u/Expert147

I'm at a different institution. Wondering if CMU has any pure STEM courses that take time out to talk about ethics or potential social effects?

I've been a fan of Brown University's transformation into a research heavy weight. But I've also been worried about seeing more STEM courses and research plans emphasize things like justice, responsibility, ethics, social guard-rails. Shouldn't that be kept out of pure research and left as policy discussion in social sciences and humanities? Is Brown University's STEM culture going to be about the excitement of discovery or about worrying about social implications and pulling punches?

In a nutshell: I want the academic freedom to think my reductionist little thoughts without having to worry about potential social side effects.

Summary of discussion. Brown University to Catholic Church 400 years ago: "Hold my beer."

Provost Francis Doyle strikes me as an ideal candidate. Are there any other obvious candidates?

Suppose the NCAA created a pro division that managed pro leagues for top D1 basketball and football teams. If they did it right, valuation of the equity owned by the schools in those teams would be billions and billions. Schools could keep ownership or cash out partially or even completely. What a wonderful solution for the money problems of the NCAA and athletic departments.

Does the prospect of the SEC withdrawing from the NCAA cause frustration, laughter, or relief at the NCAA?

The NCAA has one job: to protect the well being of student athletes.

1. It should not worry about athletic department money flows.
2. It should not worry about keeping sports fun for spectators.
3. It should not worry about maintaining traditions.

If reality has changed so that any of those things are no longer sustainable, so be it. The well being of the kids is not for the NCAA to bargain with. It should not be unthinkable that the optimal choice for the kids' well being is to end college athletics.

How did Brown become an outlier? What keeps Brown from regressing to the mean?

I like it. But it seems to be simply a lack of general course requirements. Does that really make a huge difference for people?

I like it. But it seems to be simply a lack of general course requirements. Does that really make a huge difference for people?

They are rightly recognized as the two pillars of mathematics. But I keep feeling that abstract algebra is the core of mathematics and analysis something built on top of it. Analysis needs abstract algebra, but not the other way around.

Specifically, for undergraduate math majors.

I met a girl at a party. Next day, I followed her on IG, but it's been a week and she hasn't follow back. The realist in me says do not pursue further. The romantic in me says don't give up. I have other options to pursue, so it is not devastating, but she is special. Shall I just move on with life?

• Why can't each course have an absolute standard by which student achievement is judged?
• Shouldn't profs know exactly what students are supposed to learn?
• Why is it so hard to use tests and interviews to measure whether students have achieved those goals?
• It seems the answer is always: "too hard for the profs".
• Making it work would be a major advancement in the quality of education.