Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.panix3.panix.com!panix3.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: (ReacTor) Defining Our Terms: What Do We Mean by "Hard SF"?
Date: 22 Aug 2024 16:33:25 -0000
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <va7p8l$hqj$1@panix3.panix.com>
References: <v8qtfr$j6v$1@reader1.panix.com> <va5nj4$nh2$1@panix2.panix.com> <va5ps8$110o$1@dont-email.me> <va6gqd$9366$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="panix3.panix.com:166.84.1.3";
	logging-data="15766"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
Bytes: 2768

In article <va6gqd$9366$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G  <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Fascinating.
>There was only the one Stage 1 Maths course at the NZ University I
>attended. It was taken by Science, pre-Medical, Arts... all students and
>its main purpose was pure maths in preparation for Stage 2.

Gatech was the same way.  Everybody took a year of engineering calculus and
memorized the 143 required integrals, whether they were psychology, physics,
or mechanical engineering.  The only people who did not have to take the
engineering calculus classes were management majors (and football players who
had their own special major under the school of management).  Even math students
had to take the things (although they also got a math calculus class later).
I think this was a terrible idea but it did help reduce student retention which
was probably the point.

>I was aware that there were different levels of Statistics at Stage 1,
>for example, the Arts department had their own course for Economics
>students but a pass would not qualify you for entry into Stage 2
>Statistics in the Science department.

Okay, statistics is weird...  Psych statistics is a crash course in the kind of
statistics needed for experimental design but without any of the theory behind it.
No combinatorial stuff, but lots of correlation and Student's T Test.  If you 
are lucky you get some applications stuff that explains when particular measures
are useful and when they fail, but this is not always the case.

Math statistics is all proofs as you would expect.  I never took an economics
stats class but I'd be very interested in the curriculum!

>And having not considered such things for decades, found this thread
>diversion fascinating.

I am still recovering from my experience.  Out here in the real world I have
not solved anything in closed form in ages.  Wish someone had taught about
runge-kutta in college (and where the error bounds are).
--scott
-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."