High School

[Reganis]

High schools OK for me now. Don't know about next year though, because my best friend might be dropping out. I hated year 8 (freshman year) though.

[Jyosua]

I regret performing as poorly as I did throughout high school.

I as well. I slacked off a LOT, so much so as to fail my freshman year's English class, solely because I refused to read the books assigned. When I went to summer school, I had nothing to do but do the work, so I ended up getting the material finished in class much, much earlier than everyone else, got an A, and then played Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow the rest of the time. That's how much I had been slacking off during the school year (And yes this was the same teacher).

I got better as time moved on, and by Senior year, I began to actually care, so I had a high Senior Year GPA, but because of the earlier years, my cumulative GPA was only 2.9. If it had been 3.0, I would have gotten a 75% scholarship for college automatically. :/ It's okay though, because I had Florida Prepaid, and Pell Grants ended up paying for my books (and kickass computer).

My Junior year, towards the end, I didn't even show up. Mostly because I was spending my Senior year as a college student. This, along with simple work, didn't really give me much incentive to even show. I think I missed well over forty tallied days or so without a dent to my grades.

My grades were always brought down by stupid homework, which I didn't need to learn the material, so I felt I shouldn't have to do it. While that IS the viewpoint in college, apparently High School hasn't caught on to that yet.

[quanta]

While that IS the viewpoint in college, apparently High School hasn't caught on to that yet.

That depends on what subject you're doing. For pretty much every math and science class I've taken, homework has been a significant part of the grade. It is simply because there is no way you'll learn the material properly without doing problems, and tests aren't long enough to really check your understanding. Well, homework or full-blown projects i.e. modeling an ecological situation of your choice or designing and constructing a wind tunnel (jesus, we were not given enough time or training to do that).

For people who want to be science or math majors, yes, I realize the homework in high school is pointless, but if you want to be proficient at what you do in college, you have to do the majority of your homework.

Although it doesn't seem fair, becoming successful is about who you know more than anything else

Once again, depends. I guarantee you that's not true of many disciplines.

[Jyosua]

While that IS the viewpoint in college, apparently High School hasn't caught on to that yet.

That depends on what subject you're doing. For pretty much every math and science class I've taken, homework has been a significant part of the grade. It is simply because there is no way you'll learn the material properly without doing problems, and tests aren't long enough to really check your understanding. Well, homework or full-blown projects i.e. modeling an ecological situation of your choice or designing and constructing a wind tunnel (jesus, we were not given enough time or training to do that).

For people who want to be science or math majors, yes, I realize the homework in high school is pointless, but if you want to be proficient at what you do in college, you have to do the majority of your homework.

Sorry but you're wrong. Homework hasn't been graded by any of my math or science classes, save trig, and I've managed to learn the material, get an A, and not do the homework, for all of them, save Physics II, in which I got a B. Keep in mind, my Major is Electrical Engineering, so I've taken Calc I-III and DE. It really depends on the person. I learn perfectly well by watching a teacher's examples, because in my mind, I go over various situations which might cause problems, ask a question about them, and then take note in my mind of the answer. The only thing that might be considered as far as me doing work outside class goes, is that I end up tutoring or helping other people who don't understand it, which does serve to reinforce my own understanding to some extent.

Part of why I don't need to do homework serves from the fact that when I simply sit and observe in a lecture, not taking notes (I never take notes), I absorb about 95% of what's being taught. That's what I excel at: grasping new concepts is a favorite thing of mine to do, and then to see how well I do on a test of the material is exciting for me. I've gotten exactly one C on a test in college so far, and that was because I skipped class too much. Serves me right, there.

[Phoenix Wright]

While that IS the viewpoint in college, apparently High School hasn't caught on to that yet.

That depends on what subject you're doing. For pretty much every math and science class I've taken, homework has been a significant part of the grade. It is simply because there is no way you'll learn the material properly without doing problems, and tests aren't long enough to really check your understanding. Well, homework or full-blown projects i.e. modeling an ecological situation of your choice or designing and constructing a wind tunnel (jesus, we were not given enough time or training to do that).

