probably usyd cos i heard they have sick parties. UNSW doesn't have much life.
I don't want to sound stupid but what does it all mean? How can you tell from the list of changes you've posted if they are dumbing down or not? I'm a math major so what will this all mean to me, will it affect me in a good or a bad way?
Ok, thanks.
So what effect will this have, wouldn't this be a good thing for the students who wants to study at a higher level? But does this make math at UNSW less reputatable or something?
I don't really understand the "realisation of microeconomic theory" either. Can someone explain?
So what effect will this have, wouldn't this be a good thing for the students who wants to study at a higher level? But does this make math at UNSW less reputatable or something?
I don't really understand the "realisation of microeconomic theory" either. Can someone explain?
no, its a nationwide trend; the already low enrollments in mathematics will continue to fall (its being accelerated by the higher cost of education). unsw maths is quite reputable as it is: we have some of the highest standards (harder exams) in the country.MAICHI said:
realisation of micreconomic theory - when demand curve falls, u shift the supply curve down (falling costs,ie, to students that would be taking lots of prereqs) which raises the (equilibium )quantity demanded. what degree r u taking? not commerce/science?
turtle_2468
Member
General reply from reading post for 2 minutes (sorry.. I should have taken more time.. I know, pm me if you want me to read more thoroughly):
Yes, changes are happening.
Independent learning is an OK way of learning, but I think that classroom learning is actually a lot more useful. This is especially the case for higher maths in a way that 1st and possibly 2nd year don't illustrate. I learnt some group theory in high school using a book, and it was the same concepts as Algebra I which I did in uni. However, I got hugely more out of the course, mainly because 1) I had to do work to retain the information and 2) the lecturer presented it in an accessible, interesting way. Despite books being the repository of much mathematical information, live teachers do the job much much better...
About letting more students do the course: The courses are HARD. There's no two ways about it... I found in algebra I and II some of the most intellectually demanding subjects I've ever done. I got lost in a few points, and basically ahd to go back and work stuff out on my own. This is the first, and so far only, time, I've had to do this with regard to some piece of logic. Relaxing standards and reducing the content covered in the course will mean that less is taught... and when you get worse students coming in the lecturers tailor the course to be easier... hence the good students don't learn as much.
The people who ARE doing algebra I and II, in my humble opinion, are probably most of the people who SHOULD be doing the course...
Yes, changes are happening.
Independent learning is an OK way of learning, but I think that classroom learning is actually a lot more useful. This is especially the case for higher maths in a way that 1st and possibly 2nd year don't illustrate. I learnt some group theory in high school using a book, and it was the same concepts as Algebra I which I did in uni. However, I got hugely more out of the course, mainly because 1) I had to do work to retain the information and 2) the lecturer presented it in an accessible, interesting way. Despite books being the repository of much mathematical information, live teachers do the job much much better...
About letting more students do the course: The courses are HARD. There's no two ways about it... I found in algebra I and II some of the most intellectually demanding subjects I've ever done. I got lost in a few points, and basically ahd to go back and work stuff out on my own. This is the first, and so far only, time, I've had to do this with regard to some piece of logic. Relaxing standards and reducing the content covered in the course will mean that less is taught... and when you get worse students coming in the lecturers tailor the course to be easier... hence the good students don't learn as much.
The people who ARE doing algebra I and II, in my humble opinion, are probably most of the people who SHOULD be doing the course...
The changes Seraphim mentions (for the most part) simply reflect the knowledge that is actually necessary to do the subject, so makes things more accurate. (For example, Algebraic Topology doesn't really need any Real Analysis anymore - whilst it is probably helpful, I think getting by without it is certainly possible)
The changes have now been put in writing. I wonder if timetabling for the less popular 3rd yr subejcts (even for applied and stat) will be done thru myUNSW or negotiated with the lecturer like the present pure math courses.
Last edited:
I greatly doubt it, since four lectures a week is much harder to timetable than just two.§eraphim said:
Out of curiousity - are you supposed to make those documents publicly available before they've been ratified by the Faculty Board (I know you're on the Faculty Board, but don't know the status of those as yet).
In a remark, it looks as though the draft the School of Maths had a month or two ago was fairly accurate after all. In which case I should point out that the subjects moved to graduate level are (for the most part) already offered as 3/4 subjects, and they will be offered only on a rotational basis (i.e. every few years rather than every year - probably the best that can be done will be every other year).