[1673] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Progress of the Task Force on Undergraduate
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jessica H Lowell)
Wed Nov 16 21:33:33 2005
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 21:33:08 -0500
From: Jessica H Lowell <jessiehl@mit.edu>
To: David Glasser <glasser@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <1ea387f60511161817l28537a16wd04e9caabd91fda4@mail.gmail.com>
cc: mit-talk@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
I am unclear on this - perhaps you should email them and ask. I
suppose that if
you're using, say, Geophysics as a phys sci GIR (an example that was mentioned
at the meeting), you can't really place out of it with APs.
- Jessie
Quoting David Glasser <glasser@MIT.EDU>:
> On 11/16/05, Natan Cliffer <natan@mit.edu> wrote:
>> I'm leery of this change. When the frosh first get on campus, the
>> most important thing for them is to be comfortable. Studying for and
>> worrying about advanced standing exams is not exactly the most
>> comforting introduction to campus you could have, and it takes away
>> the time that could be better spent making social connections.
>>
>> What's the reason they gave for not accepting any more AP credit? Do
>> people who passed out of courses with AP do much worse?
>
> Actually, Jessie, can you clarify this point? In a previous iteration
> of the Task Force (or some subset of it)'s reports, I believe they
> were recommending that AP credit give placement but not credit for the
> "new GIRs" -- ie, that having AP physics would mean that your "GIR
> physics" would be a more advanced physics course. Is that still what
> they're suggesting, or merely that AP would be ignored outside of 18?
>
> --dave
>
>
> --
> David Glasser | glasser@mit.edu | http://www.davidglasser.net/
>
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
