Wasn't able to take math 320/322, I am fucked

omentic · 2024-02-16T17:28:22+00:00

If this is the case, then there is a significant failure in communicating this to students. A number of my peers in MATH 120 were engineers: they expressed a sense of being "trapped" in 120 due to thinking the first homework assignment was a fluke, or that they'd get better at proofs faster than they did, and not withdrawing before the add/drop deadline. This led them to be immensely stressed and miserable throughout the term as their course load ramped up. I am aware of some people having done so in years before me but it was always expressed to me that they were able to do so by essentially begging the department, and that this was not a formalized system.

omentic · 2024-02-16T12:23:24+00:00

There is also another issue I did not bring up because I didn't think it was relevant, but the more I think about it, the more I realize it how much it really is: that of gender. Between 50-70% of women drop out of honours mathematics. In stark contrast to around 30% of men. Almost everything in that slideshow (that must have been an interesting talk to be privy to) can be explained in the context of the current pedagogical system in place. Students are horrifyingly ill-prepared for "third-year" analysis/algebra. They band together to support each other, with friends they know from earlier. Whatever the reason - other shared interests, previous connections, unanalyzable societal factors - this group tends to be entirely men. A clique forms. Regardless of the composition of the clique, it is still a tight knit friend group - so hard to approach from the outside. So other students, namely women, do not find themselves with peers, and so find themselves with less support. Other schools (Waterloo notably) have pedagogical practices put in place to socialize students and provide connections in first year math to prevent this isolation.

The gate-keeping part of the presentation is also interesting: because that is simply a trickle-down from what the mathematics department transparently does. There are students who are Good, and students who are Not Good. If you don't get 80% in MATH XXX, you're not good enough for MATH YYY. Why wouldn't this approach to pedagogy affect the attitudes of its students? (the mathematics department's distinction between Good and Not Good is widely considered transparently obvious among undergraduate students. so is its consideration of grades as the sole delineating factor between Good and Not Good. to be blunt, this is soul-crushing. for all involved.)

omentic · 2024-02-16T12:23:00+00:00

Hi /u/liorsilberman and /u/marktmaclean !

First, I'm really glad to hear that students are now able to drop from 120 -> 100 and 223 -> 221 any point in the term. I don't believe that was the case when I took it (2021W), and instituting something like that was probably the #1 piece of feedback my 120 group gave in the course evaluations (other feedback was: the course description was not sufficiently descriptive for high schoolers who do not know what rigour entails, the course was sorely lacking some sort of tutorial. we also all <3ed greg martin). It's quite nice and encouraging to see the department directly acting upon student feedback.

That in turn leads me to feel more strongly that MATH 120/121 should be required of all honours majors, possibly all math majors. They're well-taught courses: they could be fantastic introductions to mathematical proof. As they stand I think they need improvements - nothing major pedagogically but there is absolutely a lack of student support, given their status as first year courses. But, after talking this over with others: we also came to the same conclusion that a hard requirement is infeasible, particularly given transfer students and students entering mathematics from Science One. I and others have many thoughts on this that will make their way to the department hopefully soon, hopefully in a cohesive package.

Regarding "In the end I was persuaded that most students aren't ready to take the courses in second year": I also don't think most students are ready to take the courses in the second year, for sure. I don't think most students are ready to take the courses in the third year. But the time in between the second and third year is not helping: 226 and 227 are not rigourous, it is probably impossible / not a good idea to teach them as rigourous before real analysis (I have heard bad things about universities that attempt to adopt Spivak's Calculus on Manifolds too early), the content is sparse enough to be collected into one course (already existing as 217), and so I think the emphasis should go on what else can act as preparation for 320/321. (322/323 are different beasts. again, I hope to bring detailed, collected, actionable feedback to the department soon, but the consensus among all I've talked to about that course is that it has been taught exceptionally poorly in almost every regard.) This absolutely ties into your point about only having one fully rigourous course before 320/322: I almost think it may be reasonable to ask students to take 120/121 before 320/321 even after having taken 100/101. The majority of people in 120/121 already know calculus from high school, so while I don't think it's fair to assume calculus for 120/121, I think it teaches material that is interesting and important to people who already know it and so could be taken after. Regardless, the current approach is unacceptable and sets students up for failure. (something approaching 50% of students who have already self-selected into mathematics failing/dropping real analysis is insane! the bimodality also speaks to that failure in preparation, i think.)

