CHanges to Mathematics @ UNSW (2 Viewers)

[§eraphim]

I heard some rumours that there are some major reforms under development by all the lecturers in Maths. they are planning to cut 3rd yr subjects and also tutor positions for undergrads/hons students i think. Anyone know much about it?

 

[Jumbo Cactuar]

Doesn't affect me ---- luckily

 

[withoutaface]

They already had less units than usyd, now they're cutting more?

 

[Affinity]

From unofficial sources the following are likely to happen:

Analysis I(MATH3610) and Analysis II(MATH3620) would be merged into a 6 unit course, but with less material than the 2 combined.

Similar things would happen to Algebra I(MATH3710) and Algebra II(MATH3720).

Analysis III(MATH3630) would be taught by the statisticians from next year.. [probably Ben Goldys]->(this part is my speculation).

And I disagree with Withoutaface, UNSW has many more units that usyd

 

[§eraphim]

From unofficial sources the following are likely to happen:

Analysis I(MATH3610) and Analysis II(MATH3620) would be merged into a 6 unit course, but with less material than the 2 combined.

Similar things would happen to Algebra I(MATH3710) and Algebra II(MATH3720).

Analysis III(MATH3630) would be taught by the statisticians from next year.. [probably Ben Goldys]->(this part is my speculation).

And I disagree with Withoutaface, UNSW has many more units that usyd

So real and functional analysis will be combined eh? hmmm

I think they're merging some of the 3rd yr stats subjects with 2nd yr stats. Theyre probably gonna get combine the 3rd yr numerical computing subjects or offer them as postgrad.

I think unsw will have fewer undegrad units than usyd and they may have a lot of subjects in the handbook (both undegrad and postgrad) but they don't run all of them at once.

 

[Li0n]

i think unsw is wasting too much money on maple
keke

 

[§eraphim]

In addition, I think that since the Government has reduced funding, all Math depts in Unis across Australia will probably have to "rationalise their menu offerings" (Commerce Faculty Board budget speak),ie, cut courses.

 

[who_loves_maths]

it's not like undergraduate degrees or majors in fundamental subjects like Mathematics are really different across all universities in Australia (or over the world). all undergraduate courses have core and basic components, its not like they are abolishing those fundamentals.
if you think they're cutting out too much, then why not do the original stuff yourself in your free time? since they're only starting to cut the courses, i'm sure the textbooks for the separate courses are still in circulation. just go and get yourself a copy and start reading it?

 

[§eraphim]

Independent learning has its limitations too. You may not get the right idea from just reading a book. Maths is a dynamic subject; you learn by observing how theories were developed and how they can be applied. Only a live person can really explain Maths properly. Otherwise all the researchers/students would just lock themselves in rooms and .

I think its worrying that Universities are cutting subjects essential for other disciplines and for encouraging further mathematical research. Merging numerical analysis subjects certainly means less challenging subjects for Engineers but that really defeats the purpose of university learning to broaden our knowledge. Similarly, undergraduate courses in Analysis like Functional Analysis and Measure Theory are really the foundation for future Honours and PhD students to do their outside readings (Would you know what a Banach Space really is in a Journal if you hadn't had covered the majority of the basics properly?)

I do agree that independent reading is important, but it requires a strong interest and ability in Maths and a firm foundation of the basics to make the most of whatever you are reading.

Afffinity, any comments? You are a shining example of one such independent learner

 

[who_loves_maths]

Originally Posted by §eraphim
Independent learning has its limitations too. You may not get the right idea from just reading a book. Maths is a dynamic subject; you learn by observing how theories were developed and how they can be applied. Only a live person can really explain Maths properly. Otherwise all the researchers/students would just lock themselves in rooms and .

