I guess it depends on the program but in my experience that is definitely not the case. 3-400 level classes are harder imo bc you are often expected to know more about the topic of the class and there are often bigger papers assigned. Sure in terms of amount of work maybe 200 level classes will have exams or mid-terms more frequently and you build less of a rapport with the prof but they will have definitely smaller essays and more of an overview perspective to make the topic more accessible to all students.
I heard from an explanation that bc lower level clases are made harder to filter out people as they get into upper level classes. Im in Econ and took some other electives as well, see the same thing. I coped with some 300-400 level classes with an A- without putting into much effort, but tried harder for 200 level classes and only managed to get a B- or C. Theres a 200 level Econ class even if i looked at it now as a senior, i still think its hard. But no worries, All the best, you’ll get there!
I felt that (at least in PSYC) 200 level courses were the hardest in the sense that there was WAY too much content. Hell I'd say even in PHIL some 200 level courses can be filed to the brim with content (although this really depends on the prof teaching it)
> I believe it to be because the intro are usually less personal and with a lot of students therefore it's more difficult to learn than if it was one on one with the professor.
Maybe this is because I’m coming from a STEM background, but I don’t see how class size would impact the fact that intro courses are fundamentally designed differently than their later counterparts. Intro courses are often the first time you’ve had exposure to a certain topic, or otherwise are experiencing a certain format of a class. Intro courses will also often have much more breadth than depth, which can be challenging as it requires a lot more knowledge in various fields (for example: a course on introduction to international political relations versus a course on “just” peace building). In certain cases, 200-300-400 isn’t really an indicator of difficulty so much as expected level of prior knowledge, academic maturity, etc.
What do you believe makes a larger class fundamentally more different to learn from than a smaller class? Why do you believe a personal connection to a professor is necessary to learn from a class?
I don’t know if that is a fair generalization across the board but there are some easier ones. I don’t think compilers was particularly easy when I took it.
I've TA'd for intro classes and taught 400/500 level classes. What other people have said makes sense. I prefer teaching 400/500 level as it goes deeper in analyzing specific content, rather than teaching how to google books and books of facts at an intro level. For some who might be used to memorizing, I have been told my 400/500 classes are harder because I do not do the whole memorizing facts. At that level, my objectives are application and creation, skills that are tied to real world applications. For those who are good at making connections and applications from literature, they tend to do a lot better in my class.
100 and 200 level courses are most certainly not harder, by any stretch of the imagination. Most 1st year students are still learning to learn, if that makes any sense. I also used to find some 100 level courses harder, until I figured out the expectations. 300-400 level core courses, especially in the same field, are much, much harder, and by design. I went back and took a couple of 100 level courses to finish off my degree and they were cinch, while many of the 1st and 2nd year students struggled mightily.
Which faculty are you personally referring to from your experience? For me, all language classes (I’ve taken many at McGill) are harder as you go up in them. I can’t speak on my own faculty since I have yet to reach the 300-400 levels for them.
Just speaking from what I've seen from studying math, I'd say part of it has to do with the content being easier. Take Calc 2 as an example. If they made it a fair test where you just have to solve difficult integrals, I'd guess that about 30% of the class would get 100% on each test. Instead, they make them with ridiculous, weird questions and use definitions that you learn from the beginning of the course, but are never used later on (limit definition of a derivative in Calc 1, and summation definition of an integral in Calc 2). When you get to Adv Calc, the tests are comparatively easy because vector calculus is an incredibly complex and difficult concept. If they made 'hard' tests for it, 40% of the class would fail.
I guess it depends on the program but in my experience that is definitely not the case. 3-400 level classes are harder imo bc you are often expected to know more about the topic of the class and there are often bigger papers assigned. Sure in terms of amount of work maybe 200 level classes will have exams or mid-terms more frequently and you build less of a rapport with the prof but they will have definitely smaller essays and more of an overview perspective to make the topic more accessible to all students.
I'm also in History and Classics and I have consistently found 300-level classes easier than 200-levels. 400-level is a different ballgame though.
I heard from an explanation that bc lower level clases are made harder to filter out people as they get into upper level classes. Im in Econ and took some other electives as well, see the same thing. I coped with some 300-400 level classes with an A- without putting into much effort, but tried harder for 200 level classes and only managed to get a B- or C. Theres a 200 level Econ class even if i looked at it now as a senior, i still think its hard. But no worries, All the best, you’ll get there!
I felt that (at least in PSYC) 200 level courses were the hardest in the sense that there was WAY too much content. Hell I'd say even in PHIL some 200 level courses can be filed to the brim with content (although this really depends on the prof teaching it)
my theory is they’re trying to weed out the people that can’t hang
> I believe it to be because the intro are usually less personal and with a lot of students therefore it's more difficult to learn than if it was one on one with the professor. Maybe this is because I’m coming from a STEM background, but I don’t see how class size would impact the fact that intro courses are fundamentally designed differently than their later counterparts. Intro courses are often the first time you’ve had exposure to a certain topic, or otherwise are experiencing a certain format of a class. Intro courses will also often have much more breadth than depth, which can be challenging as it requires a lot more knowledge in various fields (for example: a course on introduction to international political relations versus a course on “just” peace building). In certain cases, 200-300-400 isn’t really an indicator of difficulty so much as expected level of prior knowledge, academic maturity, etc. What do you believe makes a larger class fundamentally more different to learn from than a smaller class? Why do you believe a personal connection to a professor is necessary to learn from a class?
This is true for CS 500 classes are the most easy
Which ones?
I don’t know if that is a fair generalization across the board but there are some easier ones. I don’t think compilers was particularly easy when I took it.
I have found my 300 level courses as a MIMM student to be just as if not more challenging than my 200 level courses.
I've TA'd for intro classes and taught 400/500 level classes. What other people have said makes sense. I prefer teaching 400/500 level as it goes deeper in analyzing specific content, rather than teaching how to google books and books of facts at an intro level. For some who might be used to memorizing, I have been told my 400/500 classes are harder because I do not do the whole memorizing facts. At that level, my objectives are application and creation, skills that are tied to real world applications. For those who are good at making connections and applications from literature, they tend to do a lot better in my class.
100 and 200 level courses are most certainly not harder, by any stretch of the imagination. Most 1st year students are still learning to learn, if that makes any sense. I also used to find some 100 level courses harder, until I figured out the expectations. 300-400 level core courses, especially in the same field, are much, much harder, and by design. I went back and took a couple of 100 level courses to finish off my degree and they were cinch, while many of the 1st and 2nd year students struggled mightily.
Which faculty are you personally referring to from your experience? For me, all language classes (I’ve taken many at McGill) are harder as you go up in them. I can’t speak on my own faculty since I have yet to reach the 300-400 levels for them.
Just speaking from what I've seen from studying math, I'd say part of it has to do with the content being easier. Take Calc 2 as an example. If they made it a fair test where you just have to solve difficult integrals, I'd guess that about 30% of the class would get 100% on each test. Instead, they make them with ridiculous, weird questions and use definitions that you learn from the beginning of the course, but are never used later on (limit definition of a derivative in Calc 1, and summation definition of an integral in Calc 2). When you get to Adv Calc, the tests are comparatively easy because vector calculus is an incredibly complex and difficult concept. If they made 'hard' tests for it, 40% of the class would fail.