I have decided to do M1 and M2 as my applied units. So I am wondering if 
that will give me an advantage over the student that does Statistics and M1 
as part of their whole A-level. Reason being, from doing both S1/M1. 
Mechanics seems to be harder then statistics. Also, I can imagine that the 
content in the Mechanics could come in handy when dealing with programs that 
require some knowledge of physics. Games programming for 
example...Statistics seems to be handy for those who want to go into a 
business related field. Banking, Economics etc.

Do Admission tutors look at the applied units students take as part of their 
maths A-levels? Or is the overall grade what counts.

Thanks

In article <d0sp04$1mn$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, 
samsonknight2k@btinternet.com says...

> I have decided to do M1 and M2 as my applied units. So I am wondering if 
> that will give me an advantage over the student that does Statistics and M1 
> as part of their whole A-level. Reason being, from doing both S1/M1. 
> Mechanics seems to be harder then statistics. 

Wouldn't you be at a /dis/advantage, then? S1 is certainly easier than 
M2: although there's quite a lot of content, it's all pretty low-level 
stuff (Stem-and-leaf diagrams, for example). M2 is not as hard as M3, but 
it's harder than M1.


> Also, I can imagine that the 
> content in the Mechanics could come in handy when dealing with programs that 
> require some knowledge of physics. Games programming for 
> example...Statistics seems to be handy for those who want to go into a 
> business related field. Banking, Economics etc.
> 
> Do Admission tutors look at the applied units students take as part of their 
> maths A-levels? Or is the overall grade what counts.
> 

Not being an AT, I can't be authoritative, but I would think very much 
not: they've got quite enough data to process without going into the 
details of which options you took. I imagine that all they get from UCAS 
are the final A or AS level grades.

SW

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005, Stuart Williams wrote:

> samsonknight2k@btinternet.com says...

>> Do Admission tutors look at the applied units students take as part of 
>> their maths A-levels? Or is the overall grade what counts.

> Not being an AT, I can't be authoritative, but I would think very much
> not: they've got quite enough data to process without going into the
> details of which options you took. I imagine that all they get from UCAS
> are the final A or AS level grades.


Yes, I'd just be grateful that someone *has* a Maths A-level without
bothering with the precise units. It's not the specific knowledge
from the Maths A-level that's required, rather it's the demonstration
of being able to deal with abstraction and formal systems which passing
A-level Maths shows. I used to think that the statistics modules of
Maths A-level would be the least useful, but recently I've had the
people who teach the 3rd year units saying they value it, 
particularly the probability element, for things like information
retrieval and risk assessment.

Matthew Huntbach

In article <d0sp04$1mn$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
Samsonknight  wrote:
[...]

>Do Admission tutors look at the applied units students take as part of their
>maths A-levels? [...]


	Can't speak for everyone, but *this* AT does not.  Indeed,
the units are not "visible" on the results that we get from UCAS,
so it's only easy to tell if we can cross-relate with info on your
form.  Our maths courses *have* to start from somewhere around AS
level anyway [intersection of all "standard" maths syllabuses];  we
then "sweep" through A-level Maths to a point well beyond Further
Maths in rather less than half of the first year.  In that process,
we don't really care what maths you already know [within reason], as
we will be teaching you all that stuff anyway [properly, not in the
dumbed-down A-level way].  We care much more about how good you are
at maths.

-- 
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
anw@maths.nott.ac.uk

Stuart Williams  wrote in message news:...

> In article <d0sp04$1mn$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, 
> samsonknight2k@btinternet.com says...
> > I have decided to do M1 and M2 as my applied units. So I am wondering if 
> > that will give me an advantage over the student that does Statistics and M1 
> > as part of their whole A-level. Reason being, from doing both S1/M1. 
> > Mechanics seems to be harder then statistics. 
> Wouldn't you be at a /dis/advantage, then? S1 is certainly easier than 
> M2: although there's quite a lot of content, it's all pretty low-level 
> stuff (Stem-and-leaf diagrams, for example). M2 is not as hard as M3, but 
> it's harder than M1.
> 


Sure, my tutor and I did take that into consideration before I made my
final choice. However, the problem with statistics, is that it uses
very little of the material from the core course.
Therefore as I am doing the course at such a fast rate, I don't want
to be in a position where I am having to back track. With Statistics
this is more likely to happen then with Mechanics. As Mechanics
constantly reinforces the skills that you learn in the core course.