independent learning it terms of learning the core units of a course is different from independent learning in research. in the case of merging courses at the undergraduate level, those courses are not research courses, they have a core component of knowledge to be taught. so by methods of independent learning and studying you can (or should) cover that core component of knowledge within that particular course. teachers and lecturers are there because they are useful when you don't actually understand some concepts or theory in a book since they present a revenue towards which you can direct queries and questions. Other than that, all that's said in a lecture can usually be learnt from other material resources (most books are written, editted, and re-written before publication by a group of academics anyway to ensure that the material in it is clearly presented, etc..., so i don't see how there would be a problem).

in addition, if you don't understand theories or concepts in the course of your independeent learning then you can direct queries at lecturers who do not even necessarily teach the course anymore - i am sure no teacher would bluntly turn you away and tell you to get lost just because that part of the course is no longer taught?

in terms of research, it is a different story, i agree that you cannot independently learn everything you need for research theses, and that's why you are provided with mentors and guides. but in this thread, research is another story - no courses are being cut at the upper research level are they?
plus, the name RESEARCH is there for a reason - most of the work should be done by the individual undertaking research - they have to put in the effort and energy to do independent learning, hence the name "research".
the honours years are to develop and extend those who are keen to do research beyond the undergraduate level in terms of independent learning skills. it's there to promote and enhance your ability in individual research.

so rather than wait till the honours year to come, why not start now? you can choose to view the mergence and elimination of courses as an opportunity or 'calling' for you to start developing your independent learning skills early on.

 

[§eraphim]

independent learning it terms of learning the core units of a course is different from independent learning in research. in the case of merging courses at the undergraduate level, those courses are not research courses, they have a core component of knowledge to be taught. so by methods of independent learning and studying you can (or should) cover that core component of knowledge within that particular course. teachers and lecturers are there because they are useful when you don't actually understand some concepts or theory in a book since they present a revenue towards which you can direct queries and questions. Other than that, all that's said in a lecture can usually be learnt from other material resources (most books are written, editted, and re-written before publication by a group of academics anyway to ensure that the material in it is clearly presented, etc..., so i don't see how there would be a problem).

in addition, if you don't understand theories or concepts in the course of your independeent learning then you can direct queries at lecturers who do not even necessarily teach the course anymore - i am sure no teacher would bluntly turn you away and tell you to get lost just because that part of the course is no longer taught?

in terms of research, it is a different story, i agree that you cannot independently learn everything you need for research theses, and that's why you are provided with mentors and guides. but in this thread, research is another story - no courses are being cut at the upper research level are they?
plus, the name RESEARCH is there for a reason - most of the work should be done by the individual undertaking research - they have to put in the effort and energy to do independent learning, hence the name "research".
the honours years are to develop and extend those who are keen to do research beyond the undergraduate level in terms of independent learning skills. it's there to promote and enhance your ability in individual research.

so rather than wait till the honours year to come, why not start now? you can choose to view the mergence and elimination of courses as an opportunity or 'calling' for you to start developing your independent learning skills early on.

1) The notion of "core courses" really depends on what you are doing. For eg, I'm sure someone pursuing a Pure Maths major would be a fool not to do quite a bit of Analysis and Algebra as core courses in addition to others like Differential Geometry, etc. Similarly, for Stats you probably need to do 3rd yr regression models before you can claim that you have covered the core components. If you are suggesting that 2nd yr subjects are core, they are in the sense that they are mandatory for prerequisites but really some 3rd yr subjects MUST be taken to maintain a cohesive program of study.
2) Textbooks are for reference purposes. They are written to summarise concepts and themes; not to elaborate upon them. Thus, they are not a good substitute for a decent lecture.
3) Lecturers have a heavy burden: admin, teaching and course development, and research. Their consultation hours are usually reserved for subjects that they are teaching. So it's not just a matter of waltzing in when ever you want.
4) Actually, courses are being modified across the board. Those popular ones offfered in Stats are gonna stay but probably all the 3rd yr/grad courses in pure (they are the same courses - same lecturer, assignment, lectures, etc) will probably be put on an even longer rotation than now.

