<p>
Maybe so, but my point was that if you’re one of those people who actually wants/tries to learn all the material, core is going to be a miserable experience. Also, I don’t think your interpretation of core is the intended one. Caltech likes to talk about the breadth of knowledge all its students get from core–I think they are crazy enough to think we’re actually learning all that they’re throwing at us. Besides, if you want to teach critical thinking and problem solving, there’s no reason to cram so much material into those five terms. I think we’d be better served having less material and more time to think about the problems if that were core’s intended purpose. </p>
<p>
No offense, but I think this attitude is what keeps Caltech from improving its teaching quality. As long as you can point your finger at the students and say “well, you should have gone to a TA or the person down the hall if your prof was bad,” then the profs never have to get any better. I’m not saying you shouldn’t learn from people other than profs. But I think this should be a supplement to what you learn in class, not a replacement. It’s perfectly valid for people to be irritated if the teaching quality is bad so that they have to seek out information they should have learned in class from another source. It’s not other students’ job to teach you what the prof should have, even if they’re willing to do it (which they usually are).</p>