Webpage for Math 290 (Elementary Linear Algebra), Line # 25751 Fall 2017, Our Academic Standards - Are We `Lenient'?

Go back to the course webpage:

www.people.ku.edu/~kachi/math17f-290/math17f-290.html

[Our Academic Standards - Are We `Lenient'?]

Always, some students are more successful than others.

Interestingly, some KU students who receive high exam

scores (and a good grade) attribute their success in

their math class to the `leniency' on the part of the

professor. Every semester, a small yet non-negligible

number of KU students unilaterally complain that they have

learned very little in their math classes. (This happens even

to those `well-liked' professors at KU whose names students

fondly talk about.)

Those students are apparently refusing to give a credit to

themselves, for a reason Kachi cannot think of. You might

just say that it is appalling, but this phenomenon is glaring

enough and perhaps warrants a further breakdown. The

following is a `theory':

Kachi suspects that those students are simply reflecting their

math experience in our (North American) K-12 system. It is

certainly understandable that, after going through their

primary and secondary education, one eventually gets an idea

that a math class is supposed to fail many students, and if

it doesn't, then something is going wrong, after having

eye-witnessed so many of their peers actually had to suffer

the ungracious fate. But let's think about it: There is no

logical reason that a math class SHOULD fail many students.

Why can one say that?

You might have never come across with the following line of

thinking, but from a mathematician's standpoint, in a

perfect world, any math lecture should gear toward the

audience who are infinitely ignorant (beyond the

prerequisite materials, of course) and infinitely intelligent.

Mathematicians (= college professors in math = researchers

in mathematics/mathematical science) have a natural

inclination (instincts) to tailor their own math course that

way, if there are no constraints. By the way, this school of

thought is often referred to as (or linked to) the so-called

`Bourbaki-ism' (named after a team of prominent

mathematicians in Paris in the 1950-60s called `Bourbaki').

To stretch it further, in a perfect world, the

math curriculum even in the primary and the secondary

education should have a component to cultivate an

understanding of what that mindset of mathematicians

means and why mathematicians endorse it.

Kachi's observation about some small group of KU students as

mentioned above - if accurate - is an evidence that the K-12

math education, in its current form, does not necessarily

foster (or, it is not compatible with) the general

intellectual climate that encourages such an inquiry. By

the way, that is not a criticism, it simply means that we

don't live in a perfect world. Yet some KU students' palpable

dissatisfaction (disillusion?) with math courses might

perhaps be attributed to the fact that they had never been

exposed to such an intellectual climate, or more specifically,

their unfamiliarity with the ideas behind `Bourbaki-ism',

though, once again, this is just a `theory'.

It will be disproportionate if Kachi does not address another

(polar-opposite) character of some KU students that equally

stands out: Some KU students seemingly consciously choose

to sign up for a particular section of a math course taught

by a particular individual based on the rumors "Professor X

is `lenient', Professor Y is not, .." For this, Kachi (and

his colleagues) would emphatically say KU Mathematics

Department invariably holds students to very high standards.

But saying that alone might not be convincing. So you need

some elaboration here. The same logic as above can actually

be used to substantiate such a claim, namely:

A class that is deemed `lenient' by a lay person is actually

not. Every mathematician knows that the Bourbaki-istic style

teaching is a very taxing and demanding affair on

both ends, because it is supremely idealistic. Apparently,

making an infinitely ignorant person knowledgeable (save the

assumption that person is infinitely intelligent) imposes

a certain amount of challenge on both the recipients and the

provider of knowledge.

As for Kachi himself, he does not employ the Bourbaki-istic

approach in teaching this Math 290 class for the most part

(the same is indeed viable for graduate level math courses).

Yet he designs his Math 290 class to be adequately

challenging. Whichever letter grade you may ultimately

receive from him, you deserve it. If you get a bad letter

grade and get disappointed, sorry but you deserve it. If

you get a good letter grade and get hyped, you have every

reason to, you deserve it. If (hypothetically) you claim

that Kachi's assignments and exams were too easy and that's

why you received a good grade, then Kachi will show his

assignments and exams around in his professional circle

and have them render the second opinion. They will laugh

if he tells them his students claimed those were too easy.

Having said, there is always a possibiltiy that your

knowledge and skills are above Math 290 level. In other

words, you are (potentially) a "super-duper" student. As

highlighted in his document "Rules, Policies and Protocols

- Student Responsibility", if you feel you are "super-duper",

please let Kachi know asap. He will test your mathematical

aptitude, and depending on his findings he will either

• [a] recommend you to take a different, more advanced,

course, or

• [b] give you special assignments that will (hopefully)

fulfill your intellectual appetite.

Last Updated: 1:25PM, 08/23/17