Why, oh why, don't many physics programs EDUCATE?

[Geremia]

Card. John Henry Newman (http://www.newmancause.co.uk/)'s Idea of a University (http://www.newmanreader.org/works/idea/index.html) describes what an ideal university should be and do—notably, that it should not foster unhealthy skepticism but be open to attaining truth in all areas of its endeavors and seek to unite and synthesize knowledge (http://sententiaedeo.blogspot.com/2010/04/relation-of-truth-beauty-and-reason.html), which constitutes education and not mere memorization. E.g., Card. Newman writes here (http://www.newmanreader.org/works/idea/discourse6.html):8.

Nor indeed am I supposing that there is any great danger, at least in this day, of over-education; the danger is on the other side. I will tell you, Gentlemen, what has been the practical error of the last twenty years,—not to load the memory of the student with a mass of undigested knowledge, but to force upon him so much that he has rejected all. It has been the error of distracting and enfeebling the mind by an unmeaning profusion of subjects; of implying that a smattering in a dozen branches of study is not shallowness, which it really is, but enlargement, which it is not; of considering an acquaintance with the learned names of things and persons, and the possession of clever duodecimos, and attendance on eloquent lecturers, and membership with scientific institutions, and the sight of the experiments of a platform and the specimens of a museum, that all this was not dissipation of mind, but progress. All things now are to be learned at once, not first one thing, then another, not one well, but many badly. Learning is to be without exertion, without attention, without toil; without grounding, without advance, without finishing. There is to be nothing individual in it; and this, forsooth, is the wonder of the age. What the steam engine does with matter, the printing press is to do with mind; it is to act mechanically, and the population is to be passively, almost unconsciously enlightened, by the mere multiplication and dissemination of volumes. Whether it be the school boy, or the school girl, or the youth at college, or the mechanic in the town, or the politician in the senate, all have been the victims in one way or other of this most preposterous and pernicious of delusions. Wise men have lifted up their voices in vain; and at length, lest their own institutions should be outshone and should disappear in the folly of the hour, they have been obliged, as far as they could with a good conscience, to humour a spirit which they could not withstand, and make temporizing concessions at which they could not but inwardly smile.

It must not be supposed that, because I so speak, therefore I have some sort of fear of the education of the people: on the contrary, the more education they have, the better, so that it is really education. Nor am I an enemy to the cheap publication of scientific and literary works, which is now in vogue: on the contrary, I consider it a great advantage, convenience, and gain; that is, to those to whom education has given a capacity for using them. Further, I consider such innocent recreations as science and literature are able to furnish will be a very fit occupation of the thoughts and the leisure of young persons, and may be made the means of keeping them from bad employments and bad companions. Moreover, as to that superficial acquaintance with chemistry, and geology, and astronomy, and political economy, and modern history, and biography, and other branches of knowledge, which periodical literature and occasional lectures and scientific institutions diffuse through the community, I think it a graceful accomplishment, and a suitable, nay, in this day a necessary accomplishment, in the case of educated men. Nor, lastly, am I disparaging or discouraging the thorough acquisition of any one of these studies, or denying that, as far as it goes, such thorough acquisition is a real education of the mind. All I say is, call things by their right names, and do not confuse together ideas which are essentially different. A thorough knowledge of one science and a superficial acquaintance with many, are not the same thing; a smattering of a hundred things or a memory for detail, is not a philosophical or comprehensive view. Recreations are not education; accomplishments are not education. Do not say, the people must be educated, when, after all, you only mean, amused, refreshed, soothed, put into good spirits and good humour, or kept from vicious excesses. I do not say that such amusements, such occupations of mind, are not a great gain; but they are not education. You may as well call drawing and fencing education, as a general knowledge of botany or conchology. Stuffing birds or playing stringed instruments is an elegant pastime, and a resource to the idle, but it is not education; it does not form or cultivate the intellect. Education is a high word; it is the preparation for knowledge, and it is the imparting of knowledge in proportion to that preparation. We require intellectual eyes to know withal, as bodily eyes for sight. We need both objects and organs intellectual; we cannot gain them without setting about it; we cannot gain them in our sleep, or by haphazard. The best telescope does not dispense with eyes; the printing press or the lecture room will assist us greatly, but we must be true to ourselves, we must be parties in the work. A University is, according to the usual designation, an Alma Mater, knowing her children one by one, not a foundry, or a mint, or a treadmill.Boy, after having obtained a B.S. degree in physics and astronomy from a state university, can I relate to this! My professors never required that I read, e.g., the original classic physics papers that liberal arts students at, e.g., St. John's College (http://www.stjohnscollege.edu/) and Thomas Aquinas College (http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/about/bluebook/index.htm), do! Consequently, everything I learned was a disconnected array of facts and problems to solve. Problem-solving isn't nearly as stressed in Italy, according to my Italian physics friends, so why is it here? So, here are my two main questions:

Why is problem-solving stressed so much in U.S. physics programs?
Why aren't the classic papers and books required in U.S. physics programs?

For example, these are what students, working towards BAs at the liberal arts schools St. John's College and Thomas Aquinas College, read:

At St. John's College
Descartes, Le Monde
Huygens, On the Motion of Colliding bodies
Leibniz, “On Body, Force, Elasticity”
“Essay on Dynamics”
Newton, “Principia”
Mayer, “Remarks on The Forces of Inorganic Nature”
Maxwell, “On Work and Energy”
“On Heat Engines”
Huygens, Treatise on Light
Newton, “The New Theory about Light and Colors”
Young, “On the Nature of Light and Colors”
Taylor, “On the Motion of the Stretched String”
Bernoulli, “…On New Vibrations of Strings”
William Gilbert, On the Loadstone
Charles du Fay, letter concerning Electricity
Benjamin Franklin, letter to Collinson
J.A. Nollet, “Observations on Several New Electrical Phenomena”
Chales Coulomb, “Memoirs on electricity and magnetism”
Alessandra Volta, “On the electricity excited by the contact of conducting substances”
Hans Christian Oersted, “The efficacy of electric conflict on the magnetic needle”
Faraday, Experimental Researches in Electricity
On Static Electrical Inductive Action, Letter to Philips
Answer to Dr. Hare’s Letter
A speculation touching Electric Conduction and the Nature of Matter
On Lines of Magnetic Force
On the Physical Character of the Lines of Magnetic Force
Albert Einstein, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”
“Does the inertia of a Body Depend upon its Energy Content?”
“On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light”
“The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity”
Hermann Minkowski, “Space and Time”
Faraday, “On the absolute quantity of Electricity associated with the particles or atom of Matter”
J.J. Thomson, “Cathode Rays”
R.A. Milliken, The Electron
E. Rutherford, “The Scattering of α and β particles by matter and the Structure of the Atom”
A. Einstein, “Concerning a Heuristic Point of View about the Creation and Transformation of Light”
N. Bohr, “On the Spectrum of Hydrogen”
L. De Broglie, “The Undulatory Aspects of the Electron”
E. Schrodinger, Four Lectures on Wave Mechanics
C.J. Davisson, “Are Electrons Waves?”
W. Heisenberg, The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory
Physics and Philosophy
N. Bohr, “Einstein’s Objections to Quantum Mechanics”
A. Einstein, B. Poldosky, N. Rosen, “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?”
N. Bohr, “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?”
D. Bohm, Causality and Chance in Modern Physics
At Thomas Aquinas College (http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/curriculum/index.htm)
Aristotle On Generation and Corruption
St. Thomas Aquinas On the Principles of Nature,
On the Combination of the Elements
Lavoisier Elements of Chemistry
Avogadro Masses and Proportions of Elementary Molecules
Dalton Proportion of Gases in the Atmosphere
Gay-Lussac Combination of Gaseous Substances
Pascal Treatise on the Weight of the Mass of the Air
various authors Scientific papers of Berthollet, Couper, Lavoisier, Mendeleev, Richter, Wollaston, Cannizzaro, et alia
Atomic Theory Manual
Einstein Relativity: The Special and General Theory
Huygens Treatise on Light
Newton Optiks
Maxwell A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism
Gilbert De Magnete
Ampere Papers
various authors Mechanics, Waves, and Optics Manual
Electricity and Magnetism Manual

Why do I deserve a B.S. in physics when these liberal arts students are the ones, based on their knowledge of these classics, more educated in certain respects of physics than I?

[Andy Resnick]

I sympathize with your perspective-honestly. I am currently stepping through some seminal papers in the development of thermodynamics elsewhere on this site; I understand and agree with you that there is value in reading the original source material. There was more than a few moments when I considered going to St. John's instead of RPI. Especially after I got to RPI....

However, the undergraduate physics curriculum, designed for a student who is going to have a career in physics/engineering/science/etc.- has different goals. For example, reading Newton's 'Principia' and *not* reading (for example) Halliday, Resnick, and Walker, will leave the student ill-prepared for graduate school, a technical job, or any other 'next step'.

