@PurpleTitan, I am well aware in differing degrees of difficulty among majors. I base my opinion on the experiences of students from the schools I’ve worked at over the past 30 years & my own kids. I have access to every students academic record & have observed over the years that TYPICALLY, the level of rigor that they perceive in college is in direct correlation as to where their test scores (SAT / ACT) fell in comparison to the average for the college they attended. This leads me to believe that professors tend to teach to the norm of their particular class. Given that the most selective schools are going to have the highest scoring students, their classes IN GENERAL are going to be more rigorous.
@csdad …I guess, but it depends on the department. If a department is overenrolled and underfunded or is department mainly supported by those taking service courses then even selective schools can slip. It also depends on the environment. Some liberal arts colleges with a focus on teaching can have higher standards than research universities with much higher selectivity simply because they can. Think about it. I’ll use Emory’s Oxford College as an example. They have more novel and rigorous teaching in many STEM courses simply because the courses are smaller and thus more rigorous assignments are easier to grade and oversee. Like their lab components for things like general Chemistry and Biology are inquiry based involving rather serious research projects that result in poster symposiums. This is rare or non-existent for service courses at top research institutions. Some have inquiry based to a degree, but not to that degree. Enrollment can hinder or enhance rigor a lot.
There is also the potential of social environment. I remember being disappointed when I saw some of Vanderbilt’s chemistry course materials (and biology in retrospect. There was one really high level instructor on which my praise was based upon in the past, but the others were pretty much high level memorization but with emphasis on much more details. Their classes were certainly not training students to problem solve like one would expect. RMP comments confirmed because students would constantly discuss how the sections were about memorizing details of ppt slides) because the instructors had not changed yet the students’ scores are super high now. What was worse is that the students still perceived it as challenging or even difficult. This made no sense to me because the sections with such outcries at my alma mater were simply MUCH (like 2-3 sophomore organic chemistry sections compared quite favorably to their advanced ochem courses. They had no instructor that could claim the same thing) harder and the SAT range is significantly lower. In addition, this persisted across other disciplines where we were similar or at the same level. BTW, this isn’t to really bash Vandy. It’sjust the first school that I started comparing since it was so close in rank and used to be compared to Emory. One would find the same sorts of things with many of our math, cs, and physics (but mostly math) instructors. So their issues in the natural sciences are kind of ours in the physical and computational (I hope the quantitative science dept leads to these depts trying a little harder). They don’t really have much problems in those areas perhaps because these are the foundation for engineering which they have and we don’t. Often those depts at selectives are fairly on point, especially when they are feeding folks into the engineering entity. Natural sciences seem more hit or miss based on what I saw (at several schools).
So either there is a threshold of scores beyond where this does not matter, or it is very complex depending on many factors. Two student bodies with similar score ranges may have completely different responses to certain levels of course work. Like if I am at a school with a known “work very hard” atmosphere, those students will be less upset when an instructor takes them the extra mile (and may even appreciate it) but if I am at a “work hard play hard” school, I am more likely to say “I don’t have time for that” and in this space, instructors are likely well aware of that mentality and will adjust their courses accordingly. Like at a top private, those in this environment will give a course strong enough to ensure it is at a level higher than a non-selective state school, but maybe not one that would compare to those at more “work hard” peer institutions. So you’re kind of right, but it gets dicey when you talk about a certain caliber of schools beyond which selectivity differences are not the things responsible for the differences in rigor. In this case, other things will be more predictive such as social environment and departmental strength (like a department that wants more majors or doesn’t have the best reputation at a school doesn’t want to negatively impact its enrollment). Specifically, there are things like this: http://www.inside-higher-ed.com/how-competition-leads-to-content-deflation-in-one-anecdote/
This guy may seem like a whiner, but I can tell you from my observations, that the sort of thing being described is very real, even at the high caliber schools.
To gauge departmental strength, I personally advise folks to just go on there and see how many academically related special opportunities are prizes are offered through the department. This usually indicates how much resources are allocated. Also, if teaching and curriculum innovation is something that is somewhere discussed on the website, it means that the department thinks about it which is often a good sign IMHO. Otherwise, you just are crossing your fingers, whether the school is very selective or not.
The OP is bizarre because he went to a school that was BOTH rigorous AND highly ranked. Of course, in his world it probably wasn’t highly ranked. Read his other posts – this is a very strange bird here.
