| Respondent: |
|
Thomas Goldring |
| Felt well prepared for class: |
|
Yes |
| Comments: |
|
I did further math for A-level so technically I was well prepared for this course. I actually thought I would coast through it, having a laugh at the poor MIT first years struggling on simple calculus. Unfortunately, it turned out that the freshmen engineers were actually way better than me at calculus |
| Students in class were typically: |
|
|
| Students were typically of 1 major: |
|
no |
| Name of major of most students: |
|
|
| Lecturer: |
|
|
| Rating (1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
|
| Recitation Instructor: |
|
|
| Rating (1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
|
| Other instructor: |
|
|
| Rating (1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
|
| Comments on any of the teaching staff: |
|
Prof. Auroux gained legendary status among the 18.02 crowed as the semester continued. An indication of his popularity was deomonstrated when, in the penultimate lecture, a couple of (admittedly geeky) girls stood up at the end and tried to persuade us to joing the Prof. Auroux fan club on facebook. I kid you not. Auroux was clear and concise, and his handwriting was the neatest of any teacher I've ever met, which was useful in the largest lecture hall at MIT. However, he is French, but its not his fault (and it meant that all the math girls wanted to marry him. literally. it was quite scary).
|
| Recommend subject for any Cambridge CMI student (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
|
| Comments: |
|
|
| Recommend subject for individuals majoring in subject area (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
|
| Comments: |
|
I can't really see any reason for a Cambridge student to take 18.02. The engineers and scientists will have done way wayt beyond this level in introductory multivariate calculus, while the rest (like me) don't need the skills gained for our respective majors. Too many. This class took up A LOT of my time, and I'm not exaggerating this at all. It took up WAY more than a quarter of my time. |
| Additional comments: |
|
Firstly, I side with Ben North's view, that 18.02 is preferable to 18.023. Yes, it amy be slightly more work, but for those of us who know next to no engineering (I had never heard of the term "flux" before i did this class-it turns out to be kinda crucial) the less applications you have to engineer the better! However, I want to try and get across a couple of facts about this class which weren't obvious to me before I did it but should be made so to future people considering the class. Firstly, it is a lot of work. The problem sets were due in mostly weekly on a Thursday morning. It is no exaggeration to say that, for about 6 of the 8, I stayed up until about 3am doing the damn things. Maybe i'm more retarded at math than most, maybe not. But this class is no stroll in the park. Secondly, I will never ever use 98% of what I learnt in this class ever again. I will never do another double or triple integral in my life (that's half the class). I will never use Green's thm again (thank the Lord). My point is, think about whether you really want to spend time learning all this material when there are so many other cool classes available. I mean, there's a 'composing with computers' class i've just discovered... and i chose math. Must be mad.
Thirdly, I would have given up this class once I realised all of the above, but by then i'd done 3 or 4 problem sets and I didn't want to chuck in all that work. It was a stuggle sometimes (at 2.30am on a wednesday night, for example).
Lastly, though, I will just mention that I am the most proud of my grade in this class i think of all my grades so far, simply because i had to work so hard for it! No, I didn't get an 'A', but nevertheless i still look back on it fondly now. It was cool to take the biggest class at MIT in the biggest lecture hall with a large percentage of the freshmen population. So I don't want to sound too negative about the whole experience. Just think carefully before taking the class! |
| 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: |
|
|
| Felt well prepared for class: |
|
Yes |
| Comments: |
|
taught quickly, but no memorization needed |
| Students in class were typically: |
|
|
| Students were typically of 1 major: |
|
yes |
| Name of major of most students: |
|
18 |
| Lecturer: |
|
|
| Rating (1=poor, 5=excellent): |
|
|
| 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: |
|
9 |
| Additional comments: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Respondent: |
|
Yuan Shen |
| Felt well prepared for class: |
|
No |
| Comments: |
|
Deeper Analysis required. You *could* opt for 18.001B which is just their analysis course. It will cover Analysis I, but goes further |
| Students in class were typically: |
|
graduates |
| Students were typically of 1 major: |
|
yes |
| Name of major of most students: |
|
18 |
| Lecturer: |
|
Helgason |
| 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: |
|
[book] Ahlfors: Complex Analysis |
| Recommend subject for any Cambridge CMI student (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
1 |
| Comments: |
|
You will die if you are not a math student. Professor reads from notes/similar to book. The book is deep and reasonalby well written but not user friendly. Hard |
| Recommend subject for individuals majoring in subject area (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
4 |
| Comments: |
|
If you have the guts for it. Try to have at least a first predicted to do this course. |
| Additional comments: |
|
I am doing badly frankly. The concepts are hard, the problem sets are small (so no pressure to learn the stuff). Big % in final |
|
|
|
| Respondent: |
|
John Leung |
| Felt well prepared for class: |
|
yes |
| Comments: |
|
|
| Students in class were typically: |
|
graduates |
| Students were typically of 1 major: |
|
yes |
| Name of major of most students: |
|
course 18 |
| Lecturer: |
|
Inwon Kim |
| 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: |
|
really really good lecturer, but probably not here next year |
| 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: |
|
Yuan Shen |
| Felt well prepared for class: |
|
Yes |
| Comments: |
|
Prepared if you want to do applied maths. Starts off not too difficult...but it progresses. Not easy actually. Very small class. Brings in lots of important method concepts. You could possibly get away with high-school maths since a lot of stuff is redefined. But IA math (vector calc, diff eqns, analysis) is recommended |
| Cambridge Equivalent: |
|
Methods-ie |
| Students in class were typically: |
|
graduates |
| Students were typically of 1 major: |
|
yes |
| Name of major of most students: |
|
18 |
| Lecturer: |
|
Prof. Gigliolo |
| 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): |
|
3 |
| Comments: |
|
You can take it if you need/want to learn methods. Good class, content is not as packed as some others |
| Recommend subject for individuals majoring in subject area (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
4 |
| Comments: |
|
Same comment as above. The normal methods class clashes. The professor is rather clear and helpful |
| Additional comments: |
|
You shouldn't take all rock-solid classes |
|
|
|
| Respondent: |
|
|
| Felt well prepared for class: |
|
Yes |
| Comments: |
|
|
| Cambridge Equivalent: |
|
|
| Students in class were typically: |
|
|
| Students were typically of 1 major: |
|
|
| Name of major of most students: |
|
|
| Lecturer: |
|
Gigliola Staffiliani |
| 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): |
|
3 |
| Comments: |
|
useful for science majors |
| Recommend subject for individuals majoring in subject area (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
2 |
| Comments: |
|
very different course from cambridge methods |
| Additional comments: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Respondent: |
|
John Leung |
| Felt well prepared for class: |
|
no |
| Comments: |
|
have to read up on measure theory stuff |
| Cambridge Equivalent: |
|
probability and measure |
| Students in class were typically: |
|
graduates |
| Students were typically of 1 major: |
|
no |
| Name of major of most students: |
|
|
| Lecturer: |
|
Panchenko |
| 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): |
|
1 |
| Comments: |
|
|
| Recommend subject for individuals majoring in subject area (1=definitely not, 5=definitely): |
|
2 |
| Comments: |
|
too hard |
| Additional comments: |
|
|
|
|
|