| Respondent: |
|
Benjamin
North |
| Felt
well prepared for class: |
|
yes |
| Comments: |
|
|
| Students
in class were typically: |
|
undergrads |
| Students
were typically of 1 major: |
|
no |
| Name
of major of most students: |
|
|
| Lecturer: |
|
D. Jerison / D. Auroux |
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
4 |
| Recitation
Instructor: |
|
Mark Behrens |
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
4 |
| Other
instructor: |
|
|
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
|
| Comments
on any of the teaching staff: |
|
The lecturers gave competent lectures straight out of the text, and used
humour well. Watching Mark explain Calculus was like watching a child playing
with a favourite toy; he was also helpful and supportive. |
| Recommend
subject for any Cambridge CMI student (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
2 |
| Comments: |
|
Nothing new here for scientists or engineers. |
| Recommend
subject for individuals majoring in subject area (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
3 |
| Comments: |
|
Calculus at the level of 18.02 is a prerequisite for certain papers in Part
IIB. Otherwise, this course is only for the pure maths enthusiast (it picks
up where P6 leaves off). |
| Additional
comments: |
|
Non-Further Mathematicians who need credit for Paper 6 should take the 18.01A-
18.02A sequence in the fall. I reject Hussein's view that 18.023 is preferable
to 18.02 - this course has more problem sets, but it's much easier to get
an A and there are fewer (albeit still too many) physical science examples.
|
| Respondent: |
|
Hussein
Abbasbaiki-Varamin |
| Felt
well prepared for class: |
|
Yes |
| Comments: |
|
|
| Students
in class were typically: |
|
Undergraduate |
| Students
were typically of 1 major: |
|
No |
| Name
of major of most students: |
|
|
| Lecturer: |
|
Prof. Benney |
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
3 |
| Recitation
Instructor: |
|
Prof. Benney |
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
3 |
| Other
instructor: |
|
|
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
|
| Comments
on any of the teaching staff: |
|
Prof. Benney
hosts his own recitations. He is very approachable and quite entertaining,
although progresses at full pace sometimes though some of the more detailed
mathematics taught. |
| Recommend
subject for any Cambridge CMI student (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
3 |
| Comments: |
|
The course
provides a good introduction to multivariate calculus where this is required
in a course. For economists, the course can often seem to lose relevance
when thinking about the sort of mathematics you want to cover for this option,
and is really only useful in particular points when covering certain probability
concepts in statistics classes. |
| Recommend
subject for individuals majoring in subject area (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
2 |
| Comments: |
|
The course
probably covers material already obtained by mathematics majors. It is a
general institute requirement for MIT students, and is generally taken by
a lot of freshmen. |
| Additional
comments: |
|
18.023 IS
CERTAINLY MORE DESIRABLE THAN 18.02. 18.02 requires at least double the
workload to cover exactly the same material: problem sets are far longer
and more frequent, and midterms have a nasty reputation. 18.023, on the
other hand (if you're still interested in taking basic multivariable calculus
of any kind!) has fewer problem sets, in-class midterms and NO FINAL EXAM.