This might be of relevance:

In Praise of Lectures
T. W. Körner


The Ibis was a sacred bird to the Egyptians and worshippers acquired merit by burying them with due ceremony. Unfortunately the number of worshippers greatly exceeded the number of birds dying of natural causes so the temples bred Ibises in order that they might be killed and and then properly buried.

So far as many mathematics students are concerned university mathematics lectures follow the same pattern. For these students attendance at lectures has a magical rather than a real significance. They attend lectures regularly (religiously, as one might say) taking care to sit as far from the lecturer as possible (it is not good to attract the attention of little understood but powerful forces) and take complete notes. Some lecturers give out the notes at such speed (often aided by the technological equivalent of the Tibetan prayer wheel -- an overhead projector) that the congregation is fully occupied but most fail in this task. The gaps left empty are filled by the more antisocial elements with surreptitious (or not so surreptitious) conversation, reading of newspapers and so on whilst the remainder doodle or daydream. The notes of the lecture are then kept untouched until the holidays or, more usually, the week before the exams when they are carefully highlighted with day-glow yellow pens (a process known as revision). When more than 50% of the notes have been highlighted, revision is said to be complete, the magical power of the notes is exhausted and they are carefully placed in a file never to be consulted again. (Sometimes the notes are ceremonially burnt at the end of the student's university career thereby giving a vivid demonstration of the value placed on the academic side of fifteen years of education.)

Many students would say that there is an element of caricature in my description. They would agree that the lectures they attend are incomprehensible and boring but claim that they have to come to find out what is going to be examined. However, even if this was the case, they would still be behaving irrationally. The invention of the Xerox machine means that only one student need attend each lecture the remainder being freed for organised games, social events and so on. Nor would this student need to take very extensive notes since everything done in the lecture is better done in the textbooks.

Even the least experienced observer can see that the average lecturer makes lots of little mistakes. Usually these are just `mis-speakings' or misprints sometimes spotted by the lecturer, sometimes vocally corrected by a wide awake member of the audience, sometimes silently corrected by the note taker but often passing unnoticed into students notes to puzzle or confuse them later. The experienced observer will note that, though the general outlines of proofs are reasonably well done, the fine detail is often tackled inefficiently or vaguely with, for example, a four line proof where one line will do. A lecture takes place in real time, so to speak, with 50 minutes of mathematics occupying 50 minutes of exposition whereas a chapter of a book that takes ten minutes to read may have taken as many days to compose. When the author of a book encounters a problem she can stop and think about it; the lecturer must press on regardless. If the notation becomes to complex or it becomes clear that some variation in an early definition would be helpful the author can go back and change it; the lecturer is committed to her earlier choices. When her book is finished the lecturer can reread it and revise at leisure. She will get her friends to read the manuscript and they, viewing it with fresh eyes, will be able to suggest corrections and improvements. Finally, if she is wise, she will offer a graduate student a suitable monetary reward for each error found. Even with all these precautions, errors will still slip through, but it is almost certain that the book will provide a clearer, simpler and more accurate exposition than any lecture notes.

Students may feel under some obligation to go to lectures; their teachers are under no such compulsion. Yet mathematicians go to seminars, colloquium talks, graduate courses all of which are lectures under another name. Why, if lectures have all the disadvantages that I have shown, do they persist in going to them? The surprising answer is that many mathematicians find it easier to learn from lectures than from books. In my opinion there are several interlinked reasons for this.

(1) A lecture presents the mathematics as a growing thing and not as a timeless snapshot. We learn more by watching a house being built than by inspecting it afterwards.

(2) As I said above, the mathematics of lecture is composed in real time. If the mathematics is hard the lecturer and, therefore, her audience are compelled to go slowly but they can speed past the easy parts. In a book the mathematics, whether hard or easy, slips by at the the same steady pace.

(3) Some lecturers are too shy, some too panic stricken and a few (but very few) too vain or too lazy to respond to the mood of the audience. Most lecturers can sense when an audience is puzzled and respond by giving a new explanation or illustration. When a lecture is going well they can seize the moment to push the audience just a little further than they could normally expect to go. A book can not respond to our moods.

(4) The author of a book can seldom resist the temptation to add just one extra point. (Why should she, when purchasers and publishers prefer to deal in `proper' books rather than slim pamphlets?) The lecturer is forced by the lecture format to concentrate on the essentials.

(5) In a book the author is on her best behaviour; remarks which go down well in lectures look flat on the printed page. A lecturer can say `This is boring but necessary' or `It took me three days to work this out' in a way an author cannot.

There is another advantage of lectures which is of particular importance to beginners. There is a slogan `We learn mathematics by doing mathematics' which like many slogans conceals one truth behind another. We do not learn to play the violin by playing the violin or rock climbing by climbing rocks. We learn by watching experts doing these things and then imitating them. Practice is an essential part of learning but unguided practice is generally useless and often worse than useless. People who teach themselves to program acquire a mass of bad programming habits which (unless they wish to remain hackers all their lives) they then have to painfully unlearn. Mathematics textbooks show us how mathematicians write mathematics (admittedly an important skill to acquire) but lectures show us how mathematicians do mathematics.

In his book Science Awakening Van Der Waerden makes the following suggestive remarks about the decline of the ancient Greek mathematical tradition.

Reading a proof in Apollonius requires extended and concentrated study. Instead of a concise algebraic formula, one finds a long sentence, in which each line segment is indicated by two letters which have to be located in the figure. To understand the line of thought one is compelled to transcribe these sentences in modern concise formulas. The ancients did not have this tool; instead they had the oral tradition.
An oral tradition makes it possible to indicate the line segments with the fingers; one can emphasise essentials and point out how the proof was found. All of this disappears in the written formulation of the strictly classical style. The proofs are logically sound, but they are not suggestive. One feels caught in a logical mousetrap, but one fails to see the guiding line of thought.

As long as there was no interruption, as long as each generation could hand over its method to the next, everything went well and the science flourished. But as soon as some external cause brought about an interruption in the oral tradition, and only books remained it became extremely difficult to assimilate the work of the great precursors and next to impossible to pass beyond it.

Many students simultaneously expect too little and too much from their lectures. If asked they might say `The purpose of lectures is to enable me to understand the material' or `The purpose of lectures is to enable me to do the exercises'. Since the lectures do not achieve this end the students assume either that the lecturer is incompetent or that they are. Often both assumptions are false.

Suppose that that you visit a large town and you wish to learn how to get around. One way of learning is to go by foot on a guided tour which includes the main landmarks. At the end of the walk, even if you remember everything your guide has shown you (that is `you have learned the proofs by heart') you will not know the town in the way that your guide knows it. In order to know the town `like a native' you will need to explore for yourself. Instead of using the main road to get from the market to the station you will need to try other routes and see whether they work. (Naturally you will get lost from time to time but because you have been shown routes between the main landmarks you will be able to recover your bearings.) Your guide may have explained that the road system runs the way it does because there are only three bridges across the river but only by walking the roads themselves will you be able to internalise this knowledge. However hard your guide may have tried there are clear limits to how much you can learn on the first walk. But, without that first tour given by a native, you would find it very hard to learn your way about town. Lectures by themselves can not give you a full understanding of a piece of mathematics but, without lectures to get you started, it is very hard to gain that full understanding.

In my view students should treat lectures not as a note taking exercise but as a dialogue between themselves and the lecturer. They should try to follow the argument as it emerges and not just take it down blindly. `But' the reader will exclaim `this is an impossible and futile council of perfection' and, after having thrown these notes into the nearest available wastepaper basket, she may well resolve her indignation into a series of questions.

