First, there's little data comparing how well people learn from online courses versus in-person courses. There's a lot of unjustified hype surrounding online education.
In my opinion, online education works well for adults that are motivated learners able to connect course content to relevant aspects of their lives. But online education is often a huge waste of time for your traditional college students. Younger students see them as a game where you do the least possible to get an A. Adults that have to pay out of pocket for education seldom seem to have this outlook.
To the prof at BYU that thinks brick and mortar schools will soon be outdated, I say "sir, you must be one shitty teacher." If all you do is lecture then your students are better off sleeping in and downloading your dull podcast later. If you create an environment in your class where students can actively explore the course material, instead of just listening passively to it, you would see that in-person education blows online ed out of the water.
In a way, India and China were ahead of the US by not relying on cars for everyone to make their economies work. The US is not the ultimate role model to follow. Just because Americans all drive cars doesn't mean it constitutes some new minimum standard of living. America screwed itself over by becoming so oil-dependent. Why would China and India want that just as they are rising economically?
CS is the new English: you need to know a little to do pretty much anything useful these days. I definitely think we should move past just teaching keyboarding and familiarity with Microsoft Office. We should have introductory hardware and software courses that include logic and basic algorithms.
Can you imagine how much more people could innovate in fields like medicine, biology, and social science if those people all knew how to program? This is a great first step to bringing the US back to its former status as an innovator.
I think theaveng has a point that women do prefer human problems. But what many CS people don't realize is that all the problems of software and computers are at some level human-problems. The research of successful female computer scientists often looks very different from the work of their male colleagues, because women look at problems differently and often solve them differently. They bring a human-centered approach to computer science and that field NEEDS that perspective.
If the computer science field is ever successful at changing the CULTURE surrounding that field enough to encourage parity between men and women, I think we'll see a dramatic shift in the accomplishments of CS. But first we need to let women AND MEN know that you don't have to be a social worker to help people. You can do some good for the world in computer science, too.
Re:More than scientific learning
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
Hey! If you master the basics you'll be fine. I got my undergrad in math & physics and my grad in astronomy so I can attest to this.
Pick up a good calc-based freshman physics book and go through it. Halliday & Resnick or Knight will cover everything you need to know from the physics world - mechanics, waves, optics, electromagnetism, and introductions to atomic, nuclear and quantum physics. Round it off by reading a freshman-level astronomy book like The Cosmic Perspective. And like others suggested, do some of the problems, don't just read and pretend you're really absorbing it. Physics problem solving can be quite a bit different from math problem solving at first.
It sounds like a lot of people are trying to recommend the junior and senior level textbooks but if you've thoroughly mastered the first year stuff that will make more of a difference than having skimmed Jackon's E&M or Carroll & Ostlie.
Apart from that, when you get to grad school go to a lot of colloquia to pick up the jargon. Good luck!
Slashdot Mirror
First, there's little data comparing how well people learn from online courses versus in-person courses. There's a lot of unjustified hype surrounding online education.
In my opinion, online education works well for adults that are motivated learners able to connect course content to relevant aspects of their lives. But online education is often a huge waste of time for your traditional college students. Younger students see them as a game where you do the least possible to get an A. Adults that have to pay out of pocket for education seldom seem to have this outlook.
To the prof at BYU that thinks brick and mortar schools will soon be outdated, I say "sir, you must be one shitty teacher." If all you do is lecture then your students are better off sleeping in and downloading your dull podcast later. If you create an environment in your class where students can actively explore the course material, instead of just listening passively to it, you would see that in-person education blows online ed out of the water.
In a way, India and China were ahead of the US by not relying on cars for everyone to make their economies work. The US is not the ultimate role model to follow. Just because Americans all drive cars doesn't mean it constitutes some new minimum standard of living. America screwed itself over by becoming so oil-dependent. Why would China and India want that just as they are rising economically?
CS is the new English: you need to know a little to do pretty much anything useful these days. I definitely think we should move past just teaching keyboarding and familiarity with Microsoft Office. We should have introductory hardware and software courses that include logic and basic algorithms.
Can you imagine how much more people could innovate in fields like medicine, biology, and social science if those people all knew how to program? This is a great first step to bringing the US back to its former status as an innovator.
I think theaveng has a point that women do prefer human problems. But what many CS people don't realize is that all the problems of software and computers are at some level human-problems. The research of successful female computer scientists often looks very different from the work of their male colleagues, because women look at problems differently and often solve them differently. They bring a human-centered approach to computer science and that field NEEDS that perspective. If the computer science field is ever successful at changing the CULTURE surrounding that field enough to encourage parity between men and women, I think we'll see a dramatic shift in the accomplishments of CS. But first we need to let women AND MEN know that you don't have to be a social worker to help people. You can do some good for the world in computer science, too.
Don't worry, they're already hard at work fretting about the end of the world: Dec 21, 2012. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-03-27-maya-2012_n.htm
Hey! If you master the basics you'll be fine. I got my undergrad in math & physics and my grad in astronomy so I can attest to this. Pick up a good calc-based freshman physics book and go through it. Halliday & Resnick or Knight will cover everything you need to know from the physics world - mechanics, waves, optics, electromagnetism, and introductions to atomic, nuclear and quantum physics. Round it off by reading a freshman-level astronomy book like The Cosmic Perspective. And like others suggested, do some of the problems, don't just read and pretend you're really absorbing it. Physics problem solving can be quite a bit different from math problem solving at first. It sounds like a lot of people are trying to recommend the junior and senior level textbooks but if you've thoroughly mastered the first year stuff that will make more of a difference than having skimmed Jackon's E&M or Carroll & Ostlie. Apart from that, when you get to grad school go to a lot of colloquia to pick up the jargon. Good luck!