posted
Here, the difference between a BS and a BA (in the majors that offer both) is that the BA has a foreign language requirement.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Which is a joke, because there is very little you can truly understand in physical chemistry without having differential equations, although this Physical chemistry would be adequate for someone pursuing a pre-med option. (It still blows my mind that MDs don't have to know differential equations when differential equations predict how much of the body operates)
A similar case in most colleges and universities there is a "business calculus" course, required for business majors. (They would have the option of taking true Calculus but most of them avoid that option like the plague) Most of them scramble and scrape through the business calc course plugging the formulas in without actually gaining a true understanding of calculus.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: (It still blows my mind that MDs don't have to know differential equations when differential equations predict how much of the body operates)
How would this detail of knowledge be necessary to all physician clinicians? *interested
I could do them, mind you, because I completed the full series of Calculus. But I have yet to have seen any need for calculating differentials in the actual practice of medicine as a whole.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate, Northwestern's program is completely ACS approved, so there is no watering down regardless of the actual degree title. http://www.chem.northwestern.edu/undergrad
I see the non-ACS track being useful for people who might want to teach chemistry at the high school level, as well as pre-med folks.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT, at a practical every day level, probably not much, (for general family practice and the like) and it has been decided by better people than myself that Diff Eq isn't necessary.
However, the way I look at it is that differential equations are the foundation of all fluid flow calculations. Fluid transport is one of the biggest things the body *does*. And even more than that differential equations are even more widely applicable as fundamental principles the universe runs on, be it normal, macro, or micro scales.
It's kind of like taking college Physics without calculus. It can be taught, but everyone who has had calculus understands what a fundamental "chunk" is missing by not using derivatives.
While the average doctor might only see the end result, differential equations are essential in predicting cardiovascular responses, and how veins and arteries will behave as they lose elasticity and/or gain fatty deposits. In my biomechanics classes we were using differential equations to do exactly that. However, you can't utilize these sorts of predictive and descriptive applications of differential equations if you haven't had basic exposure to them to begin with.
So an MD was going to be a specialist or researcher, I think DiffEq would possibly be much more useful. You can also use differential equations to describe research data once you've got it, and without that tool in your arsenal you might not actually catch patterns in your data.
AJ
P.S. In my Chemical engineering classes, you began working with fluid flow equations before you'd actually reached Differential equations in your math sequence. Those equations became much conceptually easier once we had the DiffEq under our belt to actually understand what the equations were doing.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fluid transport is indeed one of the biggest things the body does, but it can be described in other, more macro, ways than by differential equations (just as quantum physics describes a part of any physical work at a micro level, whether it be an automobile or the human body that is being described, or what have you, but may not be relevant to an auto technician).
quote:differential equations are essential in predicting cardiovascular responses, and how veins and arteries will behave as they lose elasticity and/or gain fatty deposits.
See, this doesn't seem to be so. The professional articles in the literature do not reference differential equations in predicting such things because the predictions work fine without them. I'm not saying that there isn't something interesting and relevant, but that is just one of many additional approaches that may be interesting and relevant, even if not necessary (including things from the humanities! ).
I'd certainly agree that differentials are interesting, and I'm glad I studied math at that level. I just don't see the *need* for them to understand the workings of medicine, since that level of description does not add to diagnosis or treatment. I don't think physicians who are not familiar with math at that level are missing out on more than physicians who did not study the philosophy of medicine, for example -- and you cannot do everything.
I can see the relevance for pharmacology, though, and I expect that ICU specialists need to know differentials for dealing with the kinetics of absorption and elimination for some medications. So it makes sense to me as a specialty issue, but not for the field as a whole.
The breadth and depth of knowledge needed to prepare for and complete medical school is so vast that I don't know what I'd cut out instead of differentials in particular, as a requirement.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I believe that the humanities are useful. I personally have recieved the majority of my exposure to them through osmosis, rather than through university education. I was able to matriculate with a degree in chemical engineering while only having written a total of 3 non-science term papers (2 for upper division history classes, and one for freshman english)
One problem with engineering in particular inhibiting a greater exploration of humanities options while in a university is that ABET dictates what you MUST have to graduate, and there isn't much room to squeeze in anything else.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: So an MD was going to be a specialist or researcher, I think DiffEq would possibly be much more useful. You can also use differential equations to describe research data once you've got it, and without that tool in your arsenal you might not actually catch patterns in your data.
Yeah, I'd agree wthat it would possibly be much more useful. I'm having a hard time of thinking of much published research data that would fall under this, though, but I'm sure it is there.
quote:P.S. In my Chemical engineering classes, you began working with fluid flow equations before you'd actually reached Differential equations in your math sequence. Those equations became much conceptually easier once we had the DiffEq under our belt to actually understand what the equations were doing.
