What do/did mathematics exams look like on your college (engieering departments)?

[Bouzoo]

1 minute ago, captain_to_fire said:

I don't think one can learn how to solve a quadratic equation simply by staring at the quadratic equation or at the difference of two squares. It requires practicing sample questions typically provided by textbooks or by the professor. In fact, the best way to memorize a formula or a theorem is by practicing like how can the quadratic equation be derived from ax² + bx + c = 0?

You misinterpreted what I said. I said, for solving problems/equations, you need to practice, there is no other way. For pure theory, theorems, definitions, axioms, etc., you have to memorize those, at least the theory part. 

[porina]

My current day job is in the electronic engineering field. Following are my impressions on how maths fits in with where I am today.

 

In the UK, the two years before going to do a degree at university are traditionally taken up by A-levels (there are other routes also). Generally this involves picking at least 3 subjects of interest to study. I chose physics, chemistry and mathematics as my useful ones. I was great at maths up to this point, but this was my wall. Calculus just didn't sit well with me and I found it a struggle. Of the sciences physics was my strong point, and I had hoped to take it further but felt that my opportunities would be limited by my math ability. In the end I got a C grade in maths, which is considered to be an acceptable grade to pass with. Not the best, not the worst. Lower grades are still technically a pass, but not considered a good pass.

 

After consideration I chose to do a degree in electronic engineering (BEng), as one of the practical implementations of physics. There was math as part of that course, and I found it comparable to what I had seen already. The theoretical parts sent me to sleep, but at other times we also saw how that math fitted in with how stuff works. For example, complex numbers were no longer an abstract concept, but were part of describing and predicting how things would behave. The two kinda went together and that helps. Doing something is a lot easier when it has a point behind it.

 

There were low level derivations and proofs, but you see them once and file it away in the back of the mind. I doubt I can remember many of them, let alone repeat it if needed.

 

Think I saw the comment earlier, engineering is kinda making something out of knowledge and tools. It isn't just knowing things but also the mindset that allows you to put it together when you might have incomplete or partial information. I suppose that is a difference from pure mathematics. As an engineer, you don't necessarily need to describe everything in perfect detail. You need to know what is important for the end result. Focusing on unnecessary detail could be a disadvantage in that respect.

 

I still learn things all the time on the job. Although I got the degree in electronic engineering, where I work has ended up taking me also along a parallel path with acoustics. I never formally studied that to a recognised level, but with building blocks in place it can be picked up.

 

The level of hands-on maths is relatively low for what I do. Most common is simply rearranging equations, so I can find an unknown with other known values for example. Extremely rarely I might have to do something more complex, but in general there are tools available to help with that. You don't necessarily need to work the equations yourself, but still have to have an understanding of what does what to make sense of it. Tools could include simulators, or doing it experimentally rather than theoretically. Depends on the circumstances.

 

If there is one thing I would do differently, is taking statistics further when I had the chance. I only have a very basic understanding, and at times I wish I understood it a bit better. I probably could get a work paid for course if I were so motivated, but instead put my share of the training budget into other areas like (computer) networking.

[Lord Vile]

On 12/8/2018 at 1:56 PM, MyName13 said:

Do you have any examples of your tests?I assume you covered limits and calculus, were you supposed to solve some convoluted limits, derivations and integrals or was it something else (theory or some easy to medium hard problems)?

Lived with a guy that did a maths degree and there was a surprising amount of computer related stuff 

[Dash Lambda]

Just to put my two cents in:

 

There are two types of math you'll use as an engineer:

 

There's the tool math, which consists of plug'n'chug software tools and/or formulas, which would be silly to figure out every time and so are prepared for your usage such that you don't need to think about it. This is the equivalent of pulling out a calculator because you have more important things to think about than each step of 638*799.32. With minimal training, anyone can be taught to use these tools proficiently.

 

Then there's problem-solving math. This is a way of thinking, and is what you get paid for as an engineer. It isn't the ability to re-derive one of your tools for shits and giggles, it's the ability to think about a solution to your problem in terms of the actual mechanics at play and understand what different factors and features in the design do.

 

For an example: Let's say you're a mechanical engineer working on an engine.
- Anyone can answer the question "is this engine balanced?" with the correct tools. It's simply a matter of observation.

- A mathematician should be able to answer "why isn't this engine balanced?", because such an answer requires delving into the actual geometry of the system and understanding how the parts interact.

- An engineer should answer the question "how do I balance this engine?", using a great enough understanding of how the system works at the most fundamental levels to not only explain the problem, but solve it.

