Are all calculus professors bunch of sadists?

Please don't tell me you're a pompous European here to tell us how hard your 1st year analysis course was.

Calculus is taught with minimal proofing methods because there's no reason for an engineer, physicist, premed, etc. to know how to do a proof.

But for the record, my statement holds true. The proofing methods covered in an undergrad analysis course are also mere regurgitation. This holds true for just about every undergrad math course, I suppose. And that's everywhere (including your "elite" university)

Source: I'm a Ph.D. candidate in maths and teach you autist faks all day. The only thing worse than the idiots who think calc is hard are the idiots who think them having an A in calc makes them "smart"

Literally this. The minute a man becomes a professor, the incentive to do any work, ever, for the rest of their life goes because they have nowhere to go from there unless they truly desire to put their name in the history books.
Either way, they don't give a fuck about you, how well you do, what you want to work as or what you're struggling with.

I was kind of assuming what said
>It's much easier to solve 30 derivatives and 20 integrals than it is to solve 10 problems that want you to apply all the concepts at once.

It's probably going to be a bunch of really simple questions to test your comprehension of the core concepts you need to learn, rather than your ability to apply those concepts.

Realistically you should be expected to be able to learn application on your own, and you should be taking your own time to do so. If you find that you can't understand how to do something specific, then you should ask your professor when they have free time.

I've found that most math professors tend to follow this sort of formula. If you really want to engage with them about the subject then you have to come to them on your own terms, otherwise they have no reason to assume you care and thus they won't really care about you. It's nothing sadistic or anything like that, it's just really simple emotional calculus. They're much more willing to invest in you when you show them that you're a good person to invest in.

>The proofing methods covered in an undergrad analysis course are also mere regurgitation.
Uh? Could you ellaborate on this? Which techniques are you getting at, and what magical switch happens at the graduate level?

The point of math class in American high schools is to fill an extra hour of the day up with activities to keep the booger-eating retards that make up the majority of students from running rampant in the streets.

My Calc I professor was a sweet little lady who poured her heart out to teach the idiots in the class and made sure they pass.
She let us use calculators too.

>tfw three letter long essay due for 2056
halp \b\

ya same here doing Cal 3... in mech eng our uni gives us pure math profs. get banged in the ass by a bunch on non sense pure math, i cant understand shit.
get a 28% on the first exam. Class average is so low that the head of the cal class opened a 3rd grading scheme were the first exam was worth 0.

i dropped the course before my GPA died.

Having that many problems on a calc exam just means the problems are going to be easier. You know what you should really worry about? 2-3 question exams. Also for core classes like calc the professor isn't the one making the exam, so even if yours seems like a douche that won't effect your test.

Dude, my calc 2 instructor was a goddamn homework rapist this term. Every week was at least 15 pages' worth of book work (my longest submission was 40), plus a 3-4 page formal written analysis of a problem.

Picked the hardest shit he could find out of Stewart's calc for everything, too.

Been looking forward to this final for weeks. Just want it to be over.

>tfw taking phd courses in algebraic topology in my scandinavian country are nothing to what I did in my bachelors in england.

There is a severe gap between normal schools and good schools.

Jokes on you I'm a spic.

Also, taking rigorous mathematical course is much more interesting and pragmatic because the mechanical stuff comes naturally from solving hard problems that require thinking. Memorizing retareded rules that come out of nowhere is counter intuitive and retarded. I'm not saying that the proofs in my calculus courses were complicated, but I believe that I gained much more ( both in application and theory) by having a course with proper constructions rather thab regurgitating the chain rule like a retard.

How long does an exam last at your uni?

at mine 3

Could you post a finals exam from your calc 2 perhaps or calc 1?

>t. I am coming from a pleb tier university and wants to see how far behind we are.(fyi ours last 6 hours).

nobody gives a shit about proofs unless you are a math major

nobody ever needs to learn mathematical proofs unless you are a math major

But if you can't understand proofs
How do you understand the material?

i from quebec so i did cal 1 and cal 2 in other thing called CEGEP.

So i doubt i can help because cegep is low tier compared to university; however check ou this site called Docuum.com
click on mcgill
search calculus course and you can find all the old exams.

Community college student here. Also interested to see this.

calculus 2 : docuum.com/McGill/document/view_class/1441

calculus 1:
docuum.com/McGill/document/view_class/1440

welcome to an engineers mind
give him the general idea of what this mathematical formula does and he can use it in many ways. he doesn't care for how you got it.

Thank you

np bro best of luck

That probably means the questions will be easy though. It's usually better to have a lot of easy questions than a few hard ones.

You're wrong. Your standard analysis course doesn't convey anymore fluency in the topics/applications than a standard calc course does. You're just memorizing how to formulate a proof, in this case. Fluency comes once you've pushed on passed the material and have it encoded several times. If you had already seen the material, this is probably why you think it developed some deep understanding (but really didn't)

Most American universities go a different route and have intro to proofs as discrete. It's the same underlining goal, but with different material - get students to write coherent, succinct proofs.

Dumb

After 2 hours even the smartest student is going to start making mistakes. finals should be designed in such a way that 1 problem tests more than one concept, especially in such a low level maths such as calculus

Im not saying you will become a master in analysis by having a more rigorous calc course, but that you will learn how to apply it and also in a far more engaging way. So It's just calc+ course.

RIP Paul Sally

I didn't have any classes with him at UChicago, but a course I took used his book. and instead of QED, he signed all his proofs with a little pirate face. that man was a badass.

No. My diff eq. final was 8 questions and take-home on top of it. Pic related. I got a 99.

Never got it back so I don't know what I lost the point for.

I don't go to some particularly fancy school so maybe it's more competitive or harder or whatever where you are. Try to pick better professors next time I guess or go to a less prestigious uni. Where you graduated may have a minor impact on your ability to find a job but it doesn't matter as much as you think it does. Acing your classes a shitty school is better than failing at an Ivy League.

Usually they are on a syllabus, but I mean it's the professors course, they can do whatever the fuck they want so long as they actually teach the subject of the class. If that means springing 60 question tests two days before, then they can.

My calc professor doesn't really care but he lets us use a cheat halfsheet and calculator on exams. It's bretty wild as a course.