What about note taking? If you look at experienced mathematicians in a lecture you will see that their note taking is an automatic process which leaves them free to concentrate on the lecture. Most mathematics lecturers follow two conventions which make automatic, or at least semi-automatic, note taking possible

(a) Everything that is written on the blackboard is to be copied down and nothing that is spoken need be taken down.

(b) It is the responsibility of the lecturer to ensure that what appears on the board forms a decent set of notes without further editing.

Semi-automatic note taking is a skill that has to be learnt, but it seems to be an easy one to acquire.

Would it better not to take notes? Some mathematicians never take notes but most find that note taking helps them concentrate on the job in hand. (When the audience at a seminar stop taking notes the experienced seminar speaker knows that they have lost interest and are now using her as a gently babbling source of white noise whilst they think their own thoughts.) Further even the largest blackboard will eventually be erased and notes allow you to glance back to earlier parts of the lecture.

What should you do if you get lost? The first and most important thing is to remember that most mathematicians are lost most of the time during lectures. (If you do not believe me, ask around.) Attending a mathematics lecture is like walking through a thunderstorm at night. Most of the time you are lost, wet and miserable but at rare intervals there is a flash of lightening and the whole countryside is lit up. Once you realise that your plight is neither an infallible sign of your incurable stupidity nor a clear indication of the lecturer's total incompetence but simply a normal occurrence, it is clear how you should act. You should continue taking notes watching all the time for a point where the lecturer changes the subject (or finishes a proof or whatever) and you can rejoin her exposition as an active partner.

It is obvious that if you study your lecture notes after the lecture with the object of understanding the point where the lecturer has got to you will have a better chance of understanding the next lecture. If you are one of the majority of the students who find this a counsel of perfection then you could at least use the five minutes before the next lecture rereading the last part of your notes. (If you do not do even do this, at least ask yourself why you do not do this.)

What should you do if you understand nothing at all of what is going on? At an advanced level it is possible for an entire course of 24 lectures to be devoted to the proof of a single theorem. If you get really lost in such a course (and probably by the end everybody except, perhaps, the lecturer will be really lost) you stay lost. However first and second year undergraduate lectures consist of a set of short topics chained together in some reasonable order. Even if you completely fail to understand one topic there is no reason why you should not understand the next (even if you do not understand the proof of Cauchy's theorem you can still use it). On the other hand if incomprehensible topic succeeds incomprehensible topic then taking notes in the hope that all will become clear when you revise is not an adequate response. You should swallow your pride and consult your director of studies.

What about questions? There are three types of questions that an audience can ask.

(a) Questions of Correction If you think the lecturer has missed out a minus sign or written when she meant then you should always ask. No lecturer likes to spend a blackboard of calculations sinking further into the mire because her audience has failed to point out an error on line one. Sometimes very polite students wait until after a lecture to point out errors with the result that the lecturer knows that she has made an error but that she cannot correct it. So the rule is ask and ask at once.

(b) Questions of Incomprehension It takes considerable courage to admit that you do not understand something in front of other people. However if you do not understand something it is likely that many others in the audience will be in the same boat and you will have their silent thanks. You will usually also have the audible and honest thanks of the lecturer since, as I have indicated above, most lecturers prefer to keep in touch with the audience. (There is a small and unfortunate minority who would prefer to lecture to an empty room, but give your lecturer the benefit of the doubt and ask.)

(c) Questions of Extension If you are in the happy position of understanding everything the lecturer says then you may wish her to go further into a topic. Your modest request to hear more about the general case is unlikely to go down well with the rest of the audience who are still struggling with the particular case. Such questions should be left until after the lecture when the lecturer will be happy to oblige (few mathematicians can resist an invitation to talk more about their subject). If you find yourself asking more than one question per lecture, examine your motives.

It is noticeable that at seminars it is often the most distinguished mathematicians who ask the simplest (if they were not so distinguished, one might say naive) questions. It is, I suppose, possible that they only began to ask such questions after they became distinguished, but I believe that a willingness to ask when they do not know is a characteristic of many great minds.