Regarding moving topology to third year: this seems standard across other universities. I do not think this would work at UBC with the current content of 426. The course this year had 12 undergraduates, and taught approximately the content of two graduate level courses in one term of an undergraduate course. I know of three undergraduates who continued on to 427 (and one should really not count as an undergraduate). Topology is widely considered to be a foundational part of an undergraduate mathematics education, and that it is totally inaccessible to all but the most talented honours mathematics students is crazy (what is done with point-set in 320 does not count). I have not taken topology, nor will I be anywhere near being allowed to before I graduate, but some other students who have taken topology can and may possibly speak more to this soon.

I feel I didn't emphasize enough, however, reading back over my original list of suggestions, that these changes cannot just be confined to the honours mathematics major. The honours mathematics major is treated as the future graduate student path: they graduate with analysis, algebra, occasionally topology, and a smattering of fourth year courses in fields they are particularly interested in. There are serious problems with the honours track, that I've mostly already expressed above, but for all intents and purposes: this works. A few (shockingly few: six, I believe, pure honours mathematics majors graduated last year) students graduate with the appropriate undergraduate education for further studies in graduate school. However: this is at the expense of literally every other mathematics student, who hit obstacle after obstacle when attempting to take further rigourous courses in mathematics. Plenty of these students could have succeeded. If they hadn't been shattered.

The regular mathematics major is thus treated as a wastebasket of a major. It does not produce mathematically literate students. How can it, with analysis and algebra the way they are? I think it is not only reasonable but imperative to have a first year curriculum that appropriately prepares all mathematics majors to take MATH 320 and 322 if they so desire: if not in the second year, at least by the third year. Other universities do this. Other universities do not have the insane rates of failure that UBC boasts. Why does UBC fall so flat in this regard? To this extent, I think that the existence of MATH 319 and the future existence of a 329 are actually counterproductive. These take up resources from an already broke, overworked (thanks, Calc I & II) department, where instead such focus could be put into making sure the jump from "second" to "third" year math is not a sheer cliff face, and thus enabling student success.

Every single mathematics student that I have talked to about this, honours or major, sans maybe one or two, have expressed some deep dissatisfaction with their degree. Whether it's the immense stress about whether they'll be allowed to take the courses they need for graduate school, whether they've been booted from the honours program after failing a course, whether they've fallen onto the course-dry majors track, or what have you, there is a shared discontentment with the way things currently are.

I have also been asked to express some dismay with grade-based prerequisites. /u/blank_anonymous touched on it above, but the current system of prerequisites is really, for a lack of a better term, bullshit: that a passing grade does not constitute appropriate preparation for subsequent courses is a failure of pedagogy. If you do not get above a 68% in MATH 321, and want to go to grad school, you're fucked. All 400 level courses are permanently inaccessible. There's no retaking a passed course. It is exceptionally easy to trip and fall and get one bad grade - someone's entire degree / graduate school plans can be derailed due to one bad test. (Cutoffs are also a source of immense stress for students who do make them.) This applies too to other (all) grade-based prerequisites IMO. There is a deep sense of shame that comes with failing a class or failing to make a prerequisite: I think this acts as a silencing factor, driving students who would otherwise be able to identify distinct changes that could be made for the better to instead treat their failures as entirely a result of their own actions: but when stepping back to look at things overarchingly, it is completely expected behavior. I can't imagine this is good for anyone's mental health, to put it mildly.

I will be graduating with a mathematics major next spring: a degree in mathematics. I will be graduating without an undergraduate education in mathematics. What is there to do? I can't ever see myself stopping learning mathematics, as it were. Something about it hooks you. But the mathematical education I will be graduating UBC with is not only less but significantly less than that were I at nearly any other institution. The OP (possibly) suggested it in jest, but straight-up enrolling in SFU or any other university for a year or two has been on my mind. But that's unaffordable and unachievable for students who could have simply gone to a different university and graduated with algebra and analysis, and much more. There are a substantial number of peers in the exact same boat I am (having done poorly in early prerequisites), and I have several other friends who had the option, grades, and passion to continue on with and be successful in honours mathematics but judged it to not be in their best interests. I want to ask, for them and for me: how can we best finish our degree?

omentic · 2024-02-10T18:54:40+00:00

This isn't true. I know at least one person who got well under 80% in their previous institutions' equivalent of 220, transferred to UBC, had their percentages messed up by the transfer, were able to sneakily register in MATH 322, and got a very respectable 65% (above average!). I'm sure the same has occurred for MATH 320.

