Opencourseware to complement courses a waste of time?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ascendant78
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Courses Time
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the effectiveness of using OpenCourseWare (OCW) to complement college courses, particularly from the perspective of a physics major. The individual expresses frustration with the varying topics covered by different colleges, which complicates their studies. A professor advises that OCW is largely a waste of time for their major, suggesting that only courses directly related to physics or beneficial supplementary courses, like programming, are worth pursuing. The professor emphasizes that many topics learned may not be used in the future, especially since tools like Mathematica will be utilized instead of manual calculations. Additionally, while acknowledging the rigor of MIT courses, the professor cautions that they may lead to information overload and retention issues. Participants in the discussion agree that OCW can be time-consuming and often incomplete, recommending library resources for deeper learning instead. Overall, the consensus leans towards prioritizing focused study over broad but shallow exploration through OCW.
Ascendant78
Messages
327
Reaction score
0
Opencourseware to complement courses a waste of time?

Ok, last semester and this semester, I have been trying to utilize opencourseware to complement my courses. However, I felt it was very difficult since different courses from different colleges cover varying topics, substantially increasing my workload. On the other hand, I really didn't like the idea that there were a lot of things I'd miss out on if I didn't try to study all I could.

Upon talking about it to one of my professors (and him being aware I am a physics major), he told me that for the most part, OCW to complement my courses is a waste of time. As an example, he said a lot of what I saw in Calc II and what I'm seeing in Calc III I will either never use in my profession down the road or when I do, I will be using programs like Mathematica rather than figuring it out by hand. He said that for my major, the only courses it would really benefit me to take fall into one of two categories:

1) Courses that aren't required for my major but are good to have, such as computer programming and math courses that I haven't taken and don't plan to take. (This will free up my actual college courses for other electives)

2) Courses that are directly involved in physics. He said this is the only type of courses that would actually make sense to use to complement courses, but even then he said just skim over them and only spend time on the stuff I've never seen yet.

He said the rest of the stuff that I haven't seen *yet* that I will need to know for my sub-field I will eventually start to see so much that it is pointless to spread myself as thin as I am right now. Since he was an MIT grad, I did point out how much more comprehensive I felt some of their courses were compared to ours. However, he stated while MIT courses are very rigorous, they also throw so much by you at once that you end up forgetting half of it the day after your final exams. He said while MIT was great for grad school, he wished he went somewhere else for undergrad because he had to spend so much time on things he never used again down the road.

While I respect his statements and it sounds like sound advice, I would like to get other people's experience who have been through all this? I just feel I have so much to learn and never really know what is most efficient to spend my time on. Now after talking to him, it seems like I have been focusing a lot of my attention on learning things I may or may not ever use down the road. I would appreciate feedback from anyone who has been in my shoes?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
OCW is vastly overhyped. If you want to learn about a subject in more depth, get a book out of the library that covers it in more depth.
 
bcrowell said:
OCW is vastly overhyped. If you want to learn about a subject in more depth, get a book out of the library that covers it in more depth.

I agree as far as OCW. The more time I spent on them, the more I realized they are very time-consuming because they are incomplete and/or disorganized. That was actually a part of the reason I brought them up to my professor. I do like the MOOCs though from edX (not auditing them after the course though because they too tend to be incomplete).

Anyway, I will definitely have to consider using library resources over some of the OCW material. The library is actually what I used to brush back up on my math prior to enrolling in college and it treated me pretty well. Thanks for the feedback.
 
I’ve been looking through the curricula of several European theoretical/mathematical physics MSc programs (ETH, Oxford, Cambridge, LMU, ENS Paris, etc), and I’m struck by how little emphasis they place on advanced fundamental courses. Nearly everything seems to be research-adjacent: string theory, quantum field theory, quantum optics, cosmology, soft matter physics, black hole radiation, etc. What I don’t see are the kinds of “second-pass fundamentals” I was hoping for, things like...
TL;DR Summary: I want to do a PhD in applied math but I hate group theory, is this a big problem? Hello, I am a second-year math and physics double major with a minor in data science. I just finished group theory (today actually), and it was my least favorite class in all of university so far. It doesn't interest me, and I am also very bad at it compared to other math courses I have done. The other courses I have done are calculus I-III, ODEs, Linear Algebra, and Prob/Stats. Is it a...

Similar threads

Back
Top