Now- problem solving. I agree with you that the 'shut up and calculate' approach has been taken too far. I am happy to tell you that the AAPT (American Association of Physics Teachers) agrees with you as well, and has sponsored a workshop for new faculty (I went last year) for about a decade, with the goal of finding and developing *better* approaches to teaching the Physics curriculum. I am constantly reminded of the statement "Progress is possible only when the old generation dies off".

So- go and read the original material; it will undoubtably enrich your understanding. But always live in the present, looking towards the future. Besides using contemporary mathematical skills, you needs skills that simply were not available then (meaning there is no 'original source material'): computer modeling, for example.

[lisab]

That list of reading looks more like a great curriculum for a 'History of Science' major. But how is that knowledge going to help a student who has just landed his first job, and is asked to operate an oscilloscope, or tackle a difficult technical problem? Knowledge is great, but you need marketable skills, too.

I suppose you could have both but I don't know how the typical undergrad student would find the time to read all those books. It's already a very tough 4 years.

[kote]

That list of reading looks more like a great curriculum for a 'History of Science' major. But how is that knowledge going to help a student who has just landed his first job, and is asked to operate an oscilloscope, or tackle a difficult technical problem? Knowledge is great, but you need marketable skills, too.

Speaking of which, you can usually find classes on many of the texts listed above - just not in physics departments. History and Philosophy of Science often have their own unified department with people studying these things. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_and_philosophy_of_science. Other schools will have classes in either history or philosophy departments. Any good philosophy of science course will go into some history.

I wrote my undergraduate philosophy thesis analyzing the historical development of the interpretation of QM, covering original Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Bohm, Bell, etc. This isn't an unusual type of thing to do in philosophy departments at all. It's exactly the kind of thing that is studied in philosophy of physics. In my case a physics professor was happy to advise and read it too, and I would assume that you'd be able to get support from your physics department if you went this route.

I do think that even a single course in philosophy or history of physics would be very helpful for physics undergrads. Some physics students can have as much of an arrogant and dismissive view of the philosophical and historical foundations of their field as bad philosophy students can have of physics. A dose of perspective can be very useful in both cases.

(Bohr was my favorite, by the way, and you can find the leading Bohr scholar, Jan Faye, in the philosophy department at the University of Copenhagen. And for the record I also majored in engineering.)

[Geremia]

That list of reading looks more like a great curriculum for a 'History of Science' major. But how is that knowledge going to help a student who has just landed his first job, and is asked to operate an oscilloscope, or tackle a difficult technical problem? Knowledge is great, but you need marketable skills, too.Sure, but what about those students going off to grad school in theoretical physics? Where do they learn creativity, which will help them devise new and ingenious theories, if not by readings the masters themselves?

[Geremia]

Speaking of which, you can usually find classes on many of the texts listed above - just not in physics departments.Indeed, but I am not advocating that all physics programs become history or philosophy of physics departments. I am just noting that these things, in any degree whatsoever, are sorely lacking in the vast majority of undergrad physics programs. I suppose what I am really thinking is that physics should not be taught as a self-subsisting knowledge system that just suddenly appeared, as though via "divine inspiration," from the intellects of a handful of 20th century minds. It has a history; it is human, and its knowledge is in no way exclusive of all other types of knowledge. In fact, it can profitably learn from other disciplines for the advancement of itself and the other fields, too.

[Sankaku]

While I fully agree that the history and cultural context of science are both very important, I am not sure that I agree with the Roman Catholic agenda implied in links from the first post.

There are many things that could be improved in University education, but trying to teach 'creativity' by forcing people to read the scientific 'masters' seems more like the exams to enter the Imperial Chinese bureaucracy. Should there be more of a balance? Yes, certainly. But I worry that mandating these kinds of courses would just result in students cramming historical factoids to pass irrelevant tests.

You don't teach creativity. You inspire people to want to create.

[Geremia]

While I fully agree that the history and cultural context of science are both very important, I am not sure that I agree with the Roman Catholic agenda implied in links from the first post."Roman Catholic agenda?" Please explain.There are many things that could be improved in University education, but trying to teach 'creativity' by forcing people to read the scientific 'masters' seems more like the exams to enter the Imperial Chinese bureaucracy. Should there be more of a balance? Yes, certainly. But I worry that mandating these kinds of courses would just result in students cramming historical factoids to pass irrelevant tests.Sure, they shouldn't be forced; they should be inspired.You don't teach creativity.This might be true. I've always thought of it as follows: Teachers give the students the tools, and the students create with them.You inspire people to want to create.Yes, I agree with this, but how?

[kanjames]

Yes, I agree with this, but how?

Personally, I would suggest leave them with the tools and expose them to the materials that have the potential to "inspire" (eg. the lists above) instead of making it as a required course and testing on irrelevant exams. Hopefully with enough personal time in the students' hands they will eventually come up with something that they find interesting, which is usually where creativity comes about from one's mind.

[ZapperZ]

Sure, but what about those students going off to grad school in theoretical physics? Where do they learn creativity, which will help them devise new and ingenious theories, if not by readings the masters themselves?

So how are you going to explain all the creativity that's coming out of these theorists that HAVE undergone the traditional curriculum? Or are you claiming that we haven't had any creative theorists these past many years?

Furthermore, since when do theorists have a monopoly on "creativity"? That's insulting to experimentalists who have devised some of the most ingenious experiments, and discovered some of the most unexpected phenomena.

The classic papers are wonderful in historical terms. However, they are NOT useful pedagogically! You do not gain real knowledge simply by reading something, something that is common in arts majors. You cannot solve for the forces needed to support a structure simply by reading Principia.

Zz.

[bcrowell]

Why aren't the classic papers and books required in U.S. physics programs?
IMO reading historical papers like the ones you listed is not particularly useful in understanding physics deeply, developing the ability to be creative in physics, or even in developing the ability to think skeptically in a broader context. There are a lot of reasons why people end up learning to calculate rather than to understand what they're doing. Often the reason is that their professors only know how to calculate. Or the student may not care about anything beyond calculation. Calculation is also a necessary (but not sufficient) part of developing a deeper understanding.

One shouldn't create a false dichotomy between lousy textbooks and logically rigorous primary academic papers. Even at the freshman level, not all textbooks are incoherent hodgepodges of spoon-fed facts like Halliday or Serway. For example, some of the Berkeley Physics Series is very good, as is PSSC Physics and the Feynman lectures. It's just that 95% of freshman texts are terrible, and if your professor is of the "shut up and calculate" persuasion himself, then he isn't going to be willing and able to search out the other 5%.

[Andy Resnick]

Even at the freshman level, not all textbooks are incoherent hodgepodges of spoon-fed facts like Halliday or Serway. For example, some of the Berkeley Physics Series is very good, as is PSSC Physics and the Feynman lectures. It's just that 95% of freshman texts are terrible, and if your professor is of the "shut up and calculate" persuasion himself, then he isn't going to be willing and able to search out the other 5%.

I think it's a bit over the top to claim 95% of freshman texts are "terrible". Most books can be perceived either as good or bad depending on how they are presented to the student- it's helpful to remember that Feynman's lectures were reviled by his students. More accurately, a majority of freshman/introductory physics courses are geared towards simple "shut up and calculate" approaches. The books are interchangeable.

[bcrowell]

I think it's a bit over the top to claim 95% of freshman texts are "terrible".
"Terrible" is an overly broad term, and I shouldn't have used it. As I read the original post, it was a complaint about courses that teach "what" but not "why." In other words, a liberally educated person should know not just "gravity is proportional to 1/r^2" but "how do we know that gravity is proportional to 1/r^2?" I would certainly claim that 95% of freshman texts bother with "how do we know" less than 25% of the time. As a random example, read Halliday and Resnick's explanation of relativistic momentum and energy.

Most books can be perceived either as good or bad depending on how they are presented to the student
A textbook sets the agenda of a course. An instructor who picks a book like Halliday has set a certain agenda: we will learn "what" but not "why." Typically the instructor picks such a book because the instructor only understands "what" but not "why." In that environment, a ceiling has been set on how much the students will learn.

it's helpful to remember that Feynman's lectures were reviled by his students.
Actually I believe this is nothing more than a popular myth. IIRC Feynman made some remarks about how he considered the course to be a failure, and these were taken out of context and exaggerated later.

It's also important to realize that the OP's concerns about understanding the "why" questions are not concerns that are shared by most students. Most students want a book that tells them how to solve exam problems using cookbook recipes. There may very well be a negative correlation between a book's popularity with students and the degree to which it accomplishes what the OP was asking for.

More accurately, a majority of freshman/introductory physics courses are geared towards simple "shut up and calculate" approaches. The books are interchangeable.
I don't consider Purcell's treatment of E&M to be interchangeable with, say, Halliday and Resnick's treatment of E&M. Purcell answers the "how do we know" questions. H&R doesn't.