Mathematical sayings tend to have multiple attributions (perhaps because mathematicians remember processes rather than isolated facts like names). The ancient Greeks attributed the following saying to Euclid among others. Ptolomey, King of Egypt, asked Euclid to teach him geometry. `O King' replied Euclid `in Egypt there are royal roads and roads for the common people, but there are no royal roads in geometry.' Mathematics is hard, there are no easy ways to understanding but the lecture, properly used, is the easiest way that I know.

[Printed out February 20, 2003 . These notes are written in LaTeX2e and stored in and may be accessed via my web home page

 

[who_loves_maths]

i've only a quarter, along with bits and pieces, of your last post §eraphim, and the comments that you posted shows that you obviously have not read clearly or understood properly what i was trying to say in my last post.
hence, i won't spend the effort and energy in going through the rest of your post either.

but so far:

1) The notion of "core courses" really depends on what you are doing. For eg, I'm sure someone pursuing a Pure Maths major would be a fool not to do quite a bit of Analysis and Algebra as core courses in addition to others like Differential Geometry, etc. Similarly, for Stats you probably need to do 3rd yr regression models before you can claim that you have covered the core components. If you are suggesting that 2nd yr subjects are core, they are in the sense that they are mandatory for prerequisites but really some 3rd yr subjects MUST be taken to maintain a cohesive program of study.

here, your first sentence (in bold) refutes the rest of the following comment for me. yes you are right ---> "core courses" are EXACTLY what you are doing - that is why they are "core" to your study?!

the rest of your comment however are subjective...

"For eg, I'm sure someone pursuing a Pure Maths major would be a fool not to do quite a bit of Analysis and Algebra as ..." - whether or not someone pursuing a Pure Maths major indeed does Analysis and Algebra or not is UP TO THEM, not you. so your comment comes purely from your opinion, you might indeed find them a fool for not doing those subjects, but you thinking them a fool is not an incentive or a form of compulsion for them to do it.

in short, when i say the "core" i simply mean all the courses that a person decides to study at the undergraduate level.

2) Textbooks are for reference purposes. They are written to summarise concepts and themes; not to elaborate upon them. Thus, they are not a good substitute for a decent lecture.

i do not believe you are right here. i know many ppl who will tell you that independent learning is as good as listening to lectures (who do you think attendance at lectures is not made compulsory?).

and no, textbooks are not merely for reference purposes. they do not just summarise concepts and themes, they DO elaborate on them. Where do you get practice at questions and exercises from? i'm surprised you do not know this already, but books are written at a default level of difficulty, and the reason why you have teachers and 'guides' is because they are there to provide you with an explanation of some of the concepts in books so as to provide an easier understanding of it for those that find the default level of difficulty within a book too demanding - this is also why many books separate their exercises into differently rated segments in terms of difficulty.

also, do not forget that many lecturers teach their courses in ACCORDANCE with textbooks, not the other way around. (most university level books are written by PROFESSORS, who out-rank lecturers, and for a reason too!) so books aren't just there for 'reference'. only someone who rarely reads a book and only live off lectures would say that - in which case i can understand why they would start complaining when a few courses start disappearing or merging.

the fact is that you just refuse to help yourself to independent learning, for whatever reason(s) you have. it's not because the resources aren't there.
only when you have tried independent learning and have first-hand experience with it, can you comment on it's possibility or impossibility.

3) Lecturers have a heavy burden: admin, teaching and course development, and research. Their consultation hours are usually reserved for subjects that they are teaching. So it's not just a matter of waltzing in when ever you want.

this is just an excuse for youself - a typical example that you haven't tried. universities and lecturers are there to HELP you, not turn you away.
if you are persistent, you will ALWAYS get an answer.
the answers are out there, it's up to you to go out and find them. just because you might know of one or two lecturers who are unwilling or uncapable of helping you does not mean you can GENERALISE this over ALL lecturers.
and no, you don't just "waltz in" at any time, you wait for the right opportunity maybe?

