Update for 3/28/17
Today's Objectives:
1. Study for Lit. Exam [ Memorize and Compile 20 Quotes ]
2. USNCO part i. exam
3. Physics Prep
4. Blog Post on some topic on mp
5. 20-30 minutes of programming
6. Atkins / AP rewrite of solubility rules
Thoughts:
- Organic chemistry is, in many ways, a sort of "trap" for students. What I mean by this is that, like the so-called "calculus trap" some math students fall into, where higher mathematics is seen to be solely based off of calculus, I wonder if something similar does not happen with organic chemistry as a focus. These sorts of "traps", personally, are a topic of interest for me, as they tend to deter students from entering the entire field due to some given miscommunication between what a field's frontiers are and what a field's actual existence might contain. For example, look at the degree in which we teach calculus to high schoolers. Instead of showing them fields like group theory, graph theory, linear algebra, and the like, we tend to make the first venture for students, at least with respect to high-level mathematics, calculus. While some topics are eventually covered ( in fact, linear algebra comes up pretty soon after calculus ), others, including a great portion of discrete mathematics, are unfortunately not. What such a focus could indicate, at least for new people to the field, is that the field's gist only involves ___ skill or ____ event. In my honest opinion, mathematics, while an amazing field, should teach more proof-based mathematics earlier instead of simply pushing on calculus. While I do understand the notion that calculus's status as the language of many, many branches of science might lend it better to helping students out on their jobs, as many engineering and science majors require it for people to understand what's happening, I wonder if a shift on that focus would be harmful. While changing the current bar of calculus to some other field, say Euclidean Geometry or Group Theory, might not initially help people get into both pure mathematics or STEM fields, I assert that, eventually, greater mathematical literacy will make students realise the scope of mathematics, as now they can see the underlying proof-based curriculum and its benefits and drawbacks, and help them with more abstract visualization, for it could let them stretch their minds more and get used to some of the unsettling aspects of models in general. Additionally, if we were to shift the curriculum to be a bit broader in scope in the preliminary years, students could gain a further appreciation for the STEM fields and, hopefully, begin to see some of the deeper relations that people cannot necessarily see without some breath as well as depth in the matter. In the same way that philosophy is thought with multiple schools of thought, math's various methods, ideas, and sub-fields should be shown to have these amazing connections, for they help students get a sense as to why math is not only interesting, not only beautiful but potentially something that everyone can get into with enough patience and enough dedication. It pains me at times when, even if they definitely can think abstractly, people simply choose not to or, when they decide to, haven't had the experience to utilize multiple theories to help come to some conclusion, no matter how crazy. Personally, it seems that these sorts of required skills and depth in some part of mathematics precludes the necessity for others, and also limits students appreciation as they, for the lack of a better term, do not have the insight or the will to attack something long enough to go for understanding rather than memorization.
1. Study for Lit. Exam [ Memorize and Compile 20 Quotes ]
2. USNCO part i. exam
3. Physics Prep
4. Blog Post on some topic on mp
5. 20-30 minutes of programming
6. Atkins / AP rewrite of solubility rules
Thoughts:
- Organic chemistry is, in many ways, a sort of "trap" for students. What I mean by this is that, like the so-called "calculus trap" some math students fall into, where higher mathematics is seen to be solely based off of calculus, I wonder if something similar does not happen with organic chemistry as a focus. These sorts of "traps", personally, are a topic of interest for me, as they tend to deter students from entering the entire field due to some given miscommunication between what a field's frontiers are and what a field's actual existence might contain. For example, look at the degree in which we teach calculus to high schoolers. Instead of showing them fields like group theory, graph theory, linear algebra, and the like, we tend to make the first venture for students, at least with respect to high-level mathematics, calculus. While some topics are eventually covered ( in fact, linear algebra comes up pretty soon after calculus ), others, including a great portion of discrete mathematics, are unfortunately not. What such a focus could indicate, at least for new people to the field, is that the field's gist only involves ___ skill or ____ event. In my honest opinion, mathematics, while an amazing field, should teach more proof-based mathematics earlier instead of simply pushing on calculus. While I do understand the notion that calculus's status as the language of many, many branches of science might lend it better to helping students out on their jobs, as many engineering and science majors require it for people to understand what's happening, I wonder if a shift on that focus would be harmful. While changing the current bar of calculus to some other field, say Euclidean Geometry or Group Theory, might not initially help people get into both pure mathematics or STEM fields, I assert that, eventually, greater mathematical literacy will make students realise the scope of mathematics, as now they can see the underlying proof-based curriculum and its benefits and drawbacks, and help them with more abstract visualization, for it could let them stretch their minds more and get used to some of the unsettling aspects of models in general. Additionally, if we were to shift the curriculum to be a bit broader in scope in the preliminary years, students could gain a further appreciation for the STEM fields and, hopefully, begin to see some of the deeper relations that people cannot necessarily see without some breath as well as depth in the matter. In the same way that philosophy is thought with multiple schools of thought, math's various methods, ideas, and sub-fields should be shown to have these amazing connections, for they help students get a sense as to why math is not only interesting, not only beautiful but potentially something that everyone can get into with enough patience and enough dedication. It pains me at times when, even if they definitely can think abstractly, people simply choose not to or, when they decide to, haven't had the experience to utilize multiple theories to help come to some conclusion, no matter how crazy. Personally, it seems that these sorts of required skills and depth in some part of mathematics precludes the necessity for others, and also limits students appreciation as they, for the lack of a better term, do not have the insight or the will to attack something long enough to go for understanding rather than memorization.
Comments
Post a Comment