[Phyisab****]

I have to disagree completely OP. It sounds like you wanted a degree in the history of science. I have my own issues with the educational environments I have encountered, namely the condescending and aloof nature of 75% of physics professors. But I am very glad that in my education the practical skills needed for physics were stressed, and not the historical perspective. This gave me skills which are marketable in industry and did not cause me to become a useless academic.

[D H]

My professors never required that I read, e.g., the original classic physics papers that liberal arts students at, e.g., St. John's College (http://www.stjohnscollege.edu/) and Thomas Aquinas College (http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/about/bluebook/index.htm), do!
The students at St. Johns eventually learn calculus, but apparently not until their junior year (http://www.stjohnscollege.edu/academic/mathtutorial.shtml), and then they learn it primarily by reading Newton's Principia. That is terribly late to learn calculus, and a terrible reference as well. What is the value of reading the Principia to a physics student? Have you tried doing so? I have. I have; it is insufferable. Newton takes pages upon pages of slow text and archaic geometric arguments to arrive at and explain a simple result when expressed using modern mathematical notation.

Newton was writing for a different audience than today's science and mathematics student. The mindset of the audience and the mathematical tools available in Newton's time, even augmented with Newton's calculus, limited the nature of the discourse. It is the nature of the discourse rather than the physics and mathematics that is of interest to liberal arts students. Liberal arts students are expected to read several thousands (tens of thousands?) of pages per year, with the volume of material read per year increasing as the students advance. Science and mathematics students are expected to read several hundreds of pages per year, with the volume of text read per year decreasing as the students advance. Different mindsets and different goals result in different teaching techniques.

Those liberal arts students are reading the initial papers to discover the progression of human thinking rather than to understand modern mathematics and physics. Mathematics and physics students read the centuries-long refinement, consolidation, and expansion of those initial concepts. The initial presentations are ofttimes awkward and murky. It took a long time to distill those initial ideas down. It is the distilled thinking that is the essential concept to learn for math and science students. That the initial concepts are a bit awkward and verbose is precisely why these classical papers are of interest to liberal arts students but are of little value to the undergraduate science and mathematics students in the mainline science and math curriculum. They might well be of interest if the science/math undergrad chooses to take an elective class or two in the philosophy of science.

[Andy Resnick]

As a random example, read Halliday and Resnick's explanation of relativistic momentum and energy.


I find it odd that you chose a decidedly advanced concept to support your claim regarding introductory texts. I have a well-documented argument against the canonical introductory physics class, but *adding* advanced material is not part of my solution; clarifying the essential concepts is. Either way, neither of us thinks the OP's book list appropriate.

A textbook sets the agenda of a course. An instructor who picks a book like Halliday has set a certain agenda: we will learn "what" but not "why." Typically the instructor picks such a book because the instructor only understands "what" but not "why." In that environment, a ceiling has been set on how much the students will learn.


A textbook does not set the course for anyone other than a lazy instructor- as you point out. Nowadays, there is so much more to introductory courses than just the printed text- many professors augment with online content.


Actually I believe this is nothing more than a popular myth. IIRC Feynman made some remarks about how he considered the course to be a failure, and these were taken out of context and exaggerated later.


Goodstein and Neugebauer, who wrote the Preface to the series in 1989 and were present during the 1961-62 and 63-64 lectures, state very clearly that students "dreaded" the class, and that attendance steadily decreased.

It's also important to realize that the OP's concerns about understanding the "why" questions are not concerns that are shared by most students. Most students want a book that tells them how to solve exam problems using cookbook recipes. There may very well be a negative correlation between a book's popularity with students and the degree to which it accomplishes what the OP was asking for.

I don't consider Purcell's treatment of E&M to be interchangeable with, say, Halliday and Resnick's treatment of E&M. Purcell answers the "how do we know" questions. H&R doesn't.

As I've said many, many, times: I think the undergraduate Physics curriculum needs an overhaul. Purcell may be the one exception out of the half-dozen 'standard' texts currently in use; I have not read the Berkeley Course series.

[Geremia]

I have to disagree completely OP. It sounds like you wanted a degree in the history of science. I have my own issues with the educational environments I have encountered, namely the condescending and aloof nature of 75% of physics professors. But I am very glad that in my education the practical skills needed for physics were stressed, and not the historical perspective. This gave me skills which are marketable in industry and did not cause me to become a useless academic.It sounds like you never wanted to get into the fundamental questions of physics when you first started your degree? If that's the case, then how you were educated was probably good, but I would call it more like a vocational training.

[Geremia]

The students at St. Johns eventually learn calculus, but apparently not until their junior year (http://www.stjohnscollege.edu/academic/mathtutorial.shtml), and then they learn it primarily by reading Newton's Principia. That is terribly late to learn calculus, and a terrible reference as well. What is the value of reading the Principia to a physics student? Have you tried doing so? I have. I have; it is insufferable. Newton takes pages upon pages of slow text and archaic geometric arguments to arrive at and explain a simple result when expressed using modern mathematical notation.Sure, but I can assure you you will understand it better. A lot of physics information gets lost when its all wrapped in equations. We really do take for granted what the equations mean.

[D H]

The students at St. Johns eventually learn calculus, but apparently not until their junior year, and then they learn it primarily by reading Newton's Principia. That is terribly late to learn calculus, and a terrible reference as well. What is the value of reading the Principia to a physics student? Have you tried doing so? I have. I have; it is insufferable. Newton takes pages upon pages of slow text and archaic geometric arguments to arrive at and explain a simple result when expressed using modern mathematical notation.Sure, but I can assure you you will understand it better.
I can assure you that you will not. Newton's reasoning mostly took a long and tortured geometric path rather than a more direct and simpler algebraic path. That shouldn't be surprising; Newton lacked the tools that make the short and simple algebraic path possible. Amongst other things, Newton lacked the concept of limits (early 19th century), vector analysis (late 19th century), and modern algebraic notation (Newton's time to the mid 20th century) that make even simple mathematical and physical concepts much easier to describe and understand.

It comes down to a matter of time. It is no longer possible for one person to be well-versed in all subjects. A bachelors degree is supposed to take four years or so to obtain, not dozens. The large amount of material that needs to be covered in any undergraduate program necessitates that some peripheral material be given short shrift, or not even covered at all. Those students at St. Johns don't learn calculus until their junior year, and that which they do learn is sandwiched between a lot of other material. Mathematics and the sciences are given short shrift at St. Johns. St. Johns deserves a tip 'o the hat; most liberal arts colleges give even less consideration to mathematics and the sciences.

Most mathematics and physical science baccalaureate programs require students to take a significant number of liberal arts classes such as philosophy of science and history of science. These are worthwhile subjects. Then again, so are the fine arts, languages, humanities, social sciences, ... Not all can be covered in a four year technical education.

[ZapperZ]

Sure, but I can assure you you will understand it better. A lot of physics information gets lost when its all wrapped in equations. We really do take for granted what the equations mean.

There is a difference between learning physics, and learning ABOUT physics. You are confusing the two.

Furthermore, the physics curriculum, as it is, is already chokeful of a variety of subject matter that a student has to learn. One has to make sure the student has a solid foundation of physics before embarking on learning about physics. Besides, one can argue for the same towards those learning about physics. Why don't they also spend time learning physics? They ".. will understand it better...", rather than just some superficial idea of what physics is and then telling the rest of us to understand about something "fundamental", as if they know what they're talking about.

Zz.

[Jack21222]

It sounds like you never wanted to get into the fundamental questions of physics when you first started your degree? If that's the case, then how you were educated was probably good, but I would call it more like a vocational training.

The answers to fundamental questions of physics are inaccessible to people first starting their degree. You can't expect somebody fresh out of high school to learn tensor calculus to understand the current best theory of gravity.

[mr. vodka]

Hm, prickly topic, but interesting!

First of all, let me say that books like Serway are an abomination. Okay, I'm not saying studying Newton's Principia is better, but there are degrees! Neither of these two extremes are good. Personally, I found it very frustrating how Serway was so good at fooling all my costudents in believing the book was actually giving them a thorough treatment of the basic concepts, but personally I found it a dreadful summation of facts you already knew, but then put in more tedious words, without making it at least tedious enough to be exact. Sorry for the rant. That being said, I believe my ideal professor would keep to a regular textbook (better than Serway, but not as historical as Newton) and would create interludes with some historical development, or at least advice the students on how concepts arose and most of all: be honest(!) That is what most looking of all, plain straightforwardness (admitted: I have only had one year of physics as of yet). But I'm a realist, and so I now use my summer holidays for reading up on the historical and interpretational side of what I've learned. If people are not motivated enough to get on it themselves, they won't like it being taught throughout the year anyway. As a little sidenote: we shouldn't blame too much on the university or the professors: I find the students themselves are often not motivated enough to even talk about physics after hours; personally it seems as though they just want to drink their Serway-blues away.