 

In essence, an engineer (a good one, at least) uses mathematics as a way of thinking about the world rigorously. It is not merely a tool, it is the most fundamental component of how they solve problems. You can't do that with only a cursory understanding of the math involved.

 

On 12/12/2018 at 11:57 AM, JoeyDM said:

The shit you're learning is nowhere near the level of a mathematician, stop repeating that. You're learning engineer-level math, nothing more.

Oh god yes.

 

Modern math goes into shit like analytic continuation, abstract algebra, tensor calculus, and tons of other way more specific and advanced topics.

 

To my knowledge, every mathematician who's contributed significantly to the characterization and measure of infinities has ended up going insane. Fluid dynamics has a similar problem.

[MyName13]

11 hours ago, Dash Lambda said:

Just to put my two cents in:

 

There are two types of math you'll use as an engineer:

 

There's the tool math, which consists of plug'n'chug software tools and/or formulas, which would be silly to figure out every time and so are prepared for your usage such that you don't need to think about it. This is the equivalent of pulling out a calculator because you have more important things to think about than each step of 638*799.32. With minimal training, anyone can be taught to use these tools proficiently.

 

Then there's problem-solving math. This is a way of thinking, and is what you get paid for as an engineer. It isn't the ability to re-derive one of your tools for shits and giggles, it's the ability to think about a solution to your problem in terms of the actual mechanics at play and understand what different factors and features in the design do.

 

For an example: Let's say you're a mechanical engineer working on an engine.
- Anyone can answer the question "is this engine balanced?" with the correct tools. It's simply a matter of observation.

- A mathematician should be able to answer "why isn't this engine balanced?", because such an answer requires delving into the actual geometry of the system and understanding how the parts interact.

- An engineer should answer the question "how do I balance this engine?", using a great enough understanding of how the system works at the most fundamental levels to not only explain the problem, but solve it.

 

In essence, an engineer (a good one, at least) uses mathematics as a way of thinking about the world rigorously. It is not merely a tool, it is the most fundamental component of how they solve problems. You can't do that with only a cursory understanding of the math involved.

 

 

Damn, this thread is ancient.

 

Anyway, there was no understanding in this thread back then nor is there understanding now.When mathematics is taught the wrong way there is no "mathematical / critical thinking".In the 4 semesters of mathematics I've attended (single variable calculus + very basic things about differential equations that can be solved by hand + very basic linear algebra + pretty crappy discrete mathematics course that barely covered some basic terminology of graphs+ some weird mixture of intro to probability and statistics and numerical mathematics) there was no development of student's thinking (unfortunately the same thing is same in elementary and middle education).Theory lectures are all about presenting definitions, theorems and dumping proofs without even bothering to explain what these things represent and how one should arrive to these proofs.The rest is about solving problem sets (which is 70% of the grade) where quantity beats quality.Problem sets are all about calculating things by hand as fast as possible and not giving some good problems that make you think and help you progress in the art of problem solving.

I've noticed, from many textbooks I've found on Amazon, that things aren't any better even outside my university.Most mathematics textbooks are very terse and don't even bother to explain why something was introduced in the first place.The main structure is: definition, theorem, proof, repeat.

 

Regarding your example of engineer's perspective, mathematics alone can't help without knowing what the system is and how it works.

 

Again, what I should have mentioned over a year ago is that there is no problem solving mathematics on my university which is why there was so much misunderstanding in this thread.

16 hours ago, goodman2020 said:

This is insane. What do you think engineers do? What field of engineering are you even talking about? Mechanical? Chemical? Electrical? Do you think they just play around with CNCs and motors, or chemicals all day? You do all of the work on paper, including the diagrams and (if applicable) mathematically proving your process... Then put it to somebody else for fabrication.

See above.By the way, what do you mean on paper?Isn't it all done on computers today (I assume that most processes are so complex that they have to be modeled by computers)?How is some mechanical / chemical / electrical process mathematically proved (you make it sound as if it is pure mathematics without any involvement of theory from the area of interest, be it mechanical, electrical or other engineering)?

By the way, what does using mathematics to model the problem have to do with proving theorems in this case?

12 hours ago, comander said:

I did math-econ with a heavy dose of stats.

lots of proofs.

Same as above.Regarding proofs, they are useless if they and rigor get in the way of actually understanding what is going on.

[mr moose]

why is this post from 2 years ago

On 12/13/2018 at 3:57 AM, JoeyDM said:

This is insane. What do you think engineers do? What field of engineering are you even talking about? Mechanical? Chemical? Electrical? Do you think they just play around with CNCs and motors, or chemicals all day? You do all of the work on paper, including the diagrams and (if applicable) mathematically proving your process... Then put it to somebody else for fabrication. 