I recall that differentials made other concepts easier to understand, though I don't recall the specifics. I found it intriguing enough to pursue regardless of the practical requirements. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand that the predictions work without perhaps using the differential equation "why" behind them. I always want to know the why, though. (And I suspect that you may use your own differential equation knowledge subconsciously sometimes in recognizing identifying the "whys".)
In other areas, that they are useful, are also areas where engineers and MDs are colaborating to begin with. So would it be absolutely necessary, again, no. Differential equations are definitely being used in artifical heart designs, they are also being used in modelling bone densities and such in order to improve bone replacements, and resurfacings. It is just one of those things where after having learned the wide variety of ways in which the world ticks using DifEq, I can't concieve of going back and *not* having the knowledge. Having the knowledge of differential equations has fundamentally altered my perspective on reality, like few other topics have.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: One problem with engineering in particular inhibiting a greater exploration of humanities options while in a university is that ABET dictates what you MUST have to graduate, and there isn't much room to squeeze in anything else.
Indeed!
Do you ever catch yourself wishing you were trained in a time where less was known and so less must be studied, so that you had more time to study elective interests? I'm ashamed to say the thought has occurred to me. Some 30 years ago, I doubt there were separate courses in genetics and immunology for med students, for example. And radiology would have been a subset of what it is now.
I do not think anatomy has changed much in recent years, though. There was the whole controversy over whether the lower esophageal sphincter had some muscle fibers after all, but that was over pretty quickly.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: I see the non-ACS track being useful for people who might want to teach chemistry at the high school level, as well as pre-med folks.
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Yeah, I'd agree wthat it would possibly be much more useful. I'm having a hard time of thinking of much published research data that would fall under this, though, but I'm sure it is there.
This doesn't surprise me. I'm guessing that because the majority of MDs *don't* have differential equations it isn't going to be in the published research data, because it isn't a tool available in their analytical arsenal to begin with. It isn't something that is a common language to all MDs because it isn't understood by all of them.
If you flip through an average engineering journal, you will find considerably more use of differential equation concepts because it is something that is in the common language set of all engineers.
I'm not saying that MDs should be engineers, far from it. What confounds me is how many MDs (present company excluded ) shudder when they hear I am an engineer and go "How did you survive differential equations?" as if they would rather be tortured on red hot coals (and indeed go through the torture of medical school residency) rather than attempt to understand differential equations.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
AJ, given how many practicing physicians of my acquaintance (and from all evidence, good ones) clearly don't remember much beyond basic chemistry (and that with loathing), the calculus issue doesn't bother me much.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: What confounds me is how many MDs (present company excluded ) shudder when they hear I am an engineer and go "How did you survive differential equations?" as if they would rather be tortured on red hot coals (and indeed go through the torture of medical school residency) rather than attempt to understand differential equations.
*smile
I imagine many disciplines have quite similar experiences. We all have our own bugaboos and blind spots.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes I did wish I had time to take more electives, though I slightly shot myself in the foot on that by my own doing. But in engineering the whole "going to university as a time to explore and learn more about the world and be exposed to new ideas" didn't seem nearly to apply as much as in other disciplines.
Many traditional engineering students are taking 5 years to get their degrees just so they don't have to take semesters of 15-18 units without any respite.
The actual pre-med requirements, were pretty minimal, to me, compared do what was required for an engineering degree. Of course most places don't offer just a "pre-med" degree. It's got to be something else with the pre-med classes thrown in. There is a far wider cornucopia of major options and subsequent electives for a pre-med student, than there are for an engineering student.
Now I got around this somewhat because I went to a community college in high school, and took whatever I felt like then, which was an eclectic mish mash of classes. I know you sort of got around it in your own way also.
While I can read on my own now, I wish I had taken more history and philosphy courses. I've never had a formal philosophy course at all. Maybe more English lit as well, since beyond the two basic semesters I didn't have any. But I do have Hatrack instead Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: What confounds me is how many MDs (present company excluded [Smile] ) shudder when they hear I am an engineer and go "How did you survive differential equations?" as if they would rather be tortured on red hot coals (and indeed go through the torture of medical school residency) rather than attempt to understand differential equations.