In article <d148p9$e5q$1@oyez.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk>,
Dr A. N. Walker  wrote:

>In article <d0sp04$1mn$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
>Samsonknight  wrote:
>[...]
>>Do Admission tutors look at the applied units students take as part of their
>>maths A-levels? [...]
>
>	Can't speak for everyone, but *this* AT does not.  Indeed,


Cambridge Colleges do generally ask people what modules they are taking, but in my
experience that's more for interest and so that we know what we can reasonably
ask about at an admissions interview.  I think one or two of my colleagues
would be slightly anxious about a student who was not taking any mechanics
modules at all and was also not taking physics, because such a student might
find the first-year applied courses quite tough; but as Andy says it's
*much* more important how good they are at whatever maths they are doing.

Katy

"Samsonknight"  wrote in message
news:d0sp04$1mn$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

> I have decided to do M1 and M2 as my applied units. So I am wondering if
> that will give me an advantage over the student that does Statistics and
M1
> as part of their whole A-level. Reason being, from doing both S1/M1.
> Mechanics seems to be harder then statistics.


It is a personal thing.  Some might prefer to stick to one type of applied
mathematics.  Certainly by studying for M2, you will probably then find M1
easier.  However, I suspect that M2 is slightly more advanced than M1, so M2
might be harder than S1.  On the other hand, learning the first papers of
two different mathematics applications might be harder work.

Also, I can imagine that the

> content in the Mechanics could come in handy when dealing with programs
that
> require some knowledge of physics. Games programming for
> example...Statistics seems to be handy for those who want to go into a
> business related field. Banking, Economics etc.


....and surely a lot of computer programming is business oriented?


>
> Do Admission tutors look at the applied units students take as part of
their
> maths A-levels? Or is the overall grade what counts.


With the number of mathematics A levels in decline of late, I should not be
surprised if they are grateful for anyone with a good grade, whatever the
units taken.


-- 
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

In article <d148p9$e5q$1@oyez.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk>, anw@maths.nott.ac.uk 
says...

> as we will be teaching you all that stuff anyway [properly, not in the
> dumbed-down A-level way].  


It's nice to know one's efforts are appreciated....

Stuart Williams

In article ,
Stuart Williams   wrote:

>> as we will be teaching you all that stuff anyway [properly, not in the
>> dumbed-down A-level way].
>It's nice to know one's efforts are appreciated....


	You mean, you *haven't* been teaching your pupils that all
matrices are 2x2 [or, in *really* difficult cases, 3x3], that
vectors are 2-dimensional, that induction is "assuming what you want
to prove, and then using k=k+1", that all functions are given by
formula and are differentiable, etc., etc.?  Good for you!  But you
are in a small minority ....

	My SO is planning a book about anarchic maths -- all the
places where (a) A-level/univ maths deviates from what maths is
really about, &/or (b) books gloss over the difficulties, &/or (c)
they gloss over the simplicities, &/or (d) opportunities for some
interesting maths are lost 'cos of dumbing down.  I don't know
whether it will ever come to fruition;  but if it does, it will be
required reading, in an ideal world, for all mathematicians.

-- 
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
anw@maths.nott.ac.uk

"John Porcella"  wrote in message 
news:d14g08$h0o$1@hercules.btinternet.com...

>
> "Samsonknight"  wrote in message
> news:d0sp04$1mn$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>> I have decided to do M1 and M2 as my applied units. So I am wondering if
>> that will give me an advantage over the student that does Statistics and
> M1
>> as part of their whole A-level. Reason being, from doing both S1/M1.
>> Mechanics seems to be harder then statistics.
>
> It is a personal thing.  Some might prefer to stick to one type of applied
> mathematics.  Certainly by studying for M2, you will probably then find M1
> easier.  However, I suspect that M2 is slightly more advanced than M1, so 
> M2
> might be harder than S1.  On the other hand, learning the first papers of
> two different mathematics applications might be harder work.
>


Yeah, exactly John you are spot on. I also find S1 boring personally. So it 
may just be a better option of doing M2, as it not only reinforces earlier M 
skills, but also reinforces the skills gained in Core. S1 is easier I agree, 
but it's a risk as you've rightly said by:

"On the other hand, learning the first papers of  two different mathematics 
applications might be harder work."

I cannot afford to backtrack massively at this time of year by doing one 
module then forgetting some aspects of the earlier modules I have learnt, 
because that module doesn't reinforce anything from the other modules.


