I told you about Russian. But unfortunately, for all of its tongue-twisting words and incomprehensible grammar (I may have complained about this already, but three genders, Russian? Really?) Russian is not the reason my brain's been taking a pounding recently.
You see, I'm also in what my university jokingly refers to as Calculus. I'm not sure why it refers to this as Calculus, because any connection between this and what, in my experience, is generally called calculus is purely coincidental.
The difference, for those math-y enough to care:
Real Calculus Step 1: Learn about limits as tangent lines.
"Calculus" Step 1: Learn about limits in terms of epsilon and delta.
RC 2: Learn about derivatives.
"Calculus" 2: Learn about limits in terms of epsilon and delta.
RC 3: Use derivatives to figure out minimums and maximums.
"Calculus" 3: Learn about minimums and maximums in terms of limits in terms of epsilon and delta.
Etc.
Some relevant background: I don't like to prove things. It's kind of offensive, for one thing. Hello, I said it, and I'm awesome - why is that not enough for you?
Secondly, it's never enough that it makes sense, you have to say everything in math-speak. "You can tell it goes to infinity because when x gets close to the limit the numbers get really big. Like, super big" <-- this will earn you a -50 on any homework assignment.
This "calculus" course is just proving things (or attempting to, anyway). Over, and over, and over. It's like the brain equivalent of someone poking you really hard until you say "uncle" (and then prove it for any real epsilon greater than zero, by finding that for any such epsilon there exists a delta such that aaaaaahhhhhhhhh).
I see this semester ending one of three ways:
********
"But where is the sexism, Alirsnan?" none of you are thinking right now. "You promised us sexism!"
My recent math experiences have led me to formulate a new theory about why there are relatively few women in math and computer science (it's a sexist theory, of course - it would almost have to be). It goes as follows:
1. Math and computer science people are often stereotyped as nerds with poor social skills.
2. This is, shall we say, not always completely inaccurate (present company excluded! unless your social skills are so bad that you didn't realize that what I'm saying could be construed as an insult).
3. After years of intense math training (I'll refer to only math from here on out, but comp sci is included), math TAs forget that there existed a time that they didn't intuitively understand this stuff.
4. Based on points 2 and 3, we can guess that math TAs are somewhat less sympathetic than others when it comes to helping students who are struggling (my small-scale "research" bears this out). As in, raise some outlandish theory in sociology class and the teacher will say, "Hmmm. That's very interesting. I don't think there have been any studies indicating that, but it's an interesting idea," mix up theory 111.3 and theory 111.4 in calculus class and the teacher will look at you like he's afraid that breathing the same air as you might be making him dumber.
5. Women tend to internalize bad feelings, men tend to externalize them. As in, women tend to think, "I got it wrong. This is so embarrassing. I'm so bad at math. I don't know why I thought this was a good idea." Men tend to think, "Huh. This TA is a jerk. I was probably right, too. He just doesn't know what he's talking about."
6. The result of 4 and 5: women leave hard math classes with snobby TAs feeling stupid, men leave feeling the TAs are stupid - and by the second year, you get a significant gender imbalance.
In other words, if I, as a woman, successfully complete a math degree, a large chunk of the credit will be due not to my (non existent) study skills or (suspiciously difficult to prove) superior intellect, but rather, to my arrogance. See, mom and dad, it's a good thing that I know I'm always right about everything.
Now if someone can just prove this theory for any epsilon greater than zero, we'll be all set.
You see, I'm also in what my university jokingly refers to as Calculus. I'm not sure why it refers to this as Calculus, because any connection between this and what, in my experience, is generally called calculus is purely coincidental.
The difference, for those math-y enough to care:
Real Calculus Step 1: Learn about limits as tangent lines.
"Calculus" Step 1: Learn about limits in terms of epsilon and delta.
RC 2: Learn about derivatives.
"Calculus" 2: Learn about limits in terms of epsilon and delta.
RC 3: Use derivatives to figure out minimums and maximums.
"Calculus" 3: Learn about minimums and maximums in terms of limits in terms of epsilon and delta.
Etc.
Some relevant background: I don't like to prove things. It's kind of offensive, for one thing. Hello, I said it, and I'm awesome - why is that not enough for you?
Secondly, it's never enough that it makes sense, you have to say everything in math-speak. "You can tell it goes to infinity because when x gets close to the limit the numbers get really big. Like, super big" <-- this will earn you a -50 on any homework assignment.
This "calculus" course is just proving things (or attempting to, anyway). Over, and over, and over. It's like the brain equivalent of someone poking you really hard until you say "uncle" (and then prove it for any real epsilon greater than zero, by finding that for any such epsilon there exists a delta such that aaaaaahhhhhhhhh).
I see this semester ending one of three ways:
"But where is the sexism, Alirsnan?" none of you are thinking right now. "You promised us sexism!"
My recent math experiences have led me to formulate a new theory about why there are relatively few women in math and computer science (it's a sexist theory, of course - it would almost have to be). It goes as follows:
1. Math and computer science people are often stereotyped as nerds with poor social skills.
2. This is, shall we say, not always completely inaccurate (present company excluded! unless your social skills are so bad that you didn't realize that what I'm saying could be construed as an insult).
3. After years of intense math training (I'll refer to only math from here on out, but comp sci is included), math TAs forget that there existed a time that they didn't intuitively understand this stuff.
4. Based on points 2 and 3, we can guess that math TAs are somewhat less sympathetic than others when it comes to helping students who are struggling (my small-scale "research" bears this out). As in, raise some outlandish theory in sociology class and the teacher will say, "Hmmm. That's very interesting. I don't think there have been any studies indicating that, but it's an interesting idea," mix up theory 111.3 and theory 111.4 in calculus class and the teacher will look at you like he's afraid that breathing the same air as you might be making him dumber.
5. Women tend to internalize bad feelings, men tend to externalize them. As in, women tend to think, "I got it wrong. This is so embarrassing. I'm so bad at math. I don't know why I thought this was a good idea." Men tend to think, "Huh. This TA is a jerk. I was probably right, too. He just doesn't know what he's talking about."
6. The result of 4 and 5: women leave hard math classes with snobby TAs feeling stupid, men leave feeling the TAs are stupid - and by the second year, you get a significant gender imbalance.
In other words, if I, as a woman, successfully complete a math degree, a large chunk of the credit will be due not to my (non existent) study skills or (suspiciously difficult to prove) superior intellect, but rather, to my arrogance. See, mom and dad, it's a good thing that I know I'm always right about everything.
Now if someone can just prove this theory for any epsilon greater than zero, we'll be all set.
No comments:
Post a Comment