I took diffeq 4 times without ever being in a position to pass it. I passed the 8 higher-level courses needed to get a math major, but not that one. So I understand that feeling.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I, OTOH, passed it (in no small part because my parents tutored me!) just fine. And have since manage to pretty much forget most of it . . Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I took linear algebra (where I went a slightly more "rudimentary" math class) with a professor that was well meaning, but mumbled to the board in a lecture hall in broken English. Not so fun. With DiffEq, I had an energetic associate prof from Australia and I did pretty well.
posted
I guess I lucked out. I had an adviser who had an exaggerated sense of my ability who encouraged me to take it concurrently with Calc II during my freshman year. I dropped DiffEq that semester while still carrying an A average because I knew I was in over my head, and that my grade up to that point was illusory. I spent the next year or so living in fear of eventually taking that. Then I took a year off because I had the opportunity to go work for a year at ORNL in Tennessee, and the Lab was generous enough to pay for me to take a course at the University of Tennesee. So I had the unbelievable luxury of taking DiffEq when it was the single college course I was taking, while doing a job with no take-home work, and being able to devote all kinds of time to studying it. I also had an excellent teacher. I ended up with some ridiculously high average (like, quite possibly, a 100) and wondering what all the fuss was about. In hindsight, Calc III was much bigger nightmare than DiffEq. (My point is not to brag about getting a good grade, but about what a wonderful thing it was to be able to take a challenging course as my single course in a semester. What a great experience!)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I took my DiffEq class while engaged, which meant that school took a back seat. I don't know how I managed to pass it at all, because I didn't really absorb any of the information.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
DiffEq is, to me, one of the most boring math classes possible, since so much of it is just formulas to solve this sort of problem or that sort of problem. It doesn't hang together well mentally, at least for me. I managed to get an A- in the class, but I've forgotten almost all of the topic. It probably didn't help that my professor strongly emphasized the physics applications of the subject, which I just don't care about.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's how I feel about most of my sophomore year, Porter, especially Calc III. I had a brutal job at the time, and I was in the throes of my first Really Huge Relationship.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Based on what Ic and Porter are saying, I'm almost glad I was in a long-distance relationship all 4 years of college. I got quite a bit done, particularly my first 3 years.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And here's little ol' me taking Algebra and it's the only thing standing between me and a BA in Political Science. It just does not come easily to me.
After all that I just don't know whether to go for government work, try getting an MBA, or do law school.
Sometimes I really wish I could just go live in China for about 2 years and read, write and speak nothing but Chinese. Then get a job at some up and coming Chinese company. I hear their legal field needs alot of work.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really like Teshi's points about the usefulness of the humanities.
Me, I'm in a "useless" field. I study medieval social history, and there's not a big chance that what I research will have a tremendous impact on the world at large. I could use the buzzwords I put into my grant application, but they still don't describe my work's "usefulness." Does it really matter how impaired people lived a thousand years ago? Not in a practical sense, no.
But maybe it will matter to someone to know how their ancestors lived. Maybe it will make a difference to someone, knowing that the disdainful us-versus-them mentality hasn't always been the case. Who knows?
No knowledge is wasted.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My diffeq prof was a Japanese guy who would stand in front of the room and carry on about how beautiful math is, then proceed to do the example problems from the book. Somewhere around ten people scored less then 10% on the first exam. There must have been a huge curve, since I had ~65% at the end and received an A. (In retrospect, the class had a similar feel to grad classes. Doing extreme amounts of work, still receiving failing percentages on test, that one jerk that had seen it all before so received perfects. Ending up with a grade that bears little relation to the scores from the term.)
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You just described my Statistics for Science class. Was the prof's name Segami, by any chance? Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: I could use the buzzwords I put into my grant application, but they still don't describe my work's "usefulness."
As far as I can tell that describes everyone's grant applications in every technical field. How man thousands of papers have been published where the introduction makes ridiculous and grandiose claims about the possible uses of the work.
I find the idea of this overly hopeful predicting (feels like lying) that's required to receive grant money very distasteful. I also think it has contributed in a large way to the looming funding issues in my specific line of work.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: You just described my Statistics for Science class. Was the prof's name Segami, by any chance?
I think it was Goh.
I'm also pretty sure that every graduate has had a class with a guy like this. I think its like a right of passage or something.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: I could use the buzzwords I put into my grant application, but they still don't describe my work's "usefulness."
As far as I can tell that describes everyone's grant applications in every technical field. How man thousands of papers have been published where the introduction makes ridiculous and grandiose claims about the possible uses of the work.
I find the idea of this overly hopeful predicting (feels like lying) that's required to receive grant money very distasteful. I also think it has contributed in a large way to the looming funding issues in my specific line of work.
I was as honest as it's possible to be about research that's not yet done. I threw in the buzzwords, but I tried not to embellish much. I suppose I'm fortunate in that the current buzzwords ("interdisciplinary" being the biggest) suit my research perfectly.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: You just described my Statistics for Science class. Was the prof's name Segami, by any chance?
I think it was Goh.