[lisab]

Sure, but I can assure you you will understand it better. A lot of physics information gets lost when its all wrapped in equations. We really do take for granted what the equations mean.

I disagree. As an analogy: when a person learns how to drive a car, they go straight to a car (or a simulation of a car). They don't start with a horse-drawn buggy. Further, I doubt that if a student did start with a buggy, that would not necessarily make them a better driver of a car.

[contramundum]

I disagree. As an analogy: when a person learns how to drive a car, they go straight to a car (or a simulation of a car). They don't start with a horse-drawn buggy. Further, I doubt that if a student did start with a buggy, that would not necessarily make them a better driver of a car.

Yes but most people take for granted that the car just works without understanding why or how it works. When the car doesn't work you take it to a mechanic because you don't know anything about how to fix it.

[Jack21222]

Yes but most people take for granted that the car just works without understanding why or how it works. When the car doesn't work you take it to a mechanic because you don't know anything about how to fix it.

Learning how to fix a horse-drawn buggy won't help you learn how to fix a car, either.

I'm not sure what point you just tried to make.

[mr. vodka]

Man I hate analogies.

I'm surprised, though, that many people don't seem to acknowledge/agree that learning about the development of a theory gives you a better feeling with it, but of course, if you're not interested in the history for the sake of it, then the benefit of it won't be worth it: I don't think it should become a (greater) part of the curriculum, because then it'd be a part of what you have to learn and it becomes a list of dead facts that don't build anything if you're not interested in it, and if you are interested in it, then you can read the things yourself; of course I do welcome a professor that can advice on what to read into and plays some historical interludes for the fun of it :)

[Jack21222]

Man I hate analogies.

I'm surprised, though, that many people don't seem to acknowledge/agree that learning about the development of a theory gives you a better feeling with it

There's a chasm of difference between a brief mention of the development of a theory and reading Principia. The OP was talking about reading a long list of historical books in a physics program. That goes WAY beyond simply "learning about the development of a theory."

In my modern physics class, we spend half of a class on the history of the development of the quantum theory of light, leading up to Planck. I feel that gave me a little better of an understanding of Planck's law. But, that was less than an hour, not reading an entire book.

[mr. vodka]

Well okay, when I say "learning about the development of a theory", I do mean reading the works or at least a couple of papers on those works; all the names you've heard of in QM have written enough books on the development of it. But okay, semantics ;)

EDIT: so what I called "of course I do welcome a professor that [...] plays some historical interludes for the fun of it :)" in my last post, references to what happened in your class

[thehacker3]

[URL="http://www.newmancause.co.uk/"]
Why do I deserve a B.S. in physics when these liberal arts students are the ones, based on their knowledge of these classics, more educated in certain respects of physics than I?

Because when you get hired at a job to solve problems, you'll know be able to do them better than the people who just know how to do them without having much experience actually solving them.

Well at least that's the US mentality about it..

[alxm]

Christ, it took years for Chandrasekhar, one of the greatest physicists of the last century, to translate, abridge, unravel and algebra-ify newton's convoluted prose and tedious geometric arguments, as to put it into a form (http://www.amazon.com/Newtons-Principia-Common-Reader-Chandrasekhar/dp/019852675X) a modern scientist could understand. I guarantee you, he did not gain any new insights into physics from doing so. He likely gained insight into how utterly confused (from today's perspective) and muddled the thinking on physics, and its terminology was in the 17th century.

Not only do I disagree with the sentiment the OP's expressing, I find it a distinctly anti-scientific attitude. It reeks of medieval scholasticism and its "ad fontes!"-ism, its worship of the past and insistence that true understanding could only come from studying the original sources. That is how the classics are studied, because it springs from this tradition where it was basically the only thing they allowed themselves to study. Which is what gave us Whitehead's famous assessment: "Western philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato".

Science started advancing the moment we started throwing out that attitude and realizing that we could figure stuff out for ourselves just as well as previous generations did. By realizing that as smart as Aristotle was, he may not have been right about everything, and that those of us living in the present might actually have something even more profound to contribute.

If you're interested in the history of ideas - which is not a bad thing for a scientist - you should also learn the history of the attitude you're expressing.

[Sankaku]

Science started advancing the moment we started throwing out that attitude and realizing that we could figure stuff out for ourselves just as well as previous generations did.
Yes!

[Andy Resnick]

Science started advancing the moment we started throwing out that attitude and realizing that we could figure stuff out for ourselves just as well as previous generations did. By realizing that as smart as Aristotle was, he may not have been right about everything, and that those of us living in the present might actually have something even more profound to contribute.

If you're interested in the history of ideas - which is not a bad thing for a scientist - you should also learn the history of the attitude you're expressing.

Well put.

[D H]

Man I hate analogies.

I'm surprised, though, that many people don't seem to acknowledge/agree that learning about the development of a theory gives you a better feeling with it, ...
Since you love analogies so much, let's try another: Did your readings about the early history of thermometers help you understand the modern concept of heat one iota (this thread)?

A proper scientific reading of Principia takes a long, long time. As alxm already mentioned, it took Chandrasekhar years to wend his way through Newton's prose and geometric arguments. As any scientist or engineer can attest, reading speed of technical information, even well-written technical information (and the Principia, by modern standards is not well-written) is agonizingly slow. The very quick style of reading that must be done to survive in a liberal arts education is not going to teach any science. Those liberal arts students at St. Johns are not reading the Principia to gain one iota of scientific understanding. They are reading it to see how people thought and argued.

[Geremia]

Not only do I disagree with the sentiment the OP's expressing, I find it a distinctly anti-scientific attitude.It depends how you define science. If you mean a chain of syllogisms from first-principles, I disagree. If you mean devising hypotheses that save appearances only, I agree.Science started advancing the moment we started throwing out that attitude and realizing that we could figure stuff out for ourselves just as well as previous generations did.So basically science "re-invents the wheel" each generation? What advantage does that bring?By realizing that as smart as Aristotle was, he may not have been right about everything, and that those of us living in the present might actually have something even more profound to contribute.Of course Aristotle was not 100% correct. Would you agree that modern science is based on some of his truer teachings, though, e.g., the methodology of his Posterior Analytics?If you're interested in the history of ideas - which is not a bad thing for a scientist - you should also learn the history of the attitude you're expressing.And what specifically about that history should I note? Thanks

[Geremia]

Those liberal arts students at St. Johns are not reading the Principia to gain one iota of scientific understanding. They are reading it to see how people thought and argued.What makes you think that? I would think they know objective truth exists and can be known.

[mr. vodka]

Since you love analogies so much, let's try another: Did your readings about the early history of thermometers help you understand the modern concept of heat one iota (this thread)?

1) That's not an analogy, it's an example.

2) Yes!

3) Has your cynical attitude ever helped anybody understand something better? Anyway, I'm not interested in it, so for future reference: I don't need your attempts at it.

[D H]

Those liberal arts students at St. Johns are not reading the Principia to gain one iota of scientific understanding. They are reading it to see how people thought and argued.What makes you think that? I would think they know objective truth exists and can be known.
First off, nice quote mining. My post said exactly why I think that. Here's what you cut out:
A proper scientific reading of Principia takes a long, long time. As alxm already mentioned, it took Chandrasekhar years to wend his way through Newton's prose and geometric arguments. As any scientist or engineer can attest, reading speed of technical information, even well-written technical information (and the Principia, by modern standards is not well-written) is agonizingly slow. The very quick style of reading that must be done to survive in a liberal arts education is not going to teach any science. Those liberal arts students at St. Johns are not reading the Principia to gain one iota of scientific understanding. They are reading it to see how people thought and argued.
Have you tried reading The Principia on your own? Reading a convoluted, poorly written journal paper is a snap compared to reading Newton. Here's a link: http://books.google.com/books?id=Tm0FAAAAQAAJ. I'll be real blunt: From the perspective of learning physics, there is nothing to be gained from The Principia. The physical reasoning is rather convoluted, the mathematics incredibly archaic. Newton was writing for a different time and different audience. He did not have the benefit of 300+ years of post-Newtonian development.

So let's fast-forward a couple of hundred years to Maxwell's 1865 article on A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field. A link: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/A_Dynamical_Theory_of_the_Electromagnetic_Field.pd f. The writing certainly is more modern, but the mathematics is not there yet. Mathematicians had invented the rudiments of vector analysis by 1865, but that knowledge had not made its way across the mathematician/physicist divide. Physicists had yet to invent there own version of vector analysis.