> Also, I can imagine that the
>> content in the Mechanics could come in handy when dealing with programs
> that
>> require some knowledge of physics. Games programming for
>> example...Statistics seems to be handy for those who want to go into a
>> business related field. Banking, Economics etc.
>
> ...and surely a lot of computer programming is business oriented?
>


Yeah sure, which is why I can see why stats can prove useful. However I hope 
to go into games programming after my degree, so I think it is better that I 
have fundamental concepts such as kinematics,dynamics & statics of a 
particle under my belt - as I have not done physics for years.



>>
>> Do Admission tutors look at the applied units students take as part of
> their
>> maths A-levels? Or is the overall grade what counts.
>
> With the number of mathematics A levels in decline of late, I should not 
> be
> surprised if they are grateful for anyone with a good grade, whatever the
> units taken.
>


Yeah, as Matthew said. I feel it is a shame though that the applied modules 
are not looked at. As I am very sure Mechanics is a lot more challenging 
then Statistics.


>
> -- 
> MESSAGE ENDS.
> John Porcella
>
> 

In article <d14l4p$mdf$2@oyez.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk>, anw@maths.nott.ac.uk 
says...

> In article ,
> Stuart Williams   wrote:
> >> as we will be teaching you all that stuff anyway [properly, not in the
> >> dumbed-down A-level way].
> >It's nice to know one's efforts are appreciated....
> 
> 	You mean, you *haven't* been teaching your pupils that all
> matrices are 2x2 [or, in *really* difficult cases, 3x3], that
> vectors are 2-dimensional, that induction is "assuming what you want
> to prove, and then using k=k+1", that all functions are given by
> formula and are differentiable, etc., etc.?  Good for you!  But you
> are in a small minority ....


Irony apart, yes, I do point out that e.g. mod x isn't differentiable at 
x=0, and when induction was still part of A level (it's been dumped into 
FM), I took pleasure in trying to convey its power (though I must admit 
it was an approach they found hard to assimilate). Other areas where I 
try to resist the general rush to substitute "how do the examiners want 
me to do it" for "how do we justify doing it like this" include dividing 
by zero, approaching a limit, and the idea of different kinds of 
infinity. You'd be surprised (or perhaps you wouldn't) that the brighter 
pupils get really wound up about these ideas: maybe I am part of a 
minority - but is it so small? 


> 
> 	My SO is planning a book about anarchic maths -- all the
> places where (a) A-level/univ maths deviates from what maths is
> really about, &/or (b) books gloss over the difficulties, &/or (c)
> they gloss over the simplicities, &/or (d) opportunities for some
> interesting maths are lost 'cos of dumbing down.  I don't know
> whether it will ever come to fruition;  but if it does, it will be
> required reading, in an ideal world, for all mathematicians


I believe you can flag up publishing opportunities to Amazon by 
registering e.g. that you'd buy the complete Hill Street Blues if only 
someone would offer it. Maybe if she...... (who am I kidding?).

SW

In article ,
Stuart Williams   wrote:

>Irony apart, yes, I do point out that e.g. mod x isn't differentiable at
>x=0, [...]


	Do you also point out that, eg, f(x) = x^2 if x is rational,
= 0 otherwise, is differentiable *only* at x = 0? [:-)]


>	You'd be surprised (or perhaps you wouldn't) that the brighter
>pupils get really wound up about these ideas:


	Not at all surprised.  There is, for example, enough maths
in the "structure" of the real line, within the capacity of a bright
A-level student, to keep them occupied for weeks.  But *none* of it
penetrates into normal school maths -- we're effectively back with
Newton -- the real numbers "flow equably" along the x-axis, with the
rationals embedded like dense little plums in the middle.


>					       maybe I am part of a
>minority - but is it so small?


	Well, yes.  With fewer qualified maths teachers than schools,
most maths teaching, and especially the really critical teaching in
primary and middle years, is being done by people who know diddly-
squat about mathematics, and all too often *hate* it.  The private
sector and 6FCs are mostly better endowed, but the damage has been
done lower down.  And the truly horrible GCSE/AS/A2 revision guides
just make matters worse, no matter how "useful" they are to weakish
students who just want the grade;  they are anti-education for the
bright/interested students.

	Worth bearing in mind too that the dragooned maths teachers
are not even the weaker physicists or engineers, who at least know
the importance of maths, even if they are not themselves very good
at it;  for they can get good jobs in engineering.

-- 
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
anw@maths.nott.ac.uk

"Dr A. N. Walker"  wrote in message 
news:d19fti$kv8$2@oyez.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk...

