Cpg: New page: I think the enumerated learning outcomes are good, but as I look through them I see a lot of overlap with Chapter 10 of green Rudin, which I spent a substantial amount of time on in Math 6...

2008-05-08T15:14:18Z

New page: I think the enumerated learning outcomes are good, but as I look through them I see a lot of overlap with Chapter 10 of green Rudin, which I spent a substantial amount of time on in Math 6...

New page

I think the enumerated learning outcomes are good, but as I look through them I see a lot of overlap with Chapter 10 of green Rudin, which I spent a substantial amount of time on in Math 642. This is not a problem with Math 332, but I think it is a problem with Math 642. The course title for Math 642 implies that it is substantially about complex analysis, but there is no introductory complex analysis prerequisite for the course, so you really do have to start from scratch. Why do I consider this a problem? (1) Students probably shouldn't be given credit for learning the same thing in 2 different courses. (2) If a complex analysis prerequisite were in place for Math 642, we could skip or skim this material and move on to spend time on more advanced results. (3) Students get bored learning the same material over again. (4) Our resources could be used more efficiently if our courses fit together better.--[[User:Cpg|Cpg]] 09:14, 8 May 2008 (MDT)

Talk:Math 332 - Revision history

Cpg: New page: I think the enumerated learning outcomes are good, but as I look through them I see a lot of overlap with Chapter 10 of green Rudin, which I spent a substantial amount of time on in Math 6...