For people who want to be science or math majors, yes, I realize the homework in high school is pointless, but if you want to be proficient at what you do in college, you have to do the majority of your homework.

Sorry but you're wrong. Homework hasn't been graded by any of my math or science classes, save trig, and I've managed to learn the material, get an A, and not do the homework, for all of them, save Physics II, in which I got a B. Keep in mind, my Major is Electrical Engineering, so I've taken Calc I-III and DE. It really depends on the person. I learn perfectly well by watching a teacher's examples, because in my mind, I go over various situations which might cause problems, ask a question about them, and then take note in my mind of the answer. The only thing that might be considered as far as me doing work outside class goes, is that I end up tutoring or helping other people who don't understand it, which does serve to reinforce my own understanding to some extent.

Part of why I don't need to do homework serves from the fact that when I simply sit and observe in a lecture, not taking notes (I never take notes), I absorb about 95% of what's being taught. That's what I excel at: grasping new concepts is a favorite thing of mine to do, and then to see how well I do on a test of the material is exciting for me. I've gotten exactly one C on a test in college so far, and that was because I skipped class too much. Serves me right, there.

I'm the same way, in the aspect that I sit, watch, and learn. If I wasn't required to do so much homework, I'd have an A in my classes (save Ceramics and math).

[quanta]

Sorry but you're wrong. Homework hasn't been graded by any of my math or science classes, save trig, and I've managed to learn the material, get an A, and not do the homework, for all of them, save Physics II, in which I got a B. Keep in mind, my Major is Electrical Engineering, so I've taken Calc I-III and DE. It really depends on the person. I learn perfectly well by watching a teacher's examples, because in my mind, I go over various situations which might cause problems, ask a question about them, and then take note in my mind of the answer. The only thing that might be considered as far as me doing work outside class goes, is that I end up tutoring or helping other people who don't understand it, which does serve to reinforce my own understanding to some extent.

Sorry, sometimes I forget about the introductory stuff in lower division. I consider the classes you mentioned introductory material for physics and math to the point where I almost forget they exist as college courses. Those classes are only one notch above high school level. I skipped them almost all completely (I took a single quarter of a shitty linear ODE's course, then said "fuck it" and skipped the rest of the series). If you're not doing proofs, you're not really taking a math class (and no, what is done in calculus courses does not count as proofs). Not to mention, getting an A in and of itself isn't really an indicator you know the subject well (and this is coming from someone who has straight A's in college and sometimes takes two full loads in one quarter).

Ever taken a class in real analysis? Complex Analysis? Something that covered Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics? What about experimental or design work (like aforementioned project to design and build a mini-wind tunnel; from scratch, autoCAD for the design and actually cutting the metal for it)? I assume you've done this last one at least since you're an electrical engineer (not necessarily with the exact same tools and stuff or the same thing).

Edited September 3, 2009 by quanta

[Yarias]

In general, well-designed homework should be doable quickly if you have a mastery of the material and take significantly longer when you haven't yet mastered the material. Most of my assignments in highschool emphasized repetition too much. I've always preferred assignments with a few longer, carefully crafted questions (which is more along the lines of what I've seen from non-intro courses in college).

[Jyosua]

Sorry but you're wrong. Homework hasn't been graded by any of my math or science classes, save trig, and I've managed to learn the material, get an A, and not do the homework, for all of them, save Physics II, in which I got a B. Keep in mind, my Major is Electrical Engineering, so I've taken Calc I-III and DE. It really depends on the person. I learn perfectly well by watching a teacher's examples, because in my mind, I go over various situations which might cause problems, ask a question about them, and then take note in my mind of the answer. The only thing that might be considered as far as me doing work outside class goes, is that I end up tutoring or helping other people who don't understand it, which does serve to reinforce my own understanding to some extent.