Beware that grade standards tend to be quite high though. |
| Respondent: |
|
Russell
Haresign |
| Felt
well prepared for class: |
|
No |
| Comments: |
|
My knowledge
of single-variable calculus was poor, so I struggled to get up to speed. |
| Students
in class were typically: |
|
Undergraduate |
| Students
were typically of 1 major: |
|
No |
| Name
of major of most students: |
|
|
| Lecturer: |
|
Prof. David
Benney |
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
3 |
| Recitation
Instructor: |
|
Lecturer was
also TA |
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
|
| Other
instructor: |
|
|
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
|
| Comments
on any of the teaching staff: |
|
Prof. Benney
is friendly but goes too fast. |
| Recommend
subject for any Cambridge CMI student (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
3 |
| Comments: |
|
More user-friendly
than 18.02, but no CMI students need this course. |
| Recommend
subject for individuals majoring in subject area (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
3 |
| Comments: |
|
|
| Additional
comments: |
|
Lots of engineering
applications if you want them. |
| Respondent: |
|
Hussein
Abbasbaiki-Varamin |
| Felt
well prepared for class: |
|
Yes |
| Comments: |
|
The topic
area builds on mathematics taught in first year, but to a much greater depth
than you will probably cover in 2nd year economics. No background work necessary. |
| Students
in class were typically: |
|
Undergraduate |
| Students
were typically of 1 major: |
|
No |
| Name
of major of most students: |
|
|
| Lecturer: |
|
Prof. Ingermann |
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
2 |
| Recitation
Instructor: |
|
Mr. Peter
Clifford |
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
5 |
| Other
instructor: |
|
|
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
|
| Comments
on any of the teaching staff: |
|
Peter Clifford
is probably the best TA I had in my year in MIT. Try and sign up for his
recitations if possible - the class also does review sessions before midterms
that he occasionally takes. |
| Recommend
subject for any Cambridge CMI student (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
4 |
| Comments: |
|
The linear
algebra class is a comprehensive introduction: ideal for 2nd year Economists
wanting to cover the mathematics option. More advanced linear algebra courses
are also available, but beyond what is needed for such economists. |
| Recommend
subject for individuals majoring in subject area (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
3 |
| Comments: |
|
The course
is a general introduction, probably covering material mathematicians have
laready looked at. Recommended though for anyone looking to cover this material
in other disciplines (some applications are looked at but not many) |
| Additional
comments: |
|
The class
is well-organised: problem sets are due weekly and three short midterms
precede the final. It is taken by a large range of MIT students. |
| Respondent: |
|
Russell
Haresign |
| Felt
well prepared for class: |
|
No |
| Comments: |
|
Students were
assumed to be comfortable with basic maths, which I was not! |
| Students
in class were typically: |
|
Undergraduate |
| Students
were typically of 1 major: |
|
No |
| Name
of major of most students: |
|
|
| Lecturer: |
|
David Ingerman |
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
2 |
| Recitation
Instructor: |
|
Wei Luo |
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
3 |
| Other
instructor: |
|
Peter Clifford |
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
5 |
| Comments
on any of the teaching staff: |
|
Ingerman is
clever but out of it. Peter Clifford, on the other hand, is the perfect
TA. |
| Recommend
subject for any Cambridge CMI student (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
4 |
| Comments: |
|
If you want
to Linear Algebra thoroughly, this is the course. If you just want some
introductory material for your other major, it's probably too much. |
| Recommend
subject for individuals majoring in subject area (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
3 |
| Comments: |
|
|
| Additional
comments: |
|
|
| Respondent: |
|
Benjamin
North |
| Felt
well prepared for class: |
|
|
| Comments: |
|
None |
| Students
in class were typically: |
|
undergrads |
| Students
were typically of 1 major: |
|
|
| Name
of major of most students: |
|
|
| Lecturer: |
|
Michel Goemans |
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
4 |
| Recitation
Instructor: |
|
Shelley Harvey |
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
3 |
| Other
instructor: |
|
|
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
|
| Comments
on any of the teaching staff: |
|
Michel Goemans was a distinct improvement over Prof Ingermann, though he
often got overenthusiastic and digressed. Shelley was sometimes helpful,
but other times seemed uninterested (and once lost work). |
| Recommend
subject for any Cambridge CMI student (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
3 |
| Comments: |
|
Could be useful. |
| Recommend
subject for individuals majoring in subject area (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
3 |
| Comments: |
|
Required for those needing credit for Paper 6 (you could take 18.700 instead
but I don't recommend it). The course is accessible to - but may not interest
