486reply

Your opinion of the course is of course your own, and I have no issue with someone disapproving of any particular course. But as a commentary on how these criticisms were laid out, I have a few points. My purpose is that anyone reading might have better sense of how to productively critique a class. That and it's a fun exercise to break from studying. I won't post anonymously because A) I know the professors can see who I am regardless (magic admin powers) and B) The only other party to hide from here is my peers and if I wasn't willing to share my ideas with them, then I'd get better ideas.

Let's begin:

I'll address a few things by paragraph (P(x))



P1: To convince someone that heavy use of the book is a poor use of time, some reason should be given. Something along the lines of 'Using the book a lot causes X. X is bad. Therefore, using the book too much is bad.' On the surface, it doesn't look like using the book is a bad thing. Consider, if I wanted to take a class at an elite level (not saying this is or isn't, just a hypothetical case), what would I expect? I would expect a more rigorous class to use a book written by a great physicist much more. The opposite would be a less prestigious college relying on lecture notes and a few handouts rather than a self-contained textbook.

P2: This contradicts P1. P1 details how the detailed consideration of every page makes study take too long. P2 then says that not enough exposition is given to the problems. Remedying the problems in P2 would aggravate those in P1. Such contradictions in criticism doesn't lend credibility to the critic, and therefore their points. I'm not trying to say the book was perfect or that the points in P1 or P2 aren't valid in some sense, but as presented it doesn't seem consistent.



P4: "the current way homework problems are presented leaves us searching the book for relevant information rather than working on the problem" - How is searching for relevant information a bad alternative to working problems? Finding the relevant methods IS working the problems. They are the same thing and so the bolded claim isn't convincing as presented. A better argument (modus ponens style) might be:

Solving problems requires both general topic knowledge and highly niche methods, each in the book.
The current homework problems rely heavily on one type of knowledge or the other.
Depending on one type too much is bad (could be an axiom of the argument, or more reasons could be given - either way).
Therefore, the current homework structure is bad.

This is a generic argument, but the point is to distinguish, by pointing out observables, what is bad and proving that the homeworks have it. Saying that frequent book reference is bad isn't compelling on its own.

P5: This one is actually pretty good. The logistics about office hour venues are specific, and it's obvious how to fix it, so that's good. I might disagree with the rest, but it's presented cleanly. My own 2 cents is that this depends on what your 'philosophy' about a class is. Do you see the class as being the thing that teaches you, or do you see yourself learning the subject as an individual expanding their knowledge while the class is like a roadmap telling you in what directions it might be good to go? Depending on one's answer, P5 can be accepted or rejected and I acknowledge it's up to opinion. I myself think that any ability comes from the need to have that ability, not the desire. Therefore I see myself as an individual pursuing the topic on my own while the class is there for me to test my ability so I know I don't fool myself into thinking I know more than I do. But again, that's opinion and you'd be perfectly fair to hate my way of looking at it. And disclaimer, I realized some time ago that I wouldn't be able to dedicate the time I need to the course, so I dropped and am taking it with Dr. Makins next time around in a schedule more tailored to the course. I adapted my schedule to fit the course rather than wanting the course to adapt to me. That's problem solving, real-world style.



Likewise the rest about how much guidance one should have is opinion, and it's at least good on you to express yours. Like in lecture, it's good to speak up and ask questions because if you're thinking it then there's probably a bunch of others thinking the same thing.

P6: You duly noted how adding content to fix your grievances would make the book longer, so that's good. The rest is self consistent in that if one believes that the course is too rigorous, then the rest of the points follow naturally. I will point out though, that it's a 400 level course in a reputed physics/engineering curriculum, not intro E&M that lots of folks take. The 70 or so people are the ones that have stuck around to get here, so why not go all in on the physics rigor? This isn't a rigorous argument of course, but it's an obvious one. Addressing what the course is and who it's for in a way which supports making it easier would have gone a long way to justifying why the course might be too difficult. Otherwise, how is it bad that knowing all the content is what is required for an excellent exam score? That's the point of exams.

P7: I think the causality is backward here. Whether or not this particular book existed, the course would be here. By picking this book and these homeworks to the exclusion of all others, the department has done exactly what you suggested, "I think it would be more efficient to work through a subset of problems that the department deems important and useful to build critical thinking skills." Likewise, the course isn't tailored towards providing the skills you yourself specifically need (sounds dumb, but hear me out). It goes the other way: you decide what skills you need and you take the courses proffering those skills. If the course doesn't teach things a student needs to know, that student shouldn't take the course - IE I'm not going to AGED 260 saying they need more math because I don't need this pseudoscience (yeah, I'm still salty from that one...), I'm better off just not taking the course.

Then you might then say, 'but wait, 486 is required for my degree! I Have to take it!", but this doesn't buy you much. The degree is certification that you accumulated the skills worked on in the required courses. It says 'You have this level of skill'. If you decide you don't need those skills, you get a different degree, not say that the requirement should be lowered. That devalues the degree. Of course, you might argue that the university has done wrong with their course/topic requirements in the most general sense, but that's way beyond this scope.

Bullet Points: Aside from office hours logistics, the rest all have the theme of making the course easier. That is a fine point if you believe that, and the suggestions given would accomplish this. But to convince others that these changes should be enacted, you need some justification. Something to offset the cost of devaluing the degree by making it easier. And likewise, look at the general case. Say Course X has 10 units of content and most people can do it easily. Now say Course B has 50 units of content. But of course 50 is a nightmare and people actually retain only 20. Isn't course B still better since the students leave with more content learned? The 20/50 percent is then modified with the curve. I don't mean to say this is absolutely ironclad, but I am outlining the basic argument people who disagree with making classes easier will think up. Addressing the most common opponent arguments and showing how you are STILL right in wanting to make these changes would be very convincing. Much more so than just saying the class should be easier.... for what reason? None was originally given actually, and the one people might presume is to raise grades, which isn't a compelling goal in and of itself.

Last Paragraph: Why is the course not worth 4k? Would cutting content/raising average grades make the course more valuable? This again goes to what one's philosophy about classes is. Picking a philosophy and standing by it would make it easier to be sympathetic to your case, even if people didn't like it. But no general attitudes are given.

If course value is tied to a grade and therefore how much it helps/hurts one to obtaining their degree (the thing they are paying for in the broader scope), then yes, the course might not be super valuable. But if a course is valued by the content included in the course (again, differentiating it from a less reputed school), then there's the value. There's a lot of different economic arguments people might take up, such as saying the class should be run at-cost, or that a thing is only worth what you're willing to pay for it and by paying for it you've already made it worth 4k, but I won't go into those. My main point here is just that to say the course isn't worth X is fine, but some argument as to why is needed to make it compelling. Again, something like 'classes with value have X qualities. This class does not have X. Therefore, this class is not valuable'. I keep going back to modus ponens (if->then) style arguments because for convincing people they are very quick and easy if you know what you want to claim and why.

To the 0.5% of you to read my diatribe, I salute you! It was fun for me, if nothing else. Criticisms on why the I'm full of it and the class IS too hard welcome. I only learn through opposition :)