I'm also pretty sure that every graduate has had a class with a guy like this. I think its like a right of passage or something.
Actually, everyone in my MBA program (and most of the undergrads in the business college) has taken at least one class with a professor whose first language is obviously not English and who likes to go on rants about "chicken burger" on a regular basis. I think it's a rite of passage for everyone.
posted
I also found the quality of my university classes to depend in great part on the quality of (and my fit with) the instructor. I ended up chosing courses mostly based on who was teaching them, once my core requirements were filled.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: Actually, everyone in my MBA program (and most of the undergrads in the business college)...
With graduates I meant college graduates, not graduate students. Perhaps I should have just said college students.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: I think higher math depends on the prof.
I took linear algebra (where I went a slightly more "rudimentary" math class) with a professor that was well meaning, but mumbled to the board in a lecture hall in broken English. Not so fun. With DiffEq, I had an energetic associate prof from Australia and I did pretty well.
-Bok
I found linear algebra much easier once I realized that "verter" meant "vector" and "arga" was "alpha."
Edit: as for diffeq, I took it with all 4 professors who taught it while I was an undergrad. So it was definitely me, not them.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's sad is, diffeq doesn't have to be taught that way. I've railed against it for years now (since I found out how WashU was teaching it). The way I typically see it is, students are taught methods, then told, apply them to these sets of problems. However, those methods exist for various reasons -- usually to solve one particular class of problems -- but the problem sets assigned are often ones better solved by other techniques!
When I taught myself diffeq out of an old textbook (predating the college of anyone who's talked about diffeq courses in this thread, I think, though I don't have the book handy to check the date), each method was presented along with context for how it had been derived, why it had been derived, and problems that made sense to apply that method too.
This made diffeq much more straightforward.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In every exam, the professors gave up to a third credit for setting up problems correctly. The rest was for solving the equations. I pretty much got full credit for the setup part.
In every class I do well in, there is a "snap" where the material takes shape. My brain orders it into a kind of diagram, and new information and techniques are added to the appropriate places in that diagram as they are learned. What this means is that the effort required to learn the new information is greatly minimized.
In numerical analysis and algorithm-oriented classes, the snap happened early on. In law school, the snap sometimes happened on the first day. It got to the point where I could take notes in a format that almost matched the framework, making the outlining needed for such classes a trivial task.
There was never such a snap in four tries at diffeq for me. Each new thing was basically like learning a new subject for me. The exception was setting up the equation for a given problem. I was always good at that.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if it's because there wasn't an overriding concept to use as a framework? When I was taught diffeq, it was just "here is a type of equation -- here is how to solve it." Over and over and over.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Setting up the differential equations for a real system is, in my opinion, the hard step.
Once you've got the equations up, you have to identify an appropriate method for solving them which is where alot of students get lost. Professors tend to see immediately what approach to use just jump to it. Because its so obvious to them, they have a hard time teaching students how to do it. There are relatively few types of differential equations that can be solved analytically, the rest have to be solved numerically. Once you've identified what type of differential equation you've got. Solving is just a matter of algebra for the problems that can be solved analytically or computer programming for those that can't.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
He says that by "the humanities" he was referring to "the academic analysis of works of literature, philosophy and history," not the works themselves. According to him (and he may well be right), "'the humanities' is an academic, not a cultural category," so saying that Shakespeare's works contain great wisdom does not justify the funding of Shakespeare scholars. At least this is what he seems to be saying; I always thought that academic study of Shakespeare was supposed to help you better apprehend Shakespeare's wisdom, but Fish knows more about literary studies than I do.
But I did get the implications of his first article correct: he says that the public funding of humanities departments can't be justified:
quote:What benefit do literary studies hold out to those asked to support them? Not much of anything except the (parochial) excitement experienced by those caught up in arcane discussions of the mirror stage, the trace, the subaltern and the performative. (Don’t ask.)
...
Nguyen Chau Giao asks, "Dr. Fish, when was the last time you read a poem ... that so moved you to take certain actions to improve your lot or others?" To tell the truth, I can't remember a single time. But I can remember countless times when I've read a poem ... and said "Wow!" or "Isn't that just great?" That's more than enough in my view to justify the enterprise of humanistic study, but I cannot believe, as much as I would like to, that the world can be persuaded to subsidize my moments of aesthetic wonderment.
I guess this is why he's now affiliated with a law department and is otherwise simply a Distinguished University Professor and dean emiritus.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The truth is that a mastery of literary and philosophical texts and the acquisition of wisdom (in whatever form) are independent variables.
This is a rather bold claim and a lot of his argument rests upon it, but he seems to state it as fact without really giving any evidence of it.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
). ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