He wanted the prestige I guess. Many of the top ranked research institutions are technically more prestigious (lay prestige) and you can dodge the rigor if you want to. Dartmouth, for example has kind of gotten attention as there has been controversy over “raising” academic rigor there (the “Moving Dartmouth Forward” stuff. Apparently taking gut courses is a culture of its own to the point where they have renamed them “lay-ups” and even administrators and faculty are aware of such terminology.
He left because he realized he can only block so many posters.
bernie12,
" No that’s the problem and chemistry is NOT a good example. Most schools, even several of the selective privates only offer a catch-all general chemistry sequence that caters to science majors in general (including prospective chemistry majors) and needless to say, this course is stuck in the past" - This is INCORRECT statement, period. I do not know about most schools. I know only about one school. But this school is a regular in-state public school and it offers variety of intro Chem and variety of intro Physics.
I do not know about Harvard, maybe Harvard cannot afford to have "a set" so to speak of intro science classes tailored to different majors and/or personal interests.
JHS,
“MiamiDAP: If you look, you will see that MIT offers only two introductory physics courses, one that is calculus based and one for students who are already taking math at a higher level than calculus”
- As I mentioned , apparently MIT cannot afford a wider variety, say for somebody who is much more interested in various high level of Bio classes and just do not want to spend time beyond required on something like Physics.
So, maybe it is worth it to learn what each program offers instead of simply going with the shallow approach of considering “rigor” in general and the ranking. It is definitely worth to check out if your personal interests and goals are in synch with the offer at each school. For vast majority of pre-meds (as an example). the MIT offer will not be sufficient. They simply do not want to focus on Physics. But some small set of pre-meds may want to focus on physics, then MIT offer will be sufficient for them
I never understood the focus on ranking, name…and now some kind of rigor. Where "rigor: in MIT example above is simply the selection limitation, not enough variety which is present at some in-state publics.
Miami- the point about Harvard and MIT is NOT that they cannot afford to offer a broad range of classes- the point is that the classes that ARE offered are rigorous in and of themselves. There is no way to graduate from MIT with an array of “lite”, watered down science courses. The core curriculum for an urban studies major or an econ major is identical to that of a bio major or an electrical engineer. If you can’t handle that kind of rigor, don’t go to MIT.
If you are at MIT and want to go to med school you do not need to be pre-med. But you can’t take a weaker load of science courses (i.e. skip out on physics) and get your degree.
Got it?
I’m sure there are really happy alums who attended Davidson for undergrad…and Harvard for law school. Both are outstanding schools.
MIT thinks it’s important to know physics - real physics not watered down physics. They don’t care if you are pre-med. But plenty of bright kids like the idea of taking real science courses and not some baby version.
They seem to do alright in med school acceptances and they don’t need 4.0s either: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB4QFjAAahUKEwilpriC7d_GAhVDyT4KHdORA3Q&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgecd.mit.edu%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F%2708-%2711acceptancesbyschool.pdf&ei=Wr6nVaWRFcOS-wHTo46gBw&usg=AFQjCNHKWVGV_DFYaBdsM2eFHLEMITrUgQ&sig2=JwQFf2n_1BFW6BeV_l4ScQ&bvm=bv.97949915,d.cWw&cad=rja (hope that takes you to their pdf!)
The MIT intro physics options are summarized at http://web.mit.edu/firstyear/2019/subjects/physics.html . The summaries for the 2 classes that are probably being referred to are below:
8.01L doesn’t mention anything about having a calculus prereq or coreq, but the subsequent course 8.02 does require calculus. It sounds like 8.01L is more for getting students with weaker HS backgrounds up to speed before going on to more advanced physics classes.
It’s quite common to offer different levels of intro physics at highly selective colleges, some of which require calculus and some not. I’m most familiar with the Stanford options, which I’ve listed below:
Physics 21/23/25: Does not use calculus, mostly taken by pre-med, bio, and humanities students
Physics 41/43/45: Uses calculus, mostly taken by engineering, math, chem, … students
Physics 61/63/65: Prereq is “Mastery of mechanics at the level of AP Physics C and AP Calculus B/C”, “For students with a strong high school mathematics and physics background contemplating a major in physics or interested in a rigorous treatment of physics”
Physics for Poets: Has chapters with titles like “E=MC^2 and All That”, Mostly taken by non-science types trying to fulfill general education grad requirements related to STEM (class no longer offered).
