On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 5:04:36 PM UTC, Herman Rubin wrote:
> > ... > > The official prerequisites are almost always as certain courses > > or equivalent. Whether those courses as taken were any good is > > now highly questionable. > ...
I agree with this. A book's prerequisites might say (for example) that the book assumes knowledge of undergraduate linear algebra and a rigorous course in calculus of one variable. I would then have a good feeling for the level of the book. However, I feel that this prerequisites problem is much greater in university education, because a prerequisite might be "Must have passed M323GKY". However, if M323GKY was a badly taught course by an unmotivated professor who hates teaching [the exact opposite to David Ullrich, BTW, who, judging from his expositional skills and his maths work on sci.math is someone who is very committed to undergrad teaching], then filtering the students by their having passed M323GKY doesn't work well.
I'm puzzled though by the word "now" as in "now highly questionable." Do you believe that this is a recent problem and that higher maths education used to be much better. Please explain the "now" part, or is it just a typo?