The original writings that you feel are so important have little, if any, value from the perspective of science education. Instead, those writings have historic value and offer insight into how brilliant people think. Those brilliant people who came up with these ideas were indeed brilliant, but that brilliance often did not extend to the real of communication. Even those who also were great communicators, they suffered from being too attached to the way they developed the concept. Those initial brilliant ideas are a bit clunky. After the fact, lesser minds found ways of expressing things more elegantly, more clearly, and more succinctly. Well after the fact, new developments in mathematics and science enabled an even clearer expression of those concepts.

[G037H3]

Someone please make me a list of mathematics works similar in importance to the physics works in the OP. :)

[Theorem.]

There is a difference between learning history and physics

[D H]

There is a difference between learning history and physics
Exactly.

Those students at St. Johns et. al. are not learning science with this teaching method. They are learning history of science or philosophy of science -- both of which are liberal arts concerns.

What is sad is that while students of science, technology, engineering, and math have to take a good number of liberal arts courses to obtain their bachelors degree, liberal arts students have to take *no* real science, technology, engineering, or math course. We have to sit side-by-side with future lawyers and politicians in liberal arts classes. The remedial courses that some STEM students have to take typically do not count towards the liberal arts distribution requirements. The same is not true for liberal arts students. They can use ridiculously dumbed down classes such as "Physics for Poets" to meet their science distribution requirements. Even St. Johns, purported one of the best liberal arts schools in the country, does not require students to take calculus until their junior year. Many liberal arts schools do not require students to take calculus ever. How can one learn any science without calculus?

[inflector]

It seems to me that it really depends on what type of physics you are going to practice.

While I certainly agree that reading original sources might not be fruitful in many cases for learning the actual science, a thorough understanding of the history of physics is useful to those who are going to be working on advancing science through theory or experiment rather than through application. I believe that researchers benefit from understanding those researchers who came before them. What sorts of paths led to particular discoveries and what sorts of paths were dead ends, etc.

If you are going to largely work in areas of incremental improvement where being able to apply a knowledge of physics is most important, then learning about the history of physics is less useful. If, for example, you are going to build trading models on Wall St., then it is probably a waste of time to learn about the history of physics to such depth unless it is a personal interest.

[Andy Resnick]

How can one learn any science without calculus?

While I agree with the majority of your post: our previous Dean for example, never had intro Physics, I don't think biologists would agree with the sentence above. NIH gives out about $40B/year for projects that do not require calculus.

My point is that if we want science to become more integrated into a liberal arts education, it has to be done on *their* terms, not *ours*. Critical thinking does not require calculus.

[D H]

My point is that if we want science to become more integrated into a liberal arts education, it has to be done on *their* terms, not *ours*.
Why does it have to be done on *their* terms? That silly notion leads to silly classes such as "Physics for Poets" and such. When we take liberal arts classes we do so on *their* terms. There is no "Creative Writing for Engineers" classes. If we want to take creative writing we take it right alongside English majors. If we want to learn Greek or learn to paint we take it right alongside linguistics or arts majors.

We have to take such courses on *their* terms because (a) *their* terms are the right terms for *their* courses, and (b) we aren't so mentally deficient that we cannot take one liberal arts course per semester taught on *their *terms. Saying that we need to teach science to liberal arts students on *their* terms is implicitly acknowledging that they are mentally deficient in some way. I disagree.

Critical thinking does not require calculus.
Any critical understanding of physics or chemistry most certainly does require calculus. Top-notch biology programs require their students to take calculus because a critical understanding of biology also requires calculus. Calculus is the starting point of the mathematics education for almost all science, technology, engineering, and math degrees.

[jhae2.718]

I have to agree with the sentiment that calculus is a requirement for scientific understanding. Focusing on physics, I don't see how you could even come close to a full understanding. Without a knowledge of calculus, derivation of the equations cannot be fully understood. For an extremely simple example, how would somebody lacking calculus derive the position function for some particle? Blindly memorizing a series of equations is not understanding.

How can you understand Maxwell's equations without calculus?

Since so much science deals with rates of change of quantities, calculus is key. Any "science" degree that only begins calculus in the third year is not a "real" science degree, IMO. (FWIW, I am an engineering student.)

[Ryker]

What constitutes knowledge of calculus, though? It's taught in every high school, so one could argue that people do in fact know it, despite not taking university-level courses.

[D H]

What constitutes knowledge of calculus, though? It's taught in every high school, so one could argue that people do in fact know it, despite not taking university-level courses.
It is offered in high schools, but it is not mandatory. Heaven forbid! One reason people go into non-technical degrees is because they only have to take a very small number of math or science classes. I just did a spot check on the requirements for math and science education in various liberal arts departments. Some require ONE class, period. Most appear to require three maybe four classes. They are not required to take one real math or science class. Math and science departments offer classes specifically aimed at the liberal arts student such as Physics for Poets, where the teaching is done on *their* grounds.

Speaking of Physics for Poets, a brief excerpt from the essay It's Time to End 'Physics for Poets' by Edward Morley (http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2006/04/13/morley):
The second subtext [that we will happily accommodate their distaste for science and mathematics], however, is disturbingly accurate. We do make special accommodations for students who are uncomfortable with science, and particularly mathematics. We offer special classes that teach science with a minimum of math, and we offer math classes at a level below what ought to be expected of college students. Admissions officers and student tour guides go out of their way to reassure prospective students that they won't be expected to complete rigorous major-level science classes, but will be provided with options more to their liking.

In comparison, most science and engineers have to take eight to ten liberal arts classes to obtain a bachelor's degree, and they do not have the option of choosing courses such as "Poetry for Physicists" to fulfill that requirement.

[Andy Resnick]

Why does it have to be done on *their* terms?

Because like us, they have the right to set their own curriculum.

[Andy Resnick]

Any critical understanding of physics or chemistry most certainly does require calculus. Top-notch biology programs require their students to take calculus because a critical understanding of biology also requires calculus. Calculus is the starting point of the mathematics education for almost all science, technology, engineering, and math degrees.

I have to agree with the sentiment that calculus is a requirement for scientific understanding. Focusing on physics, I don't see how you could even come close to a full understanding. Without a knowledge of calculus, derivation of the equations cannot be fully understood. For an extremely simple example, how would somebody lacking calculus derive the position function for some particle? Blindly memorizing a series of equations is not understanding.

How can you understand Maxwell's equations without calculus?

Since so much science deals with rates of change of quantities, calculus is key. Any "science" degree that only begins calculus in the third year is not a "real" science degree, IMO. (FWIW, I am an engineering student.)

Again, I am sympathetic to this view. However, I see no justification here that a history major (or a psychology major, or a political science major, or a communications major, or...) *must* be conversant in calculus in order to be an effective citizen. I see no justification for the claim that every college graduate must understand Maxwell's equations- especially since the majority of physics majors, upon graduating, do not. Why is your attorney *required* to know calculus? Why does your surgeon? What about translators?

What's getting lost in this, is what constitutes a well-balanced education. For example, what is more important: for a history major to be exposed to the scientific arguments for evolution, or the chain rule? Like it or not, the average US citizen can't do algebra. Forcing philosophy majors to take 9 credits of math just to force calculus on them is counterproductive, and the College representatives to the faculty senate will not approve those changes.

[Andy Resnick]

In comparison, most science and engineers have to take eight to ten liberal arts classes to obtain a bachelor's degree, and they do not have the option of choosing courses such as "Poetry for Physicists" to fulfill that requirement.

I'm not sure that's universally true, either. I went to RPI, and had to take 1 course per semester of 'non science' courses. These included gym, Psych 101, Science Fiction literature, and 'music in society'. Those are blow-off courses.

[D H]

I just looked at the graduation requirements for a physics degree from RPI: 24 credits in humanities and social sciences. (I couldn't find the corresponding requirements for the School of Engineering.) I hope RPI doesn't count gym in the humanities or social sciences. 24 credits is typically eight 3 credit classes, which is a whole lot more than the corresponding number of math and science classes that most liberal arts students need to take.

Because high schools no longer educate, a lot of schools have found they need to offer remedial reading and writing classes for their students. In many science, technology, engineering, and math schools, particularly top tier ones, those remedial classes do not count toward the humanities, arts, and social sciences requirement.


Another way to look at it: Those humanities, arts, and social sciences classes you had to take were indeed easy compared to your math, science and engineering classes. While you were pulling all-nighters and studying into the weekend, your liberal arts cohorts partied all weekend long -- and their weekends started Thursday afternoon and ended Tuesday morning.

[DaleSpam]

My 2 cents:

1) I think that it is fine for liberal arts majors to take "physics for poets", but I would also like to have the engineers be able to take "history for physicists". I think that this kind of targeted teaching can be very effective. By far my best course ever was a "physiology for biomedical engineers". The professors had a medical background, but they really made an effort not to design a class for pre-med students, but for engineers. They focused on concepts of mass and energy transfer in biological systems. The result was fantastic, and I really liked the model. I think that it not only benefits the students, but also the professors who need to step out of their comfort zone and really learn to see their subject from an outsider's perspective.

