Is this a typical physics curriculum?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on concerns regarding UC Irvine's physics curriculum, particularly the Computational Methods course that transfers take instead of the Mathematical Methods for Physical Sciences. Participants note that while the prerequisites for the Mathematical Physics course seem high, understanding the math is beneficial for solving physics problems. Mathematica is highlighted as a common tool used in many physics programs, and its user-friendliness is emphasized, alleviating concerns about its complexity. There are mixed opinions on the timing of math courses relative to physics classes, with some arguing that prior knowledge would ease the learning process. Overall, the conversation reflects a broader inquiry into the adequacy and structure of physics education at UCI compared to other institutions.
  • #31
complexPHILOSOPHY said:
Always work independently through your text in conjunction with an alternate text, preferably one recommended to you from PFers. Never trust the professor's workload. That's retarded as hell though that you were given zero proofs and then a proof-based exam.

Surely you worked through the proofs in your text regardless of what the professor said, or were there no proofs?

The text was mostly just telling you how to solve problems. For instance, if you want to find the eigenvalues of a matrix, do the following. The professor wanted bonified proofs. I complained to his superior directly, and I basically got the response that he was very difficult to work with.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Damn dude, that's just retarded. I thought my CC was bad...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K