Many students different definitions of rigor than we have been using in this thread, which often emphasize difficulty of getting desired higher grades. Different physics series have different grade distributions that reflect the varying portions of students doing exceptional quality work, so by this measure the distinction between different series is not as obvious.
If you don’t want physics, forget Caltech. The core requires 5 classes. These are terms, not semesters. They offer over 50 physics classes.
The web page lists the reasons they feel a study of physics is so important.
“Miami- the point about Harvard and MIT is NOT that they cannot afford to offer a broad range of classes- the point is that the classes that ARE offered are rigorous in and of themselves.”
-My point is that these rigorous classes are ALSO offered at other places along with less rigorous for those who do not need the highest level of rigor. It is not just science. Take English. There are variety of English low level classes. The future writer needs more rigorous class than a future engineer, However, if future engineer has a personal interest in improving his writing maybe then he should sign up for the most rigorous class? Who knows? But having limited offering is just that, it is 2 classes instead of 3 or 4 at introductory level. The same can go for many classes. What students take is up to them. The class has to match the personal interest and the goal of the specific student and there is no reason in a world for a pre-med to take calc based Physics UNLESS, they absolutely want to take it just for the love of Physics or their future specialty may require them to do so (there are few med. specialties that require more Physics than others).
Just blankly compare the rigor of only 2 classes offered at MIT to some other school offerings that may offer 1 or may offer 4 in the same subject at intro level, that makes no sense whatsoever.
The reasons for studying of specific subject are very different from one person to another. One, for example, wants to focus on as much Bio classes as possible, widen horizon with many Neuroscience classes. This person is simply not interested in Physics beyond certain required level. For this person to spend more time in Physics class is simply waste of time as well as spending time reading novels in higher rigor of English class than required. They are not interested, they have a different focus. And if MIT offers only calc based Physics, than MIT program is NOT a good match for THIS person, while it is a very good match for somebody else.
@MiamiDAP : Uh oh, I’m sorry, I think I was confusing because I left out context. Schools that offer several tracks tend to be publics (as you just said) because often publics have at least an honors version of general chemistry (however, the fact about the general chemistry class that MOST students take being stuck in the past is true. I do, however, give several major public schools credit for being more aggressive in changing that than most selective privates for example)…so I guess I failed to qualify my statement. Many selective privates (and non-selectives) still don’t really tier the general chemistry track. I would say the ones that are better or get a wider variety of students taking chemistry tend to do this, but most have quite limited tiering. The most tiering occurs in physics and math at most private schools which makes sense. Just as publics, many have engineering schools that are in high demand, so may have a track (I am excluding the one for non-science majors) with no calc. for pre-meds with a limited background in math, a calculus based one for science majors with good backgrounds, and one for engineers. Schools like Harvard, Chicago, etc will have even more tiering and may not even offer a non-calc. based version to science majors. Their tiering of the intro. physics expands beyond the engineering level to even include courses that accommadate those with very strong math backgrounds (as in even more than AP scores can speak for) and an interest in abstract algebra. Most selective schools and publics will have the first layer of tiering (from what I saw), but not the additional layer I mention.
As for Harvard: It is notorious for tiering in math and physics. What I was referring to with them and their life sciences 1a sequence (and physical sciences 1 which is their pre-med physics class that uses calculus and emphasizes life sciences applications) was the fact that they are so ridiculously well resourced in the natural sciences (and about everything else) that they can retool an introductory “biology class” to make it look more like an advanced class at several comparably selective (SAT wise) school and then cater it to the masses . As in they can offer an extremely strong course to introductory students and there is therefore no reason to tier it.
I notice that many of the better performing/more rigorous depts at private schools (let us say, not Harvard) are as good at tiering their courses as public schools and even take it a step beyond, offering freshmen extremely advanced options. A handful of selective privates (compare that to many of the most selective publics, which DO have general chemistry classes on par or better than the privates, but STILL tier further) are there yet, especially in freshmen chemistry . There are some that still only offer the organic chemistry option for those w/AP or IB 4/5. There are no special inorganic/general type of classes that serve as an alternative at many schools. This is indeed something many public schools are better at doing but depending on the level of the public school, the “honors” section they offer may honestly just look like the regular chemistry at the more selective privates (or publics) for that matter, but just be in a smaller classroom, which is honestly why I praise more the schools that attempt to fix and pump up the regular general chemistry course (which the overwhelming majority of students take). There have been notable strides made at the University of Arizona recently and Michigan is well known for its efforts that maybe began to take shape in the mid-late 90’s and these are only a couple of examples. Other good (not necessarily as selective as Michigan, Tech, Chapel Hill, Virginia, or Berkeley) publics have done a lot with their general biology courses (tiering of this course beyond honors at a public does not seem common and tiering at many selective privates of the general biology course seems non-existent. There are some that do though. Let us also just say that the cases that do not aren’t avoiding it because their general biology course is like LifeSci 1a at Harvard. They just simply are not).