> In article ,
> Stuart Williams   wrote:
>>        maybe I am part of a
>>minority - but is it so small?
>
> Well, yes.  With fewer qualified maths teachers than schools,
> most maths teaching, and especially the really critical teaching in
> primary and middle years, is being done by people who know diddly-
> squat about mathematics, and all too often *hate* it.  The private


I don't see the logic of going into something that you *hate*. The pay in 
the public sector is not exactly good. My tutor has said exactly what you 
have said too, "teachers who teach mathematics at schools are often 
underqualified", but what I don't understand is don't half of them have to 
have a degree in mathematics as a requirement - in order to teach it in the 
first place?


> sector and 6FCs are mostly better endowed, but the damage has been
> done lower down.  And the truly horrible GCSE/AS/A2 revision guides
> just make matters worse, no matter how "useful" they are to weakish
> students who just want the grade;  they are anti-education for the
> bright/interested students.


I agree, it isn't fair. From my experience, many of the teachers I have had 
just taught mathematics like how teachers would teach subjects such as 
english. By encouraging students to learn a set list of formulae, rules and 
then not really linking one topic to another, or making sure that all 
students have a proper understanding of the theory. This made life so 
difficult for us, because we were encouraged to treat mathematics in a 
"robotic way" where when the questions got harder and did require an 
understanding - we just couldnt do them. Our foundations wasn't there, and 
life just got harder as things were added on.

In article <d19itb$8km$1@hercules.btinternet.com>,
Samsonknight  wrote:

>I don't see the logic of going into something that you *hate*.


	It is perfectly possible to love teaching and hate some of
the things you have to teach.  In primary education, it is normal
for teachers to be Jacks/Jills of all trades;  they are assumed
to be able to teach English and geography and history and ... and
maths to the level needed for [eg] 10yos.  Whether this works OK
for history is beyond my knowledge.  For maths it certainly doesn't,
so that children are taught maths not as it really as but as some
reasonably-intelligent-but-otherwise-random person vaguely recalls
it from their attempts at O-level/GCSE.


> [...], but what I don't understand is don't half of them have to
>have a degree in mathematics as a requirement [...]


	How to empty schools in one easy lesson ....  Look, in the
70s, around 30% of our [maths] graduates went into teaching, often
lured by accelerated promotion.  Then the computing boom and the
financial boom came along, and mathematicians started to earn Big
Money everywhere except teaching.  Unsurprisingly, the numbers going
into teaching dropped, to around 2%.  Following the Smith report,
they are somewhat back up, 6% according to our most recent confirmed
figures, perhaps even 10% now [I have written more references for
admission to teaching courses this year than for the previous decade];
but of course this is just as the '70s boom is retiring, so we are
still not keeping pace.  Private schools and 6FCs offer the best
environment, so they can usually recruit.  Other schools get the
dregs or nothing.  You have 4C expecting to be taught maths.  Your
job advert gets *no* response.  Your choice -- you can teach them
no maths at all, or you can press-gang a botanist or a historian
into the job.  Either way, you get the consequences [snipped] that
you describe.

-- 
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
anw@maths.nott.ac.uk

"Samsonknight"  wrote in message
news:d19itb$8km$1@hercules.btinternet.com...

>
> "Dr A. N. Walker"  wrote in message
> news:d19fti$kv8$2@oyez.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk...
> > In article ,
> > Stuart Williams   wrote:
> >>        maybe I am part of a
> >>minority - but is it so small?
> >
> > Well, yes.  With fewer qualified maths teachers than schools,
> > most maths teaching, and especially the really critical teaching in
> > primary and middle years, is being done by people who know diddly-
> > squat about mathematics, and all too often *hate* it.  The private
>
> I don't see the logic of going into something that you *hate*. The pay in
> the public sector is not exactly good. My tutor has said exactly what you
> have said too, "teachers who teach mathematics at schools are often
> underqualified", but what I don't understand is don't half of them have to
> have a degree in mathematics as a requirement - in order to teach it in
the
> first place?


No, in the State sector you need a degree (in anything) and a teaching
qualification (e.g. PGCE).  Once qualifed to teach, you can teach anything.


>
> > sector and 6FCs are mostly better endowed, but the damage has been
> > done lower down.  And the truly horrible GCSE/AS/A2 revision guides
> > just make matters worse, no matter how "useful" they are to weakish
> > students who just want the grade;  they are anti-education for the
> > bright/interested students.
>
> I agree, it isn't fair. From my experience, many of the teachers I have
had
> just taught mathematics like how teachers would teach subjects such as
> english. By encouraging students to learn a set list of formulae, rules
and
> then not really linking one topic to another, or making sure that all
> students have a proper understanding of the theory. This made life so
> difficult for us, because we were encouraged to treat mathematics in a
> "robotic way" where when the questions got harder and did require an
> understanding - we just couldnt do them. Our foundations wasn't there, and
> life just got harder as things were added on.