Sorry, sometimes I forget about the introductory stuff in lower division. I consider the classes you mentioned introductory material for physics and math to the point where I almost forget they exist as college courses. Those classes are only one notch above high school level. I skipped them almost all completely (I took a single quarter of a shitty linear ODE's course, then said "fuck it" and skipped the rest of the series). If you're not doing proofs, you're not really taking a math class (and no, what is done in calculus courses does not count as proofs). Not to mention, getting an A in and of itself isn't really an indicator you know the subject well (and this is coming from someone who has straight A's in college and sometimes takes two full loads in one quarter).

Ever taken a class in real analysis? Complex Analysis? Something that covered Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics? What about experimental or design work (like aforementioned project to design and build a mini-wind tunnel; from scratch, autoCAD for the design and actually cutting the metal for it)? I assume you've done this last one at least since you're an electrical engineer (not necessarily with the exact same tools and stuff or the same thing).

The Engineering Analysis class I'm in right now has us doing proofs, though the class seems to be an odd mixture between linear algebra and electrical circuits. I'm in upper level classes right now, and I'm still not having a problem, so.

Also, I fail to see Differential Equations as being simply a step above high school. Those problems were advanced, and take at least a page or more to get done.

[quanta]

Also, I fail to see Differential Equations as being simply a step above high school. Those problems were advanced, and take at least a page or more to get done.

Linear or nonlinear differential equations? I definitely agree that linear is easy to learn (and I also still hold it's just one notch above high school), but nonlinear equations (that can't be transformed into linear ones) tend to be tougher and more interesting (unless they're separable, which is basically high school level). I mean, this system (the Lotka-Volterra predator-prey equations)

x'=rx-axy

y'=eaxy-dy

Where a,d,e, and r are constants, with x and y being the variables, is literally unsolvable analytically (in terms of elementary functions).

The thing about early differential equations classes that distinguishes them from a proper math class with proofs is you are generally given the tools necessary but don't know as much about why they work. It's often largely a matter of just applying them by rote with maybe the occasional bit of ingenuity. Although there is good reason schools don't require everyone to know formal analysis; it's very time consuming to build up all the properties of metric spaces and the definition of a Riemann integrable function (and then later the Lebesgue which requires that the theory of measurable sets be constructed).

[Jyosua]

Also, I fail to see Differential Equations as being simply a step above high school. Those problems were advanced, and take at least a page or more to get done.

Linear or nonlinear differential equations? I definitely agree that linear is easy to learn (and I also still hold it's just one notch above high school), but nonlinear equations (that can't be transformed into linear ones) tend to be tougher and more interesting (unless they're separable, which is basically high school level). I mean, this system (the Lotka-Volterra predator-prey equations)

x'=rx-axy

y'=eaxy-dy

Where a,d,e, and r are constants, with x and y being the variables, is literally unsolvable analytically (in terms of elementary functions).

The thing about early differential equations classes that distinguishes them from a proper math class with proofs is you are generally given the tools necessary but don't know as much about why they work. It's often largely a matter of just applying them by rote with maybe the occasional bit of ingenuity. Although there is good reason schools don't require everyone to know formal analysis; it's very time consuming to build up all the properties of metric spaces and the definition of a Riemann integrable function (and then later the Lebesgue which requires that the theory of measurable sets be constructed).

It was an introduction to DE, but it went over both linear and nonlinear, including situations where they could not be transformed into linear ones. Not only this, each of our tests were comprehensive, and required us to recognize just by looking at the equations, which types they were, and which methods would work in solving them. If you screwed up, and picked the wrong method, you'd likely run out of time. And the main reason I disagree, is because in my DE class, and even in my Calc II and III classes sometimes, the teachers did not just simply give you a method for solving the shit. They went through the entire process of deriving or doing a proof. The only time they failed to do this was when we were short on time, which wasn't often. And I'm glad they went through that process, because that helps me understand exactly why it is these methods or formulas work, and helps my understanding on how to use them.