- others. |
| Additional
comments: |
|
|
| Respondent: |
|
Rahim Karim |
| Felt well prepared for class: |
|
yes |
| Comments: |
|
For most parts. There were some parts towrad the end tahn need more serious calculus that was covered in maths A-Level which made parts harder than might otherwise be the case. |
| Students in class were typically: |
|
undergraduates |
| Students were typically of 1 major: |
|
no |
| Name of major of most students: |
|
|
| Lecturer: |
|
Gomez |
| Rating (1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
4 |
| Recitation Instructor: |
|
Shelly |
| Rating (1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
4 |
| Other instructor: |
|
|
| Rating (1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
|
| Comments on any of the teaching staff: |
|
|
| Recommend subject for any Cambridge CMI student (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
4 |
| Comments: |
|
It was a good class to take if you havent got a great maths background but want to take a class more demanding than calculus |
| Recommend subject for individuals majoring in subject area (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
1 |
| Comments: |
|
You guys have probaly done stuff like this already - its quite basic stuff. |
| Additional comments: |
|
I did this course to try and make up for some of the thing I was going to miss by not taking the Part IIA Maths for Economists papers. It seemed fairly usefully espcially for some of the econometrics we did in 14.32. |
|
|
|
| Respondent: |
|
Maurice
Blount |
| Felt
well prepared for class: |
|
|
| Comments: |
|
This roughly covers the first half of the Methods course. |
| Students
in class were typically: |
|
undergrads |
| Students
were typically of 1 major: |
|
yes |
| Name
of major of most students: |
|
Course
18 - Mathematics |
| Lecturer: |
|
Neil Balmforth |
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
5 |
| Recitation
Instructor: |
|
|
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
|
| Other
instructor: |
|
|
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
|
| Comments
on any of the teaching staff: |
|
|
| Recommend
subject for any Cambridge CMI student (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
2 |
| Comments: |
|
|
| Recommend
subject for individuals majoring in subject area (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
5 |
| Comments: |
|
|
| Additional
comments: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Respondent: |
|
Maurice
Blount |
| Felt
well prepared for class: |
|
yes |
| Comments: |
|
This was a good introduction to combinatorics, it assumes little prior knowledge
of the subject. |
| Students
in class were typically: |
|
undergrads |
| Students
were typically of 1 major: |
|
yes |
| Name
of major of most students: |
|
Course
18 - Mathematics |
| Lecturer: |
|
Richard Stanley |
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
4 |
| Recitation
Instructor: |
|
|
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
|
| Other
instructor: |
|
|
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
|
| Comments
on any of the teaching staff: |
|
|
| Recommend
subject for any Cambridge CMI student (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
2 |
| Comments: |
|
|
| Recommend
subject for individuals majoring in subject area (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
3 |
| Comments: |
|
I would only recommend this if you are interested in combinatorics. |
| Additional
comments: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Respondent: |
|
Maurice
Blount |
| Felt
well prepared for class: |
|
yes |
| Comments: |
|
This course seems to be a good match for the Cambridge course, and I think
it was more in depth than the Cambridge course would have been. |
| Students
in class were typically: |
|
grads |
| Students
were typically of 1 major: |
|
yes |
| Name
of major of most students: |
|
Course
18 - Mathematics |
| Lecturer: |
|
John Bush |
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
4 |
| Recitation
Instructor: |
|
|
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
|
| Other
instructor: |
|
|
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
|
| Comments
on any of the teaching staff: |
|
|
| Recommend
subject for any Cambridge CMI student (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
2 |
| Comments: |
|
|
| Recommend
subject for individuals majoring in subject area (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
4 |
| Comments: |
|
This course should comprehensively cover the material of the corresponding
Cambridge course |
| Additional
comments: |
|
The problem sets are at times quite hard. |
| Respondent: |
|
Maurice Blount |
| Felt well prepared for class: |
|
yes |
| Comments: |
|
The class was fairly well paced. |
| Students in class were typically: |
|
undergraduates |
| Students were typically of 1 major: |
|
yes |
| Name of major of most students: |
|
Course 18 - Mathematics |
| Lecturer: |
|
Richard Dudley |
| Rating (1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
4 |
| Recitation Instructor: |
|
|
| Rating (1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
|
| Other instructor: |
|
|
| Rating (1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
|
| Comments on any of the teaching staff: |
|
Prof Dudley lectured well, although the pace at times felt slow. |