(1) A lecture presents the mathematics as a growing thing and not as a timeless snapshot. We learn more by watching a house being built than by inspecting it afterwards.

once again, another example of the fact that you have NOT properly read what i typed in my last post.
like i said, YES mathematics is not a static thing - it's a dynamic discipline. BUT, also like i said, UNDERGRADUATE mathematics is hardly at the forefront of mathematical research is it??? so, almost all undergraduate courses in maths (and in fact all other disciplines) across the whole country are practically the SAME - they just teach the "dead" and static things - the basics, and you are there just to learn them, becase without the basics you can't go out and "build" a house.

so no, UNDERGRADUATE mathematics is not about inventing or building new maths. i'm sure you can figure that out by yourself.

(2) As I said above, the mathematics of lecture is composed in real time. If the mathematics is hard the lecturer and, therefore, her audience are compelled to go slowly but they can speed past the easy parts. In a book the mathematics, whether hard or easy, slips by at the the same steady pace

haha, this bit really made me laugh... especially the part in bold. HOW RIDICULOUS. the parts in a maths books slip past at a steady pace??? i hope you realise that books are not living things! wouldn't common sense and logic say to you that the pace at which the material "slips" past in a book is contigent upon the READER HIM/HERSELF??? maybe the pace is the pace at which the reader decides for him/herself that he will learn/read at???

a book does not have a will of it's own - you don't have to read it at a steady pace if you do not wish to. you can skip the easy parts in a book as you can with a lecturer, and you can go slow on the hard bits as you can with a lecturer.

in fact on that point, don't you think a book is MORE flexible than a teacher or lecturer can be? you get to decide for yourself the pace with a book, but you don't have that choice with a lecturer who has a schedule to keep to?!

unless you are mechanical or have no idea yourself how fast/slow you should be going (in which case you shouldn't be doing tertiary study, go back to primary), then a book is obviously more versatile than a lecturer is.

(3) Some lecturers are too shy, some too panic stricken and a few (but very few) too vain or too lazy to respond to the mood of the audience. Most lecturers can sense when an audience is puzzled and respond by giving a new explanation or illustration. When a lecture is going well they can seize the moment to push the audience just a little further than they could normally expect to go. A book can not respond to our moods.

(4) The author of a book can seldom resist the temptation to add just one extra point. (Why should she, when purchasers and publishers prefer to deal in `proper' books rather than slim pamphlets?) The lecturer is forced by the lecture format to concentrate on the essentials.

and once again, these two comments/points make a more resounding mark on your character than it does on the book vs. lecturer debate. it shows your own insecurities about your ability. why can't you yourself focus or concentrate on the essentials? why do you need others to respond to you? can't you pratice a bit of independence yourself? why do you always need someone else there to look after you???
that's what independent study is all about. if you can't leave the lecture hall without feeling like you've lost a guardian, then you shouldn't be taking an honours year or continuing to do things like PhD's; in which case you don't need to worry about the merging or lessening of courses (since you were initially worried about the effect that might have over your future honours, etc, years).


i guess some ppl just aren't built with the ability of independent learning...

P.S. spare a thought for the authors of these textbooks, who's there to look after them when they have to write an entire book on their own...

 

[§eraphim]

1) Haha I didn't write the article in "In Praise of Lectures: By T. W. Körner". It was written by a Cambridge University Maths lecturer (so kindly reserve direct your lengthy criticism to him). Textbooks are good but they are by no means the definitive source; I personally prefer having a lecturer to talk to because they can recommend which reference books are good (there are so many to choose from and each has their own strength and weakness, so it would be wise to find the one that best suits your needs) and to guide me on which details are more important than others.

2) Although its not explicitly stated on the website, the Honours coordinators recommend that you take those subjects.