2) I do not think that the best way to gain a physics education is to read the seminal works as suggested by the OP. In fact, far too much time is spent teaching Newtonian mechanics and relativistic thought experiments and far too little time is spent teaching Lagrangian's and Minkowski geometry. Science has progressed far since Newton and even since Einstein, and those early papers are often very rough. I think that a historical approach to physics is counterproductive.

[Andy Resnick]

Another way to look at it: Those humanities, arts, and social sciences classes you had to take were indeed easy compared to your math, science and engineering classes. While you were pulling all-nighters and studying into the weekend, your liberal arts cohorts partied all weekend long -- and their weekends started Thursday afternoon and ended Tuesday morning.

What does that have to do with anything? Hopefully you aren't advocating for all college students to be as miserable as I was?

[Andy Resnick]

My 2 cents:

1) I think that it is fine for liberal arts majors to take "physics for poets", but I would also like to have the engineers be able to take "history for physicists". I think that this kind of targeted teaching can be very effective. By far my best course ever was a "physiology for biomedical engineers". The professors had a medical background, but they really made an effort not to design a class for pre-med students, but for engineers. They focused on concepts of mass and energy transfer in biological systems. The result was fantastic, and I really liked the model. I think that it not only benefits the students, but also the professors who need to step out of their comfort zone and really learn to see their subject from an outsider's perspective.


I totally agree with this. As another example, I wish I was taught how to write properly- grant applications, papers, etc. I asked around my old employer for a course like this (writing for techies?), and while there was plenty of courses designed to help non-english speaking technical folks, there was nothing for me.

[D H]

What does that have to do with anything? Hopefully you aren't advocating for all college students to be as miserable as I was?
Depends. If you worked more than fifteen hours a week while you were going to college, a tip 'o the hat to you. The comments that follow do not apply to you. If you were the typical college student who worked less than ten hours a week (or not at all), lived on campus, and had practically no responsibilities outside of going to college, then yes, I do. For one thing, think back as to how much spare time you had in college, even with all the studying you had to do. Part of your supposed misery resulted from seeing your cohorts goofing off almost all the time.

For another, I do want our country to continue to be competitive, and I truly do wish that the people who make our laws had even the slightest idea of understanding of what science, technology, engineering and math are truly about.

[jhae2.718]

I totally agree with this. As another example, I wish I was taught how to write properly- grant applications, papers, etc. I asked around my old employer for a course like this (writing for techies?), and while there was plenty of courses designed to help non-english speaking technical folks, there was nothing for me.

For my engineering degree plan, I have to take a course in technical writing (haven't taken it yet); my university also offers several courses in scientific communication. Recently, it seems that a lot more emphasis is being placed on communications skills for engineers. (I guess we're moving forwards from "Yesterday I didn't know how to spell 'enginear' and now I are one...")

Depends. If you worked more than fifteen hours a week while you were going to college, a tip 'o the hat to you. The comments that follow do not apply to you. If you were the typical college student who worked less than ten hours a week (or not at all), lived on campus, and had practically no responsibilities outside of going to college, then yes, I do. For one thing, think back as to how much spare time you had in college, even with all the studying you had to do. Part of your supposed misery resulted from seeing your cohorts goofing off almost all the time.

For another, I do want our country to continue to be competitive, and I truly do wish that the people who make our laws had even the slightest idea of understanding of what science, technology, engineering and math are truly about.

Hmm...in what time I'm not working or studying or writing M-files, I'm doing physics, math, writing M-files, and writing about math, science, etc.? (What does that say about me?)

I don't see it as being necessary for liberal arts students to have a scientific understanding on the same level as that of science/engineering students, but I do think that it is critical that all students have at a minimum a grasp of the fundamentals of the sciences. Overall, I agree with you. College is perhaps the point where "real" education starts (lower grades seem to be a "pass-everyone-so-you-don't-hurt-their-feelings" type of affair; that's a broad generalization and I'm sure that good programs exist, but overall I think the rigor of our educational system, at least at primary and secondary levels, is declining.), and shouldn't be squandered.

[Andy Resnick]

If you were the typical college student who worked less than ten hours a week (or not at all), lived on campus, and had practically no responsibilities outside of going to college, then yes, I do.



That is a reprehensible attitude and anti-education. Rather than using science to balance some of the egregious faults of a liberal arts education, you seem to be more concerned with how unfair life is. Guess what- life is unfair. Some people don't have to work as hard as you.

[Andy Resnick]

I don't see it as being necessary for liberal arts students to have a scientific understanding on the same level as that of science/engineering students, but I do think that it is critical that all students have at a minimum a grasp of the fundamentals of the sciences.

Exactly- a fundamental tenet of a liberal arts education is "all viewpoints have equal validity". While this is fine for analyzing works of art, it fails when considering say, a budget. Science provides a means to evaluate different viewpoints and further, provides unambiguous methods to determine accuracy.

That is what should be added to the liberal arts curriculum- critical (logical) thinking, and developing an ability to distinguish fact from fantasy.

[D H]

That is a reprehensible attitude and anti-education.
How, exactly, is wishing that all kids received a good education anti-education? How, exactly, is wanting legislators to have some knowledge of the things they are technical issues legislating reprehensible? How, exactly, is hoping that our country remains competitive reprehensible?

[Andy Resnick]

How, exactly, is wishing that all kids received a good education anti-education? How, exactly, is wanting legislators to have some knowledge of the things they are technical issues legislating reprehensible? How, exactly, is hoping that our country remains competitive reprehensible?

Because you are *not* saying all kids should get a good education, you are claiming *all* kids should spend hours every day learning calculus because it is good for them to work long hours at drudgery.

[jhae2.718]

It's not that kids should spend hours every day learning calculus for the sake of spending time learning calculus; it's that to fully understand a subject, especially a technical subject, time is required to practice, etc.

[Andy Resnick]

It's not that kids should spend hours every day learning calculus for the sake of spending time learning calculus; it's that to fully understand a subject, especially a technical subject, time is required to practice, etc.

Nobody in their right mind would debate that. But again, why does a History major *need* to understand calculus-based Physics?

I'm being very specific here, because I agree that more science courses should be a part of all undergraduate education.

[Daverz]

Albert Einstein, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”
“Does the inertia of a Body Depend upon its Energy Content?”
“On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light”
“The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity”
Hermann Minkowski, “Space and Time”
Faraday, “On the absolute quantity of Electricity associated with the particles or atom of Matter”
J.J. Thomson, “Cathode Rays”
R.A. Milliken, The Electron
E. Rutherford, “The Scattering of α and β particles by matter and the Structure of the Atom”
A. Einstein, “Concerning a Heuristic Point of View about the Creation and Transformation of Light”
N. Bohr, “On the Spectrum of Hydrogen”
L. De Broglie, “The Undulatory Aspects of the Electron”
E. Schrodinger, Four Lectures on Wave Mechanics
C.J. Davisson, “Are Electrons Waves?”
W. Heisenberg, The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory


I call BS. Some of these are quite technical, aimed at professional physicists, and require some historical background because of the old-fashioned methods used. The Heisenberg lectures used action-angle variables, for example, something even most graduate students would have to look up in Goldstein. I doubt liberal arts students could get anything out of most of these references. And it's a disservice, because there are pedagogically excellent books covering much of this material that liberal arts students supported by a good instructor could get something out of, e.g. Structure and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics by Hughes or It's About Time (Special Relativity) by Mermin.

For Physics students, I think what would be of more value would be to require them to write more in their Physics courses, perhaps requiring them to write some papers sustaining a longer physical argument, rather than just narrowly focused problem solving every time. And I think the history of science is important, too. Good professors should provide some historical information as part of the "lore" of their subject.

[jhae2.718]

... But again, why does a History major *need* to understand calculus-based Physics?
...

Point taken.

[D H]

But again, why does a History major *need* to understand calculus-based Physics?
Because most of our public leaders have a liberal arts rather than a technical background. I want such people to have at least some inkling of the ever growing technical nature of the world that they are legislating or administering.

Because physics and chemistry without calculus are rote memorization of the worst kind, appearing to be a bunch of ad hoc rules that we nerdy scientists pulled out of an unnamed body orifice. Calculus suddenly makes all of those ad hoc rules make sense.

Calculus is not a torture device. It is a very simple, and very teachable, mathematical concept. With this simple concept, many different topics ranging from finance to population dynamics to planetary orbits becomes easier to understand. Calculus is not hard, at least not conceptually.

That said, many schools intentionally do turn the mainline calculus and introductory physics into torture devices. These are the canonical bust-out courses for the physical sciences and engineering. Because calculus and physics are useful in the life sciences, many schools also offer less intensive calculus and non-degree physics classes aimed at those students. These classes aren't really dumbed down versions; they just aren't intentionally made to be difficult. Those courses would also be appropriate for liberal arts majors. There is a difference between making a subject not so difficult and dumbing it down to the point of being meaningless.

[twofish-quant]

Because most of our public leaders have a liberal arts rather than a technical background. I want such people to have at least some inkling of the ever growing technical nature of the world that they are legislating or administering.

Personally, I think that the best way of dealing with that is to teach more humanities to science people and change the reward structures so that people with deep science backgrounds are *encouraged* to run for office and become administrators.

Because physics and chemistry without calculus are rote memorization of the worst kind, appearing to be a bunch of ad hoc rules that we nerdy scientists pulled out of an unnamed body orifice. Calculus suddenly makes all of those ad hoc rules make sense.

If you have a good teacher. The problem is that good math and science teachers are extraordinarily difficult to find, and the academic system puts huge penalties on people that want to focus on undergraduate and high school teaching.

The reason that a lot of teaching boils down to rote learning is that teaching a teacher to follow a checklist and cheap and easy to administrate and manage. If you want to have teachers go beyond rote memorization, then you run into the problem that you just don't have enough calculus teachers to go around.

Also, teaching geniuses is easy. Teaching calculus to someone that just doesn't have good math skills because they grow up in the wrong family in the wrong city is a slow, painful, process. It's also extremely expensive in time and money. I'm all for raising standards but if you just raise standards, but don't put up the cash to help people meet those standards, this ends up just being cruel.

It is a very simple, and very teachable, mathematical concept. With this simple concept, many different topics ranging from finance to population dynamics to planetary orbits becomes easier to understand. Calculus is not hard, at least not conceptually.

It is hard for someone that doesn't have basic math skills. One extremely important part of teaching something is to realize how hard it is to someone that just doesn't understand it. People that are math geniuses often end up being the worst math teachers because they just don't understand how the world looks to someone that is not a math genius. Conversely some of the best math teachers end up being people that *aren't* that good at math since they have a lot more sympathy for students.

Forget about calculus. If we can get to the point were most college graduates are proficient at *algebra* that's a big advance.

That said, many schools intentionally do turn the mainline calculus and introductory physics into torture devices.

And there are reasons for this. The problem is that you don't have enough time and money and teachers to teach calculus to everyone, so you intentionally make it painful so that the students that require the *least* help get taught.

[twofish-quant]

Why is problem-solving stressed so much in U.S. physics programs?
Why aren't the classic papers and books required in U.S. physics programs?

Because the purpose of undergraduate physics programs in the United States is to train engineers to build better bombs and plasma television sets so that the US ends up being in military and economic control of the world (not that there is anything wrong with that).

The people that provide the funding for education are the generals and CEO's, and they want students that can increase the wealth and power of said generals and CEO's. Having people think too much sometimes causes problems.

[twofish-quant]

Why do I deserve a B.S. in physics when these liberal arts students are the ones, based on their knowledge of these classics, more educated in certain respects of physics than I?

Because you can do those parts of physics that the power elite considers important to maintain their power and control.

Also, I've concluded that universities don't educated because universities *can't* educate. Professors don't teach students. Students teach themselves. The best the university can do is to provide an environment where students can get what they need to teach themselves, and the basic tools to decide what they can do.

If you spend a huge amount of time reading Principia, you don't have as much time to read Noam Chomsky, Antonio Gramsci, Karl Marx, and C. Wright Mills.

[Astronuc]

Also, I've concluded that universities don't educated because universities *can't* educate. Professors don't teach students. Students teach themselves. The best the university can do is to provide an environment where students can get what they need to teach themselves, and the basic tools to decide what they can do. More or less spot on. I'd modify it though and say the 'best' students teach themselves.

[D H]

Personally, I think that the best way of dealing with that is to teach more humanities to science people and change the reward structures so that people with deep science backgrounds are *encouraged* to run for office and become administrators.
Perhaps. Most engineers have to take eight liberal arts courses during the course of their undergraduate education. Similar requirements apply to students of the sciences in schools that award a BS degree. Some science students go to schools that award a BA rather than a BS degree, and the liberal arts requirements for those students can be considerably higher. So, perhaps engineering and science schools need to up the ante on the number of humanities classes their students need to take. The downside is that keeping an undergraduate degree to a four year program would inevitably decrease the technical knowledge of those graduates.

Is eight enough? I don't know. I can say this: The one to four watered down technical classes that the typical liberal arts student is required to take is, in my not so humble opinion, not nearly sufficient. Those students are forgoing 400 years of development and thinking. The problem identified by C.P. Snow has grown to the extent that even highly placed people now openly brag about their innumeracy rather than have it be a sign of deep shame.

[jhae2.718]

Personally, I think that the best way of dealing with that is to teach more humanities to science people

Please, no.

[Andy Resnick]

Personally, I think <lots of good stuff>.

Excellent post, I completely agree.

[Astronuc]

Personally, I think that the best way of dealing with that is to teach more humanities to science people and change the reward structures so that people with deep science backgrounds are *encouraged* to run for office and become administrators. . . . .

Perhaps. . . .

Excellent post, I completely agree.

Volunteers?! :biggrin:

It seems in many cases, the wrong kind of people get elected to public office. Many voting on science matters clearly do not understand the science, and their staff don't seem to really care to understand science. At least that's my experience. :rolleyes:

I heard one state senator brag that he didn't know how to use a computer. Yet he was involved in policy on techology, and he has sufficient seniority to do damage. :rolleyes:

[Andy Resnick]

Volunteers?! :biggrin:

It seems in many cases, the wrong kind of people get elected to public office. Many voting on science matters clearly do not understand the science, and their staff don't seem to really care to understand science. At least that's my experience. :rolleyes:

I heard one state senator brag that he didn't know how to use a computer. Yet he was involved in policy on techology, and he has sufficient seniority to do damage. :rolleyes:

My father-in-law ran for US rep 4 years ago; won the primary and lost the general election. Seeing the political process that close-up made me even more cynical, if you can believe *that*...:)

But seriously, I've had excellent conversations with the congressional staff- once I convinced them that I was talking about bringing money and jobs into the area, because in the end, that's all those folks care about.

[G037H3]

Intermingling science and humanities will politicize science much more than it already is, which will reduce the effectiveness of schools of thought. Of course, to many in academia, politicization is progress, but it is not a healthy way to develop the STEM fields, nor does it mirror the storied history of European science.

[Ryker]

While I'm not really in favour of pushing arts courses onto science students (I believe high schools should supply general education and not universities), I do believe people in science need to improve their knowledge of humanities/economics/philosophy etc. It seems that too often the scientists that are experts in their own fields have no idea how the world society works, and I always marvel when in interviews they will out the same sweeping generalizations in the vein of "all politicians are bad", "bankers are there to steal your money", etc. that you would expect only from someone who hasn't gone to school at all. This is also the reason why I'm afraid of devoting my life to one field only, because I don't really want to become that narrow-minded and incapable of forming sound opinions on various subjects.

[Andy Resnick]

Intermingling science and humanities will politicize science much more than it already is, which will reduce the effectiveness of schools of thought. Of course, to many in academia, politicization is progress, but it is not a healthy way to develop the STEM fields, nor does it mirror the storied history of European science.

Science is already highly politicized. In addition to the politicking that goes on in grant review panels (although the problem is exaggerated), in addition to the politics of how money is allocated to various agencies (and especially regarding earmark projects), and in addition to policy issues that require scientific input (energy policy, for example), scientists are starting to use the courts to affect the funding of research (the most egregious example is Dr. Sherley and Dreisher). Throw in patent and IP issues, and the situation gets even worse.

In order for me to operate effectively in a political environment, I need skills taught as part of the humanities curriculum: effective communication, the ability to establish context, and breadth of knowledge. A dash of 'active listening' helps, too.

[G037H3]

I know, but I feel that making it even more politicized will hurt science (it has for a long time). I feel that if there is something you really wish to learn, you must learn it on your own, with some guidance from those who understand the field, so I agree somewhat with twofish-quant. Requiring classes that blatantly disregard reason and history are not the kind of classes that should be mandatory. Personally, I intend in majoring in math/physics/classics. Yes, I have an interest in those fields, but also, taking classes related to those fields will expose me to the minimum possible level of irrational ideologies such as egalitarianism (especially racial/cultural, etc.), feminism, class-ism, able-ism, the list goes on and on. I don't wish to be put into a position where there is a constant hostility towards my positions, which are based on a solid foundation of history and philosophy of some of the most important men in history. Others may disagree, but I feel that the STEM fields allow an escape from such drivel. :D

[twofish-quant]

It seems in many cases, the wrong kind of people get elected to public office. Many voting on science matters clearly do not understand the science, and their staff don't seem to really care to understand science. At least that's my experience. :rolleyes:

I mentioned in another post that one skill that physics Ph.D.'s have difficulty with is to deal with people that are less smart than they are.