If they only had five hours of contact time each week, then they have no
choice but to blast their way through the syllabus.


-- 
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

> > [...], but what I don't understand is don't half of them have to
> >have a degree in mathematics as a requirement [...]
>
> How to empty schools in one easy lesson ....  Look, in the
> 70s, around 30% of our [maths] graduates went into teaching, often
> lured by accelerated promotion.  Then the computing boom and the
> financial boom came along, and mathematicians started to earn Big
> Money everywhere except teaching.  Unsurprisingly, the numbers going
> into teaching dropped, to around 2%.


Really?  That is a surprise to me.


-- 
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

"John Porcella"  wrote in message 
news:d1ail9$t74$1@titan.btinternet.com...

>
> "Samsonknight"  wrote in message
> news:d19itb$8km$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
>>
>> "Dr A. N. Walker"  wrote in message
>> news:d19fti$kv8$2@oyez.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk...
>> > In article ,
>> > Stuart Williams   wrote:
>> >>        maybe I am part of a
>> >>minority - but is it so small?
>> >
>> > Well, yes.  With fewer qualified maths teachers than schools,
>> > most maths teaching, and especially the really critical teaching in
>> > primary and middle years, is being done by people who know diddly-
>> > squat about mathematics, and all too often *hate* it.  The private
>>
>> I don't see the logic of going into something that you *hate*. The pay in
>> the public sector is not exactly good. My tutor has said exactly what you
>> have said too, "teachers who teach mathematics at schools are often
>> underqualified", but what I don't understand is don't half of them have 
>> to
>> have a degree in mathematics as a requirement - in order to teach it in
> the
>> first place?
>
> No, in the State sector you need a degree (in anything) and a teaching
> qualification (e.g. PGCE).  Once qualifed to teach, you can teach 
> anything.
>
>>
>> > sector and 6FCs are mostly better endowed, but the damage has been
>> > done lower down.  And the truly horrible GCSE/AS/A2 revision guides
>> > just make matters worse, no matter how "useful" they are to weakish
>> > students who just want the grade;  they are anti-education for the
>> > bright/interested students.
>>
>> I agree, it isn't fair. From my experience, many of the teachers I have
> had
>> just taught mathematics like how teachers would teach subjects such as
>> english. By encouraging students to learn a set list of formulae, rules
> and
>> then not really linking one topic to another, or making sure that all
>> students have a proper understanding of the theory. This made life so
>> difficult for us, because we were encouraged to treat mathematics in a
>> "robotic way" where when the questions got harder and did require an
>> understanding - we just couldnt do them. Our foundations wasn't there, 
>> and
>> life just got harder as things were added on.
>
> If they only had five hours of contact time each week, then they have no
> choice but to blast their way through the syllabus.
>


The above still doesn't justify their poor teaching in my view. In respect 
to the way math's was taught in my old school.

WE had a few good teachers but the standard procedure for many teachers at 
my old school was: Spend 20 minutes learning the concepts behind the topic; 
then learn the formulae in that topic and do some exercises, then move onto 
another topic where the teacher makes absolutely no effort to link that 
topic to x other topic. It also does not help when math's teachers patronize 
you, because you asked an elementary question that they *assumed* that you 
should know.

It's bad for your confidence in the subject. Which in turn can cause 
problems, as the student ends up lacking creativity and flair in the subject 
because he/she is too scared to try different approaches to a problem in 
case they get the wrong answer - or he/she doesn't know what on earth they 
are doing, due to shakey unresolved problems in their foundations..



Math's and I am sure you will agree is all about understanding, which is why 
I think teachers should be much more understanding. However, it is ironic 
that Mathematics in my old school (and I am sure in many other schools) was 
the reverse of that, we had less understanding/patient teachers then in lets 
say English, History or Science....



>
> -- 
> MESSAGE ENDS.
> John Porcella
>
> 

> > If they only had five hours of contact time each week, then they have no
> > choice but to blast their way through the syllabus.
> >
>
> The above still doesn't justify their poor teaching in my view.


I cannot agree with poor teaching, it serves nobody, that is for certain.