3) Actually, the fact that I see textbooks as good reference sources only doesn't mean I am discouraging the idea of independent study; in fact, I find online lecture notes to be quite good. Often, these lecture notes grow and become books of their own but because they are often published for a wider audience (possibly both undergraduate and postgraduate level?) it can make it less accessible for students. Furthermore, of course I do exercises but how would you know you have done it properly...or elegantly? Books cannot always teach you that and lecturers most don't have the time. Also, the subjects that are being cut, in particular, scientific computing subjects, are practical ones that require university computing facilities (and someone to supervise and teach you how to use it).

4) If you are doing your HSC this yr, what would you know of the constraints on lecturer's time? Lecturers and professors are busy people and often you have to "book" in advance to make sure they can see you (even during consultation)

I am by no means discouraged in pursuing Honours in future. I would have just preferred to have used my time to read research, not undegrad txtbks. It would certainly make things easier.

 

[who_loves_maths]

^ k, don't want to argue anymore, i agree with what you say. ultimately, the advent of a 'guide' or 'lecturer' in any course and the necessity of textbooks are both complimentary to the subject being studied. they are both integral parts of any tertiary discipline :uhhuh:

Originally Posted by §eraphim
Haha I didn't write the article in "In Praise of Lectures: By T. W. Körner". It was written by a Cambridge University Maths lecturer (so kindly reserve direct your lengthy criticism to him)....

- yeah sure, i'd love for you to refer my criticism and opinions to the uni lecturer; that is of course, if you can find an available 'booking' time on his busy schedule


P.S. i didn't mean to "assail" you or anyone in my last post, i know i didn't write it in the best or most polite of manners, i was being childish over a trial matter. i was just pissed off that you made such a huge post beforehand. so sorry about that, no hard feelings i hope...

 

[§eraphim]

^ k, don't want to argue anymore, i agree with what you say. ultimately, the advent of a 'guide' or 'lecturer' in any course and the necessity of textbooks are both complimentary to the subject being studied. they are both integral parts of any tertiary discipline :uhhuh:




- yeah sure, i'd love for you to refer my criticism and opinions to the uni lecturer; that is of course, if you can find an available 'booking' time on his busy schedule


P.S. i didn't mean to "assail" you or anyone in my last post, i know i didn't write it in the best or most polite of manners, i was being childish over a trial matter. i was just pissed off that you made such a huge post beforehand. so sorry about that, no hard feelings i hope...

Peace Here is that lecturer's website. They have lecture notes on there too.

http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~twk/

 

[who_loves_maths]

^ okay, thanks for the site. but i don't think i'm interested in that at this stage

you're doing a double degree in commerce and finance(Science), why do you need to do further study? ie. beyond undergraduate, which is what you've said you're planning to do. (would that be wasting time? cause don't many commerce graduates just go into the workforce immediately after their bachelor's degree?)

 

[§eraphim]

^ okay, thanks for the site. but i don't think i'm interested in that at this stage

you're doing a double degree in commerce and finance(Science), why do you need to do further study? ie. beyond undergraduate, which is what you've said you're planning to do. (would that be wasting time? cause don't many commerce graduates just go into the workforce immediately after their bachelor's degree?)

Honours is useful as you get to learn new stuff. And you're only young once so I guess I want to make the most it while I can. Since the retirement age is probably gonna increase, I will have a fair few number of yrs working so what is the rush eh?

 

[who_loves_maths]

^ yea good point. you're the only person i know so far who's openly claimed their intention of studying as much as they can for as long as is plausible. why can't more ppl be like that

 

[withoutaface]

You do have the problem, however, that after a certain number of years (7 I think) HECS ceases to apply and you have to pay full fee.

 

[§eraphim]

You do have the problem, however, that after a certain number of years (7 I think) HECS ceases to apply and you have to pay full fee.

Honours is part of an undergrad degree (HECS) so its a research yr on the cheap.

EDIT Also, a postgrad degree is probably gonna cost a lot more in future.

Usyd are also planning similar changes. http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/u/UG/SM/senior2006.html