 

And FYI - the shit you're learning is nowhere near the level of a mathematician, stop repeating that. You're learning engineer-level math, nothing more.

 

thee same as this post form 17 hours ago?

17 hours ago, goodman2020 said:

This is insane. What do you think engineers do? What field of engineering are you even talking about? Mechanical? Chemical? Electrical? Do you think they just play around with CNCs and motors, or chemicals all day? You do all of the work on paper, including the diagrams and (if applicable) mathematically proving your process... Then put it to somebody else for fabrication.

 

 

Copy paste?  thread necro with copy and paste?  Glitch in the space time control circuits?

 

 

Also I did the math component of EE way back in 1993, I don't remember anything about it now except it was so fucking hard only 60% of the class passed.  It was a decent length exam too.  I know my brain hurt after it.

[Dash Lambda]

2 hours ago, MyName13 said:

Damn, this thread is ancient.

Oh damn, I didn't even notice. I see a topic on the first page and I just sort of assume it's relatively recent.

[MyName13]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

why is this post from 2 years ago

thee same as this post form 17 hours ago?

Copy paste?  thread necro with copy and paste?  Glitch in the space time control circuits?

 

Also I did the math component of EE way back in 1993, I don't remember anything about it now except it was so fucking hard only 60% of the class passed.  It was a decent length exam too.  I know my brain hurt after it.

That's weird...

"only" 60%?Damn, it's 15% up to 30% at my college.

[mr moose]

11 hours ago, MyName13 said:

That's weird...

"only" 60%?Damn, it's 15% up to 30% at my college.

is that 30% pass rate?   60% is atrocious it should be closer to 80-90% pass rate with. Must be a sign of the times because as the pass rate was so low the college decided their was an issue with the test and made the entire class resit.    turns out there wasn't an issue with test but with the lecture material.  As the second sitting was closer 80%.  The few who failed had to undergo some intense tutoring to get them over the line.

[MyName13]

On 4/17/2020 at 2:38 AM, mr moose said:

is that 30% pass rate?   60% is atrocious it should be closer to 80-90% pass rate with. Must be a sign of the times because as the pass rate was so low the college decided their was an issue with the test and made the entire class resit.    turns out there wasn't an issue with test but with the lecture material.  As the second sitting was closer 80%.  The few who failed had to undergo some intense tutoring to get them over the line.

I'm not so sure.The generation after me had a pass rate of 6% on the first mathematics course (something I've never seen so far, pass rate in my generation was under 50%).On another subject (fundamentals of electrical eng.) pass rate was 13% on the first test (out of 3) but course pass rate was slightly under 50%.I should remind you that this is all in the first year (and first semester).Pass rate is even worse on second mathematics course (2nd semester).There is some disturbing tendency on most colleges in my country to filter people as much as possible.The wonders of public education in 3rd world countries...

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, MyName13 said:

I'm not so sure.The generation after me had a pass rate of 6% on the first mathematics course (something I've never seen so far, pass rate in my generation was under 50%).On another subject (fundamentals of electrical eng.) pass rate was 13% on the first test (out of 3) but course pass rate was slightly under 50%.I should remind you that this is all in the first year (and first semester).Pass rate is even worse on second mathematics course (2nd semester).There is some disturbing tendency on most colleges in my country to filter people as much as possible.The wonders of public education in 3rd world countries...

I watched a sixty symbols video a little while ago were a lot of the professors at Nottingham were claiming the current education system (in the UK) does not provide an adequate education for entry into physics. I wonder if its the same for math and engineering.

[Spotty]

On 4/16/2020 at 9:49 PM, mr moose said:

why is this post from 2 years ago

 

thee same as this post form 17 hours ago?

 

 

Copy paste?  thread necro with copy and paste?  Glitch in the space time control circuits?

It's spam.

Spammers copy and paste someone else's post so that way it looks like a normal post and then go back and edit it to spam days or even weeks later. This spam appeared to be for a dodgy site selling exams/fake certifications, hence why they targeted this thread about engineering exams from 2018.

 

If you ever see such strange posts, in particular reviving old threads, please report them.

[MyName13]

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

I watched a sixty symbols video a little while ago were a lot of the professors at Nottingham were claiming the current education system (in the UK) does not provide an adequate education for entry into physics. I wonder if its the same for math and engineering.

If I understood them correctly, mathematics is the main issue.It's sad to see that teaching mathematics is a universally bad skill, but I'm not surprised.Students are first supposed to learn the theory without asking why it's important and use it some time later.It seems that, most of the time, there is no connection between mathematics and applied mathematics courses.Mathematics is not learned so that it can be used as a tool.