Very good point and totally agree with it.
I'm surrounded by ph doctors, most of them being ably to explain why.
>From them, very few are able to go down in the real world from their
simulation and doctoral articles...
If do you think someone is able to write a course about practical
electronics without having solid theoretical background (your phrase
with WHY) you deeply wrong.

so, we are agree.
:)

Vasile

On 3/22/07, Dr Skip <drskip@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the problem comes from two sources:
> 1) There's a fear on the part of the prof that for many, whatever theory
> and math he/she is teaching may be the only exposure you'll ever get in
> that particular topic, but there's plenty of 'real life' work you'll do,
> so with limited time they just cram as much of the math rigor as
> possible into the time allotted. That's the noble reason.
>
> 2) They had to do it the hard way, so you will too. That's probably the
> more common reason ;)  From bricklayer to plumber to EE PhD, there are
> still rights of passage to getting the coveted credentials...
>
> However, the most effective way would be to show enthusiasm, teach the
> theory and math, then immediately follow with a hands on example. That's
> very tough on the teacher though. In an ideal class, the students would
> then return enthusiasm, accept the math even though they may not feel a
> need for it, and appreciate the effort. I've found, from High School to
> College, that if there's such a mix of content, there is a large
> contingent of students who want to dispense with the theory and just go
> to the 'practical'. The current 'system' of separating practical labs
> from math and theory classes has probably evolved into an equilibrium of
> these various wants. I've found that while it can be difficult, those
> that pass through it, and who are forced to combine the two sides on
> their own, retain an appreciation for the value of each.
>
> The young guy says "I don't need all that! Teach me what I'll need to
> get a job." While the old guy says "I can tell you from experience how
> it works, but I wish I knew WHY it works that way".
>
> I'm having trouble articulating it, but there may also be a creative
> benefit from the way it's done. If taught C follows B follows A in a
> neat format, it's more likely to be taken as fact, and perhaps
> self-contained. If taught A, then later taught B, it leaves cognitive
> room to consider other outcomes and inventions beyond just C, (D
> perhaps) since it wasn't handed to you in a neat little package at once.
> Trade schools teach the former, but universities the latter. Just a
> thought out lout...
>
> And if all other reasons fail, "that which doesn't kill you makes you
> stronger"... It holds for ODE, Fields, Waves, Mathematical Physics, etc ;)
>
> -Skip
>
>
> Vasile Surducan wrote:
> > I remember the beginning of my school days when the teacher poison us
> > with laplace transform or FFT. I have never understood what the hell
> > was that untill I didn't touch the first time a spectrum analyzer and
> > that was in the last school year. Till then I have learned tons of
> > silly problems with signal analyses which looks like houses, triangles
> > or spikes without understanding what will be good foor.
> >
> >
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist