Josh Greene

Problem set every week, 2 Midterms, 1 Final. The second midterm was incredibly difficult... not sure why.

This professor... has good intentions. He is obvious new to teaching (if he's not, then wow), and he shows it a lot. Having learned Calculus 1-4 in high school under a very capable teacher, I felt no need to attend any of his classes, and after the first midterm, that's exactly what I did. The questions in classes are mostly for clarifications, and Prof. Greene struggles to answer even those. He was unsure on most of conventions (like parens for points, angled brackets for vectors), which confused some of the newer students. He's really nice, however. I feel like he tries hard for the students... it's just that the ability is not there. If you've already taken Multivariable Calculus in high school and are just taking this course to fulfill SEAS requirements, then I guess you could leave Prof. Green as a choice. But if you actually need to learn, then avoid Prof. Greene like the plague.

Weekly problem sets that look easy, but end up requiring 1-4 hours to complete. Easy first midterm, average was a 90. Significantly more difficult midterm, average was a 60. Difficult final with many concepts that were never discussed in class but came from random homework problems...

This class was honestly a let down. I had not taken multivariable before, and I'm not an engineer, so this wasn't exactly a breeze. Greene seemed to never be prepared for lectures and ended up awkwardly stumbling for an hour and fifteen minutes. The only incentive for going to class was lunch at Hewitt afterward. Going to his office hours was useless, considering he would just read from the text and never answered any conceptual questions. Where did they find this guy? A DMV in Jersey? Oh wait, that would be Princeton. I'm sure he could be a great professor once he gets his act together, but until then, I would avoid this section unless you've done this before. It seems to be curved nicely, but who really knows. Take Nam Le, who I've heard is much less stressful, or even Lauda.

Weekly problem sets. 2 midterms and a final. Nothing too bad.

If you have a strong background in calculus from high school, this class is incredibly boring. You'll find yourself astonished at the kinds of questions your classmates will ask, and the awkward mumbling that Greene will do to try to explain the concept. The material is simple. To be honest, there's not enough content to warrant an entire term of class, which is why it seems to drag on. You'll do fine if you read the book and do the homework, although you should start the homework at least two days in advance since it usually turns out to be a little longer than you anticipated. The lectures aren't very helpful. Greene will try to explain concepts in class, but he tends to go with convenient explanations rather than detailed ones. He skipped over epsilon-delta limit material, which is a mathematical crime, but no one complains because epsilon-delta problems are tedious.

One problem set a week that takes 1-3 hours. Exams that are hard but is very well curved.

His teaching style is what I expected coming to a university like Columbia. His lectures aren't dumbed down to where he merely produces equations that one can use without any real thought. But the lectures aren't hard to understand, either. He combines basic math concepts with some common sense to approach a conclusion. Generally, unless he deems it inappropriate, he shows the proof to how certain equations and theorems have developed, which I found helped me understand the concept better and thus have a better grasp at difficult problems. Greene's lectures are usually a little on the dry side, but he does have moments of funniness. There has been general discontent with the scores of the midterms, but there is a generous curve. On the last test, the score to get an A was only about 7 points (out of 100) above the median. I'm not sure what the other reviewer is doing in Greene's class, but there isn't much abstractness in this class at all. Very straightforward and clear. It is his first year, but there is definitely potential for him to get better at his job as a professor. Also, he geniunely cares about his students and how to teach better, so he shouldn't be someone to avoid.

Let's keep in mind that this is the first time he's teaching. Although I don't particularly like his style, I think he does improve on his mistakes when he teaches the later section. About the midterms, the first was ridiculously easy, and multiple people got above 100%. The second was harder, but that helped to differentiate all the people clustered at the top. The curve is amazing. I got a horrible score percentage wise, but I was pleased with the letter grade that fell out of that. I don't see how one can complain about "abstract" or "theoretical" questions, because they force you to understand the material conceptually instead of just plugging and chugging. Besides, all the proof type questions were on the previous homework assignments, so there's no excuse for not knowing them. He is also very responsive to emails and questions after class, so really, by the time you're thinking of taking this, the clarity of his lectures should have improved, as should the level at which he sets his exams.