| Recommend subject for any Cambridge CMI student (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
3 |
| Comments: |
|
This would give you some insight into the theory behind vaious statistical tests. |
| Recommend subject for individuals majoring in subject area (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
4 |
| Comments: |
|
This is a good match for the corresponding Cambridge course. |
| Additional comments: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Respondent: |
|
Maurice Blount |
| Felt well prepared for class: |
|
no |
| Comments: |
|
The course was fast paced - often new concepts were introduced with little explanation, and this made the notes hard to follow |
| Students in class were typically: |
|
grad students |
| Students were typically of 1 major: |
|
no |
| Name of major of most students: |
|
|
| Lecturer: |
|
Daniel Strook |
| Rating (1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
3 |
| Recitation Instructor: |
|
|
| Rating (1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
|
| Other instructor: |
|
|
| Rating (1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
|
| Comments on any of the teaching staff: |
|
|
| Recommend subject for any Cambridge CMI student (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
2 |
| Comments: |
|
If you have an interest in financial analysis this might possibly be useful. |
| Recommend subject for individuals majoring in subject area (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
2 |
| Comments: |
|
The course is challenging and very theoretical. |
| Additional comments: |
|
This years notes are currently online at the professors website-it might be worth looking them over to get an idea of the concepts involved. |
|
|
|
| Respondent: |
|
Jacob
George |
| Felt
well prepared for class: |
|
yes |
| Comments: |
|
|
| Students
in class were typically: |
|
undergrads |
| Students
were typically of 1 major: |
|
yes |
| Name
of major of most students: |
|
Course
18 - Mathematics |
| Lecturer: |
|
M. Artin |
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
4 |
| Recitation
Instructor: |
|
N/A |
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
|
| Other
instructor: |
|
|
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
|
| Comments
on any of the teaching staff: |
|
Artin wrote the book. |
| Recommend
subject for any Cambridge CMI student (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
4 |
| Comments: |
|
For a general introduction to Algebra, it's pretty good. |
| Recommend
subject for individuals majoring in subject area (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
3 |
| Comments: |
|
The last half extends Algebra & Geometry, but if you're willing to do
a little work over Christmas then you can make that up. |
| Additional
comments: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Respondent: |
|
Maurice Blount |
| Felt well prepared for class: |
|
yes |
| Comments: |
|
|
| Students in class were typically: |
|
undergrads |
| Students were typically of 1 major: |
|
yes |
| Name of major of most students: |
|
Course 18 - Mathematics |
| Lecturer: |
|
Prof Lusztig |
| Rating (1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
2 |
| Recitation Instructor: |
|
|
| Rating (1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
|
| Other instructor: |
|
|
| Rating (1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
|
| Comments on any of the teaching staff: |
|
The lecturer was often incomprehensible, although with the book it was usually possible to follow. |
| Recommend subject for any Cambridge CMI student (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
2 |
| Comments: |
|
|
| Recommend subject for individuals majoring in subject area (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
3 |
| Comments: |
|
You can take this course either in the fall or spring. Prof Lusztig covered only the basic concepts of topology, making for an easier, introductory course, whereas Prof Munkres was far more thorough and would have provided better grounding for more advanced courses. |
| Additional comments: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Respondent: |
|
Maurice
Blount |
| Felt
well prepared for class: |
|
|
| Comments: |
|
This course serves as preparation for the Putnam Competition. There are
two classes a week, one of them is a lecture, and the other involves explaining
your problem set solutions to the rest of the class. |
| Students
in class were typically: |
|
undergrads |
| Students
were typically of 1 major: |
|
no |
| Name
of major of most students: |
|
|
| Lecturer: |
|
Richard Stanley |
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
4 |
| Recitation
Instructor: |
|
|
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
|
| Other
instructor: |
|
Hartley Rogers |
| Rating
(1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
3 |
| Comments
on any of the teaching staff: |
|
|
| Recommend
subject for any Cambridge CMI student (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
3 |
| Comments: |
|
Could be interesting if you have any interest in maths, the problems are
quite hard but the course is Pass/Fail. |
| Recommend
subject for individuals majoring in subject area (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
3 |
| Comments: |
|
If you have an interest in entering the Putnam Competition, this class is
useful preparation. |
| Additional
comments: |
|
|
|
|
|