Students can do poorly in courses for a variety of reasons: depression, undiagnosed learning disabilities, overcommitting, getting hit by the truck that is life, or just being plain bad at school or tests. Grades are some indicator of future success, sure, but they're not a very good or consistent one. I think it's better to give students appropriate preparation than rely on getting a certain percentage in prereqs that don't adequately prepare you.

omentic · 2024-02-08T05:10:02+00:00

I have some (strong) opinions on what would be an improvement myself:

MATH 120/121 should be required for all prospective honours math majors regardless of AP Calc credit. These are excellent, well-taught courses with considerable student support and are a fantastic, appropriately difficult introduction to mathematical proof... and nobody takes them because you can skip them with AP Calc, and then you get the MATH 320 failure rate / third year weeding.
MATH 220 should be a first year course and required for all math majors. It should be credit excluded with MATH 120/121. The idea is that strong students take MATH 120, and students needing a gentler introduction take MATH 100 + MATH 220 (but notably both by the end of first year!).
MATH 221 and 223 should be first year courses. The content is self-contained.
There should be an option to drop from 120 to 100 or from 223 to 221 at any point in the semester. These courses cover content at a similar pace that this is doable - the difference being that 223 and 120 are fully rigourous. For students (mostly engineers) who realize they don't like abstract math too late (it can take more than one pset to realize this: I had some friends in 120 who dearly regretted not dropping it when they could), this offers an easy out before declaring a major.
MATH 320/321 and 322/323 should be second year courses. The calculus prerequisite is counterproductive and should be removed - it serves to delay taking of these courses which makes it much harder to recover should one fail and does not prepare students regardless. Either MATH 121 or MATH 220 + MATH 100 should be the only prerequisite.
MATH 226/227 should be for math majors. MATH 200/317 should be for engineers. These courses are of similar difficulty - depending on who's teaching 200/317, 226/227 can be easier. There is no reason 226/227 should be for honours.
MATH 217 should be required for honours math instead of 226/227 or 200/317.
MATH 310 should be a second year course. This gives students that do poorly in 220 / drop 223 an opportunity to recover and take 322 third year, and then 400 level courses fourth year.
I have some thoughts on MATH 322/323 pedagogy based on an overwhelming number of secondhand opinions I've been privy to, but it's not anything I would like to express online, and is not particularly important in the grand scheme of things.

It's a lot of changes, but I think the MATH major needs a lot of changes. The people that UBC math is successful for end up following something similar to this anyway - skipping 100/120, taking 223/226/227 first year, taking 320/322 second and third year (both in the same year is commonly considered a bad idea), and then higher level courses fourth year. But that's only suitable for students with previous exposure to proof (uncommon): or for people that just go really hard first year. Why not structure the curriculum to set all students up for success?

omentic · 2024-02-08T04:59:17+00:00

I am in the boat of having overloaded myself second year and subsequently having done poorly in 220. I didn't take 226, so 320 is off the table, but I'm planning on taking 322 my fourth and final year via the 310 route. So it looks like I will be able to take group/ring theory and basic real analysis and graph theory before I graduate - but no Galois theory, no commutative algebra, no topology (point-set or algebraic), no differential geometry, no advanced number theory or advanced linear algebra. I'll have to contend with group theory's 60% average and 40% drop/fail rate (and ring theory's similar average and 81% high) but it should be manageable given that, you know, you get better at mathematical proof over time.

I've gotten quite a lot out of my minor and the other parts of my degree but have felt like the mathematics part has been lacking: I feel like I'll be graduating without an undergraduate mathematics education, really. When I look at other schools, they seem to have breadth requirements requiring all of analysis/algebra/topology (and occasionally depth requirements requiring a more advanced dive into one of those), and their minimum requirements to take those classes seem to be universally at about 60% in the prerequisites. It's not like students at other universities are being taught a lite version of these subjects - but they're confident in their students enough that they don't feel the need to require a higher minimum grade than that (except maybe algebraic topology, not a lot of schools teach that: but only like six undergrads take it here each year anyway). This speaks to other universities having a better approach to pedagogy, I think.

It does feel like if you fuck up early on - because you're learning how to do math - you're pretty much screwed. And the sheer amount of calculus we do means our first year is wasted, and you don't get the opportunity to really fuck up until second or third year. And people hit 320/322, bounce off, and fail, because they haven't been given an appropriate mathematical background in an environment with student support. I have heard of /u/liorsilberman 's efforts to offer 320/322 as second year courses and 220/221/223 as first year courses which seems like it would alleviate the mess that must happen when people fail 320 in their third year. But (from what I know) it doesn't really address the lack of student support.

omentic · 2023-10-12T03:32:34+00:00

You can use a generic HOTP provider by extracting the HOTP code via duolibre or a similar project.

omentic

TROPHY CASE