Hey guys, with my course registration opening soon I was just taking a look at my courses and the instructors I could take.

The only courses I really have a choice in are MATH 2Z03 and 2ZZ3.

Based on what my timetable looks like I can pretty much choose freely between Gabardo, Wolkowicz and Atena for 2Z03 and between Garbardo and Stelvitella for 2ZZ3.

So do you guys have any experience with these profs? Anyone I should lean towards/avoid?

It really depends on how you define "good".

Engineers tend to like profs that math students dislike, and vice-versa, since engineering math is more about being told how to do things than math.

With that in mind, I only have experience with Wolkowicz and thought she was the worst math professor I've had at Mac (I thought the rest were all good to very good). However, you may find that (because of what I said above) she's actually excellent, so...

Originally Posted by Mahratta

It really depends on how you define "good".

Engineers tend to like profs that math students dislike, and vice-versa, since engineering math is more about being told how to do things than math.

With that in mind, I only have experience with Wolkowicz and thought she was the worst math professor I've had at Mac (I thought the rest were all good to very good). However, you may find that (because of what I said above) she's actually excellent, so...

hahaha!!! Alright, I'll keep that in mind I suppose, but thanks for the feedback anyways

Originally Posted by Mahratta

engineering math is more about being told how to do things than math

What do you mean by that ? Math is about how to do things rather than to do math ? What an insightful analysis.

Originally Posted by Icecream

What do you mean by that ? Math is about how to do things rather than to do math ? What an insightful analysis.

'Engineering math' is more about learning how to do things than learning 'math'. You clearly don't understand mathematics, thus you don't understand my sentence.

EDIT: I would say more, but I'm sure you'll report it and I'll end up getting another infraction for "trolling".

I think you're SOL here.

Unfortunately, Atena's teaching skills can't be reliably criticized because only the three students sitting in the front row could hear what he was saying, and two of them couldn't hear past his accent. Everyone else in the class stopped showing up, so I guess in theory it's possible he's a brilliant prof in disguise. I wouldn't take the chance with him though.

I never had Gabardo, but I think everyone going into third-year math can tell you about how he is. I haven't heard good things, but you really don't have a lot of options right now. I'd take the chance with Stelvitella term two though.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

'Engineering math' is more about learning how to do things than learning 'math'. You clearly don't understand mathematics, thus you don't understand my sentence.

I would say more, but I'm sure you'll report it and I'll end up getting an infraction for no apparent reason.

I am sure Moderators don't give infractions for no reason.

Anyway, a thing is generally defined as an object (physical). I still don't see how solving a mathematical problem is going to do a "thing". No, I have taken Eng Math courses and they don't teach you design at all.

You clearly don't understand what engineering is.

How is solving a PDE not math ? Maybe Mathematics means Pure Mathematics for you. Applied Mathematics is still "math".

EDIT : The only thing you have done is throw in the word "math" and "things" without really understanding what they mean.

Originally Posted by Icecream

How is solving a PDE not math ?

This is a poorly-posed question, and justifies my earlier claim that you don't understand mathematics. 'Solving' a PDE can be taken in two ways:
(i) Following a given algorithm - this is what you would learn how to do in a PDE course for engineering
(ii) Defining algorithms - this is what you would learn how to do in a PDE course for math

Note that (ii) would be in the domain of so-called 'applied math'.

The two are equivalent if you think that, say, following the process of sentence-formation is equivalent to writing a short story, which is a ridiculous position to maintain.

I do realize that you will (I'm beginning to think, intentionally) misunderstand this post and go on a random tangent, so don't expect me to respond to your next post.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

It really depends on how you define "good".

Engineers tend to like profs that math students dislike, and vice-versa, since engineering math is more about being told how to do things than math.

With that in mind, I only have experience with Wolkowicz and thought she was the worst math professor I've had at Mac (I thought the rest were all good to very good). However, you may find that (because of what I said above) she's actually excellent, so...

This is sorta true, after doing both courses it seemed like I didn't really learn anything except a series of steps to solve a given problem. With that said, I didn't like any of the profs.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

This is a poorly-posed question, and justifies my earlier claim that you don't understand mathematics. 'Solving' a PDE can be taken in two ways:
(i) Following a given algorithm - this is what you would learn how to do in a PDE course for engineering
(ii) Defining algorithms - this is what you would learn how to do in a PDE course for math

Note that (ii) would be in the domain of so-called 'applied math'.

Using the Red Herring again ?

You said engineering math is not about doing "math".

Let me define mathematics for you.

Mathematics :"Study of quantity, space, structure, change...". It is like a science. However, Mathematics are different from sciences in some ways. For instance, Physics gathers evidence to affirm a theory.

We do apply the results of that stud to some problems and solve them. Thus, doing "math". Well, the sentence you used earlier didn't make sense in the first place. "Doing math" is invalid.

Either way, you were wrong to claim that engineering math is about doing things. I still would like to do design rather than solving DEs.

Originally Posted by Parminder S

This is sorta true, after doing both courses it seemed like I didn't really learn anything except a series of steps to solve a given problem. With that said, I didn't like any of the profs.

Well, it's important to remember that engineering is not mathematics. There's no need for engineers to understand mathematical ideas, since one doesn't need to understand an idea to use it.
As an example of this concept, think about calculus. Calculus is actually quite complex in analytical terms, but is not really that difficult to operate within. It's an example of a formal system - something which can be understood (from the inside) by a set of inferential methods, in the case of calculus, the various rules and methods.

While a mathematics student would learn the rules just as an engineering student would, it's not important for the engineering student to learn about the actual nature of the system - or even that it is a system to begin with - because the engineer uses mathematics for its practical utility, while the mathematician justifies and develops mathematics.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

- or even that it is a system to begin with - because the engineer uses mathematics for its practical utility, while the mathematician justifies and develops mathematics.

This is what I was saying the whole time. And this quoted text contradicts the first thing I refuted.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

engineering math is more about being told how to do things than math

Originally Posted by Icecream

And this quoted text contradicts the first thing I refuted.

Uh, no. You just mixed up the frames of reference. When I use 'math', I mean 'math as conceived by someone in mathematics'. Read the rest and you should understand.

Anyway, I've wasted enough time with this. To the ignore list you go.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

Uh, no. You just mixed up the frames of reference. When I use 'math', I mean 'math as conceived by someone in mathematics'.

Well you should have mentioned that in the beginning rather than keep claiming : " You don't understand Math" and trying to get away with a definition.

EDIT : Funny how you are also using the Ignore list. I did not attack you in away way. Rather I attacked your claim that engineering students make physical objects in math classes. This is not true but you seem to be so arrogant, you don't want to admit your mistake. I am not forcing you to reply a question. You are now using pathetic tactics while you could have just ignored my first post.

[quote=Icecream;248448 ]I am sure Moderators don't give infractions for no reason.

[quote]
You would be surprised.