[quanta]

It was an introduction to DE, but it went over both linear and nonlinear, including situations where they could not be transformed into linear ones. Not only this, each of our tests were comprehensive, and required us to recognize just by looking at the equations, which types they were, and which methods would work in solving them. If you screwed up, and picked the wrong method, you'd likely run out of time. And the main reason I disagree, is because in my DE class, and even in my Calc II and III classes sometimes, the teachers did not just simply give you a method for solving the shit. They went through the entire process of deriving or doing a proof. The only time they failed to do this was when we were short on time, which wasn't often. And I'm glad they went through that process, because that helps me understand exactly why it is these methods or formulas work, and helps my understanding on how to use them.

Yes, but did you have to do proofs on most of your assignments? That's the key part of any math class. Seeing someone else do the proof... is different and much easier (you still see this in higher math, but the ratio of professor's proofs to your proofs begins to even out more since well... you're doing more than just the really easy A+B implies C stuff). Having to come up with your own proof can be much harder (can be, some exercises still remain easy). Furthermore, if you don't know anything about metric spaces or topology, you can't really prove anything about DE's. All the hard stuff comes in building up the metric space and topology along with the limits, derivatives, and integrals. Then proving theorems about when you can exchange limits and integrals. Sequences and series of functions, Dominated Convergence theorem, etc. What you see about smooth equations with analytical solutions in an introductory DE course is the tip of the iceberg. It really is just one step above high school. Although to be fair, I'm making that judgment based upon what I did in high school myself out of a normal calculus/intro to differential equations book since I didn't take any calculus classes.

Let me put it this way- the standard textbooks used for analysis (which are written by Walter Rudin) used in many universities lack solution manuals (there is a little bit of stuff online by students, but not for the whole book and some of the online stuff is wrong) and are difficult enough that professors of mathematics would ask him at conferences how to solve some of the problems. The standard textbook for a calculus or intro to differential equations course has half the solutions in the back of the book (granted some are often still wrong, but that's usually due to carelessness).

EDIT:

Y'know what... I feel like I've been letting my ego get in the way a bit here and have been emphasizing the wrong point. The more important point is not so much that absolutely no one will be able to do some of these things almost effortlessly upon seeing the framework (although I highly doubt that would happen), but that if whatever you're currently doing is that easy (or passive), then you should focus on something more interesting or difficult. I can't think of any great scientists (or athletes, or artists, or craftsmen, etc.) who were known to be slackers. If all your classes feel too easy and you're just cruising through that part of your life, then you're missing out on something. Attempting something that taxes your capabilities (which often requires grunt work or practice of one form or another) is more satisfying and productive than cruising through stuff that's well within what you're capable of doing.

When I see or hear about people who are really great at what they do and know it well (or on the path to this), it's because they are willing to work hard, slog through tedious stuff, and risk failure.

My biggest regret about high school? I didn't push myself hard enough to do more things academically independently; I was often content with just satisfying the maximum offered because it was very hard to convince those in authority to let me risk doing something harder for me and them. I stupidly waited until college to really push myself to do better what I considered myself most capable of.

And this doesn't just go for academics, I mean pretty much every type of work in life worth doing. And a lot of things that aren't necessarily work for everyone.

Edited September 4, 2009 by quanta

[Jyosua]

It was an introduction to DE, but it went over both linear and nonlinear, including situations where they could not be transformed into linear ones. Not only this, each of our tests were comprehensive, and required us to recognize just by looking at the equations, which types they were, and which methods would work in solving them. If you screwed up, and picked the wrong method, you'd likely run out of time. And the main reason I disagree, is because in my DE class, and even in my Calc II and III classes sometimes, the teachers did not just simply give you a method for solving the shit. They went through the entire process of deriving or doing a proof. The only time they failed to do this was when we were short on time, which wasn't often. And I'm glad they went through that process, because that helps me understand exactly why it is these methods or formulas work, and helps my understanding on how to use them.