So what you said about Harvard not having the stuff to do the appropriate tiering is more applicable to other selective privates and I think they have the resources but choose not to use them for whatever reason (perhaps arrogance of assuming their doing it right already).
Re: MIT physics courses
Seems implied, since don’t all MIT frosh take 18.01 (calculus 1, which at MIT is accelerated to cover what calculus 1 and calculus 2 at most other schools covers) if they do not place into a more advanced math course?
Examples of tiered courses at Berkeley; the tiering probably is not that different from that of many other schools:
Math 1A, 1B: calculus 1 and 2 for math, physical science, engineering, and math-heavy economics majors (who continue to 53 (multivariable calculus) and 54 (linear algebra and differential equations))
Math H1B: honors version of calculus 2 (there are also H53 and H54)
Math 10A, 10B: calculus, statistics, and math topics for biology majors and pre-meds
Math 16A, 16B: calculus 1 and 2 for business and math-light economics majors
Physics 7A, 7B, 7C: physics for physical science and engineering majors (requires Math 1B, 53, 54 at least concurrently)
Physics H7A, H7B, H7C: honors version of 7A, 7B, 7C
Physics 8A, 8B: physics for biology majors and pre-meds (requires Math 1A, 10A, or 16A)
Physics 10: physics for general education requirements
Chemistry 1A, 1B: general chemistry for biology majors, most engineering majors, and pre-meds (1B not required for many)
Chemistry 3A, 3B: organic chemistry for most biology majors and pre-meds (requires 1A)
Chemistry 4A, 4B: general chemistry with quantitative analysis for chemistry and chemical engineering majors
Chemistry 112A, 112B: organic chemistry for chemistry, chemical engineering (112A only), and biochemistry majors (requires 1B or 4B)
Economics 100A, 100B: intermediate micro and macro economics for math-light economics majors (100A requires Math 16B or 1B)
Economics 101A, 101B: intermediate micro and macro economics for math-heavy economics majors (101A requires Math 53)
With respect to Harvard, note that it has five tiers of nominally sophomore level math courses:
http://www.math.harvard.edu/pamphlets/freshmenguide.html
18, 19a, 19b: for social and life sciences
21a, 21b: standard content of linear algebra and multivariable calculus
23a, 23b: adds proof writing instruction
25a, 25b: more rigorous, previous proof writing experience recommended
55a, 55b: claimed to be “the most difficult undergraduate math class in the country”
Of course, with tiered courses, a student can choose to take a more difficult tier of course than the one require for his/her major.
Even if the overwhelming majority will be taking calculus concurrently, MIT’s website implies that students who are weak in high school pre-calculus and trigonometry are okay to take 8.01L saying, “if you are rusty in, or did not sufficiently master, pre-calculus, especially trigonometry, you may be recommended to take 8.01L.” Elsewhere they mention the class spends more time on related pre-calc and trig concepts with more visual real-life type examples instead of rushing through equations on the board. I see nothing to suggest calculus is used in the course.
8.01L is available in MIT OpenCourseWare. Calculus is used in the lecture notes.
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01l-physics-i-classical-mechanics-fall-2005/index.htm
“publics have at least an honors version of general chemistry”
- I did not take it into consideration. There is not much difference between Honors class and non-Honors class, a bit more work in Honors with the benefits of having individualized prof’s attention.
Forget Honors, I was talking about different intro science classes designed for students on a different tracks. I do not know how many might be offered in Chem. / Physics / Bio / English / BioChem…etc. But there were more than 2 in Chem. and Physics, several in BioChem. And there is no question, calc based Physics was one of them. But most pre-meds (with exception of the few who felt like taking it) took non-calc based Physics simply because they were loaded with very challenging upper level Bio / Neuroscience classes and being a very busy bunch (Med. Research Lab interning, volunteering, job, most had minors in un-related area like Music, Art) they simply did not care to focus on Physics that much. Actually, the intro Chem. that one could take depended on the Math placement test score. Each freshman had to take placement test in math and foreign language before registering for the fall semester. So, one could place into a 3rd year of Spanish, but it is not what we discussing here, we are discussing the variety of intro level classes in each subject.