In respect

> to the way math's was taught in my old school.
>
> WE had a few good teachers but the standard procedure for many teachers at
> my old school was: Spend 20 minutes learning the concepts behind the
topic;
> then learn the formulae in that topic and do some exercises, then move
onto
> another topic where the teacher makes absolutely no effort to link that
> topic to x other topic. It also does not help when math's teachers
patronize
> you, because you asked an elementary question that they *assumed* that you
> should know.


My own mathematics tutor was forever telling me that something that I asked
was "assumed knowledge" and my standard response was to tell him that
assumptions are dangerous and then he would teach me what I was thought to
know already.


>
> It's bad for your confidence in the subject.


For many, I agree.

 Which in turn can cause

> problems, as the student ends up lacking creativity and flair in the
subject
> because he/she is too scared to try different approaches to a problem in
> case they get the wrong answer - or he/she doesn't know what on earth they
> are doing, due to shakey unresolved problems in their foundations..


Difficult to disagree.



> Math's and I am sure you will agree is all about understanding,


For the level that we are doing it, it is about method and accuracy, which
display some understanding.

 which is why

> I think teachers should be much more understanding. However, it is ironic
> that Mathematics in my old school (and I am sure in many other schools)
was
> the reverse of that, we had less understanding/patient teachers then in
lets
> say English, History or Science....


I wonder if that is because the mathematics syllabus at A level has been
harder than other subjects?


-- 
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

"John Porcella"  wrote in message 
news:d1k69j$hth$1@sparta.btinternet.com...

>
>> > If they only had five hours of contact time each week, then they have 
>> > no
>> > choice but to blast their way through the syllabus.
>> >
>>
>> The above still doesn't justify their poor teaching in my view.
>
> I cannot agree with poor teaching, it serves nobody, that is for certain.
>
> In respect
>> to the way math's was taught in my old school.
>>
>> WE had a few good teachers but the standard procedure for many teachers 
>> at
>> my old school was: Spend 20 minutes learning the concepts behind the
> topic;
>> then learn the formulae in that topic and do some exercises, then move
> onto
>> another topic where the teacher makes absolutely no effort to link that
>> topic to x other topic. It also does not help when math's teachers
> patronize
>> you, because you asked an elementary question that they *assumed* that 
>> you
>> should know.
>
> My own mathematics tutor was forever telling me that something that I 
> asked
> was "assumed knowledge" and my standard response was to tell him that
> assumptions are dangerous and then he would teach me what I was thought to
> know already.
>


I agree. Yes in theory we should know so and so, but if we don't then there 
is no point moaning about it like some do. It would be a lot quicker and 
much more beneficial as you said if the problem was reinforced right there 
and then.


>>
>> It's bad for your confidence in the subject.
>
> For many, I agree.
>
> Which in turn can cause
>> problems, as the student ends up lacking creativity and flair in the
> subject
>> because he/she is too scared to try different approaches to a problem in
>> case they get the wrong answer - or he/she doesn't know what on earth 
>> they
>> are doing, due to shakey unresolved problems in their foundations..
>
> Difficult to disagree.
>
>
>> Math's and I am sure you will agree is all about understanding,
>
> For the level that we are doing it, it is about method and accuracy, which
> display some understanding.
>
> which is why
>> I think teachers should be much more understanding. However, it is ironic
>> that Mathematics in my old school (and I am sure in many other schools)
> was
>> the reverse of that, we had less understanding/patient teachers then in
> lets
>> say English, History or Science....
>
> I wonder if that is because the mathematics syllabus at A level has been
> harder than other subjects?
>


Theres too much arrogance in the way mathematics is taught. I really don't 
know why, but some teachers that teach mathematics expect us all to be 
geniuses in the respect that we should *get* every mathematical concept 
first time round. When in reality, only a handful are able to get 
mathematical concepts first time round. But for the rest of us, it takes 
time for things to *click*, and that is the most important part of AL 
Mathematics. After this happens, everything else seems to falls into place.

I found Mechanics 1 harder then C3, only because with Mechanics everything 
was new, whereas C3 built upon the theories in C1 and C2. Similarly I found 
P1 (C1,and a tiny bit of C2) much harder then C3 & the latter part of C2, 
due to the time it took to think of mathematics in a mathematics sort of 
way.

In other subjects, the arrogance is less and the teachers are much more 
sympathetic towards the student if he/she doesn't understand "something". 
Primarily due to the lack of impatientness and the whole "assumption" balava 
as stated above.


>
> -- 
> MESSAGE ENDS.
> John Porcella
>
>