Yes, but did you have to do proofs on most of your assignments? That's the key part of any math class. Seeing someone else do the proof... is different and much easier (you still see this in higher math, but the ratio of professor's proofs to your proofs begins to even out more since well... you're doing more than just the really easy A+B implies C stuff). Having to come up with your own proof can be much harder (can be, some exercises still remain easy). Furthermore, if you don't know anything about metric spaces or topology, you can't really prove anything about DE's. All the hard stuff comes in building up the metric space and topology along with the limits, derivatives, and integrals. Then proving theorems about when you can exchange limits and integrals. Sequences and series of functions, Dominated Convergence theorem, etc. What you see about smooth equations with analytical solutions in an introductory DE course is the tip of the iceberg. It really is just one step above high school. Although to be fair, I'm making that judgment based upon what I did in high school myself out of a normal calculus/intro to differential equations book since I didn't take any calculus classes.

Let me put it this way- the standard textbooks used for analysis (which are written by Walter Rudin) used in many universities lack solution manuals (there is a little bit of stuff online by students, but not for the whole book and some of the online stuff is wrong) and are difficult enough that professors of mathematics would ask him at conferences how to solve some of the problems. The standard textbook for a calculus or intro to differential equations course has half the solutions in the back of the book (granted some are often still wrong, but that's usually due to carelessness).

EDIT:

Y'know what... I feel like I've been letting my ego get in the way a bit here and have been emphasizing the wrong point. The more important point is not so much that absolutely no one will be able to do some of these things almost effortlessly upon seeing the framework (although I highly doubt that would happen), but that if whatever you're currently doing is that easy (or passive), then you should focus on something more interesting or difficult. I can't think of any great scientists (or athletes, or artists, or craftsmen, etc.) who were known to be slackers. If all your classes feel too easy and you're just cruising through that part of your life, then you're missing out on something. Attempting something that taxes your capabilities (which often requires grunt work or practice of one form or another) is more satisfying and productive than cruising through stuff that's well within what you're capable of doing.

When I see or hear about people who are really great at what they do and know it well (or on the path to this), it's because they are willing to work hard, slog through tedious stuff, and risk failure.

My biggest regret about high school? I didn't push myself hard enough to do more things academically independently; I was often content with just satisfying the maximum offered because it was very hard to convince those in authority to let me risk doing something harder for me and them. I stupidly waited until college to really push myself to do better what I considered myself most capable of.

And this doesn't just go for academics, I mean pretty much every type of work in life worth doing. And a lot of things that aren't necessarily work for everyone.

I attempt things that tax my capabilities, but because I haven't met course requirements to get into classes that may do that, I attempt things like that on my own, and I do a fair amount of independent learning in my free time, simply because I like to. I'm not really a slacker, but I see no reason to put effort into what I'm currently doing because it's not necessary in order for me to learn the material and get a good grade. When I get into tougher classes, I may need to put forth more effort, and when that time comes I will, however, so far I have not come across a single class where this was necessary. I should note however, that my goal is not to attain a 4.0, rather it's to learn the material. Therefore, if I can learn the material with minimal effort, but only get a B doing so, I'm fine with that as long as it's the only B I get that semester.

What I regret as far as high school goes, is that I could learn the material so easily, that it made me apathetic. I would simply sit through class, absorb anything I didn't already know, and then do nothing with it. Except for history. My American history teacher was so god-awful boring that I couldn't absorb everything said. Every other class I was fine in. I got A's and B's on tests, but did no homework, which in some classes was fine, but in others brought my grade down. I would always do Research Papers and projects though, when required. Just normal homework I shunned.

In senior year though, I took a new attitude. I made a consistent effort to learn everything I could, and prove my intelligence to others via my grades. Not only this, but I wanted to test my capacities and see how well I could do if I actually tried. Until then, not a lot of people actually realized how well I can learn things, but by the end of senior year, many people were coming to me for help with the classes that I shared with them. In retrospect that may have been egotistical a bit, however, I really enjoyed helping other people with the things I learned, so maybe it wasn't entirely egotistical afterall.