In the situation when Chem and Physics are required classes, but they are the focus of study, it is a good deal to have less rigorous classes offerred along with much more rigorous classes at intro level. It makes the program so much more flexible. It allows a student to focus on what the student deem the most important in his study and ECs.
@MiamiDAP : Agreed…though it can be a double-edged sword sometimes. I remember in my physical biology class where the professor didn’t know any better than to say that the non-calc. based physics sequence was a sufficient pre-req along with calc. based. So the class started with a bunch of neuroscience majors and some standard bio majors (not those particularly strong or interested in math), some math majors, and some physics (with 4 of them doubling in biology), chemistry majors (2 of us) and like 5 graduate students. There were like 20 people total and it ended up being 11 after the first week because all the others dropped after the first problem set came out (which was required use of calculus/basic differential equations, and calculus based statistics : This guy is an awesome teacher AND researcher in my opinion, but this class is no joke whatsoever: http://www.nemenmanlab.org/~ilya/index.php/Physics_434,_2014:_Homework_1 is a sample and those interested can look around further). What was interesting is that most of us were juniors so had taken calculus. The problem was that those students had not really seen calculus applied to subject area like that (many took the life science/bio-calc series which claims it does that, but then I found a research article on that series at Emory where the authors/course creator basically admits to having watering it down over time to cater to wide levels and interests). I see where you’re coming from with them taking challenging upperlevel bio/neuro courses but often those courses are not as demanding as their counterparts in math, CS, and chemistry. Many lack the problem solving component that comes with having a foundation (memorization), though some schools are good at incorporating problem solving into upperlevel biology (I would say Emory is now “ok” at it. Used to be nothing special in my opinion, but the course offerings have expanded and many instructors actually changed their methods).
Also, this worries me when in reality, the biological and natural sciences is kind of shifting more toward explorations of more quantitative models. I feel more undergrads should have to or at least be capable of going along for the ride. If most neuro and biology majors never took an intro course that allowed them to use calculus to address scientific problems, then there is no way they can be truly prepared for a decently rigorous (don’t get me wrong, it need not be anywhere near that course I just showed) natural sciences course that focuses more on quantitative methods and models. In fact, this is a well known issue in the natural sciences such that over the past decade (or half decade) there have been many calls nationwide to better integrate math into the undergraduate curriculum. I kind of agree as it will make more life sciences majors more versatile in their skillsets as opposed to being the students that memorized their way through a biology major and then went on to grad school (where the change in class work, though not important, can be a shock) or health professional schools (lots of rote memorization in the beginning but eventually much more types of skills will be needed as in more than the ones picked up to get a good MCAT score which is extremely challenging for a multiple choice exam but still lacks very quantitative or open ended problems by virtue of being a standardized exam). It seems much literature about this issue came to the forefront in 2010-2011 : http://www.lifescied.org/content/9/3/141.full and there are many more articles today about it some discussing efforts to change this at certain schools.
@ucbalumnus : Looks like one of those courses where they are taught using calculus but not assessed as much with it (as in exam and p-set problems-I checked those). This seems like a typical phenomenon in mechanics courses that are “calculus-based” but are actually service courses for non-physical science or non-engineering majors. I observed it with Harvards revamped physical sciences class for pre-meds as well. Then the E and M semester came, and their problem sets were drowning in calculus/more challenging mathematical methods.
The fact is that calculus is irrelevant at Med. School. So, if you are planning to pursue research or academics, yes, why not, take what you deem important for YOUR future. But do not force future docs to do the same. First, calc. for most of them is / was an easy class. But they do not want to focus on it, at least most of them. Again, their focus is different and they are overloaded with tons of EC, some on their own personal pursuit.
Well, again, want to take a calc. based Physics, do it. But it better be a choice for those who do not and there are ABSOLUTELY NO disadvantages at Med. School for those who did not take calc based Physics, not much of UG studies has direct effect on Med. School study, UG more or less just gives some general background. I like one comparison that I heard - the academic level at UG and Med. School is quantum leap apart.
I am not familiar with other tracks, but I am for having wider choices than being forced to take something that you absolutely NOT interested to take to satisfy some low level requirements. That is all I am saying, nothing more.