Yes, the person you are talking to may think that the earth is flat and world is 6000 years old, but they vote, and if you want to get funding for your telescope, you still have to find a way of getting that said person to like you. That's hard, but politics ain't easy, which why I have a lot of respect for people that are better at it than I am even if they believe that the world is 6000 years old.

I heard one state senator brag that he didn't know how to use a computer. Yet he was involved in policy on techology, and he has sufficient seniority to do damage. :rolleyes:

Absolutely, and this is the sort of situation that scientists have extreme difficulty dealing with, but figuring out what to do in that situation is something that's essential if you want to get stuff done. The strong temptation is to just walk away from the situation, but what happens if you do that is that they people making the decisions have *no* technical expertise, and you'll find them doing stuff that's very bad for you.

[twofish-quant]

Intermingling science and humanities will politicize science much more than it already is.

Most physics is government funded either directly or indirectly. We've already bit into the apple, and the process is already politicized. The goal I think is to make it good politics rather than bad politics.

[twofish-quant]

While I'm not really in favour of pushing arts courses onto science students (I believe high schools should supply general education and not universities), I do believe people in science need to improve their knowledge of humanities/economics/philosophy etc.

One thing that I found interesting is that when I said that I think scientists should know more about the humanities, people assumed that I meant that we need to increase humanities courses in college, which I think is a seriously bad idea.

I always marvel when in interviews they will out the same sweeping generalizations in the vein of "all politicians are bad", "bankers are there to steal your money", etc. that you would expect only from someone who hasn't gone to school at all.

Something that I've learned from politicians is that they often sound a lot dumber than they actually are. If you have to say something that gets in the six o'clock news in one sentence, it's going to be an emotional sweeping generalization. If it's complicated, it's not going to get across at all.

[twofish-quant]

One thing that I learned about politicians is that a lot of them often are a lot smarter than they appear. Any successful politician in the United States has to perfect the art of looking stupid. Sometimes a politician really *is* stupid, but you can't really know unless you talk to them outside of the cameras. Once you shine a camera on them, the politician will try to intentionally appear stupid.

The reason for this is that people feel threatened by people that are smarter than they are, which is a problem when you want them to like you and get your vote. So if you "act smart" then you can get yourself into a lot of trouble, so sometimes you have have to "act dumb."

I've had to do this myself. I have this "absent minded scientist" routine that I've had to use in situations where I figured out that I would get in trouble for "acting smart." I've also had to use that in other contexts. I find a lot of people are really scared of math, so for some people in algebra classes, I have to act like something of a clown to get them to relax and not be scared of either me or the material.

[jhae2.718]

One thing that I found interesting is that when I said that I think scientists should know more about the humanities, people assumed that I meant that we need to increase humanities courses in college, which I think is a seriously bad idea.

Now that you put it that way, I'll agree with that sentiment. I'd especially agree that communications skills for scientists and engineers should be stressed; most technical reports can be used as sleep aids. (And I'm guilty of writing these myself.)

[chronon]

So Cardinal Newman thought that education was becoming mechanical and students were lacking any real understanding. Well there is nothing new under the sun.

Your invention <writing> will enable them to hear many things without being properly taught, and they will imagine that they have came to know much while for the most part they will know nothing. And they will be difficult to get along with, since they will merely appear to be wise instead of really being so
But more specifically Newman's argument was that education should be deeper, rather than a shallow education in a lot of subjects. However, Geremia is saying that Physics courses should be widened to include a lot more of the history of physics - that seems to me to be saying the opposite.

Personally, I would support learning one thing in depth to begin with, as in doing so you 'learn how to learn'. But I (like most people on this forum I presume), see learning as something which is lifelong, so that there will be plenty of opportunity to get a broader perspective of your subject.

[Andy Resnick]

Also, I've concluded that universities don't educated because universities *can't* educate. Professors don't teach students. Students teach themselves. The best the university can do is to provide an environment where students can get what they need to teach themselves, and the basic tools to decide what they can do.

I've been thinking about this for a bit; on the face of it it seems obviously correct. But it also implies I'm wasting 33% of my time (since research, teaching, and service equally form the three legs of tenure... yeah right.), so....

The above statement makes an essential point about *learning*, or more specifically, the learning *process*. It makes sense if learning is modeled as an open-loop system. That is, the teacher/book/etc. is a transmitter, the student is the receiver, and the receiver blindly transmits while the receiver simply records. In practice (and in it's worst form), this means teachers stand in front of the class reading from a powerpoint presentation, and students don't ask questions because they are afraid of being exposed as stupid.

During the course of writing my teaching portfolio, I've come to see learning as something involving a lot of interaction between the learner and teacher (and 'teacher' is most generally any source of information). Certainly, a motivated learner will learn more than an unmotivated learner. But the role of teacher is to filter and organize the information for the learner, to critique and challenge the learner, and inspire and motivate the learner.

All of that can be done with a book. What then, is my function? To compliment and supplement the book. Alternatively, the book serves to compliment and supplement my presentation of the material. Which leads to:


Personally, I would support learning one thing in depth to begin with, as in doing so you 'learn how to learn'. But I (like most people on this forum I presume), see learning as something which is lifelong, so that there will be plenty of opportunity to get a broader perspective of your subject.

Learning is certainly a lifelong process! It's also true that the dominant model for scientific training is to constantly narrow one's focus, from broad survey courses to specialized advanced courses, to (in the extreme case) becoming the world expert in something only a dozen people care about (a PhD).

Trying to invert this, by starting off highly specific and integrating additional material, is difficult because without establishing context, which is provided by a broad overview, the student's in-depth knowledge won't integrate with anything else. Let's say, for example, that we drop all introductory Physics survey classes entirely and instead start off directly with (picking a random text off my shelf) Reif's 'fundamentals of statistical and thermal physics'. This is an (advanced) undergraduate textbook, but the mathematical level is fairly low- basic calculus and statistics only. What would happen if we taught this to freshman?

It would be a disaster. Page 1 assumes the reader understands the physical concepts of 'system', 'interaction', 'equations of motion', 'forces', and what quantum mechanics and electrodynamics is all about. Before you claim that a high-school AP physics class covers this adequately (which is mostly true), remember that we are *starting* with in-depth study: we abolished all survey classes. A student needs the context provided by a survey course to understand how the material in Reif's book relates to mechanics, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, electrodynamics, etc.

To be sure, after I got my PhD I kept learning- and broadened my knowledge base. But that's because, as you said, learning is a lifelong process.

[twofish-quant]

But more specifically Newman's argument was that education should be deeper, rather than a shallow education in a lot of subjects.

There are a few of problems with this:

1) It is impossible to teach deep knowledge to someone that doesn't want to be taught it. You can *force* someone to memorize a list of names and regurgitate it on a multiple choice test, but they aren't going to learn anything deep if their heart isn't in it. I'd estimate that the number of people in your typical large public university that are *really* interested in the general science requirement that are *really* interested in the subject is maybe 25% at most.

2) Teaching deep knowledge requires a lot of highly skilled teachers, and there just aren't enough people with deep skills to teach several tens of million high school students and lower division university students. It doesn't take as much skill to teach shallow knowledge, which means that you can get large number of teachers together quickly.

Personally, I would support learning one thing in depth to begin with, as in doing so you 'learn how to learn'. But I (like most people on this forum I presume), see learning as something which is lifelong, so that there will be plenty of opportunity to get a broader perspective of your subject.

It's impossible to be a competent research scientist without being a lifelong learner.

Something to remember is that the main de-facto purpose of a university in the US has become sort of a babysitting area for young adults so that they can learn stuff about relationships, alcohol, and sexuality in an semi-controlled environment and pick up some skills that might earn them money later. Colleges took up this job from the Army in the 1960's, and it's one of those historical things that no one planned but just sort of happened.

There is a huge amount of tension between the role of "young adult babysitter", the role of "provider of skills for gainful employment", and the job of learning and education. Then you have to ask yourself the point of an education. For 95% of college students, learning who to get into bed with and who not to get into bed with is going to be a lot more important lesson in their life any anything that they'll learn in physics 101, and keeping students in a situation where things don't go seriously wrong in a life threatening way is something that residential colleges have their hands full with.

One other thing is that if you do find someone that *does* have the spark of learning inside of them, they often react badly to any sort of mandatory bureaucratic rule that tells them how they should learn. The problem with rules that are intended to deal with the 85% of people that don't have either the interest or maturity to learn a subject deeply is that they get in the way of the 15% of the students that do.

[Andy Resnick]

Something to remember is that the main de-facto purpose of a university in the US has become sort of a babysitting area for young adults so that they can learn stuff about relationships, alcohol, and sexuality in an semi-controlled environment and pick up some skills that might earn them money later. Colleges took up this job from the Army in the 1960's, and it's one of those historical things that no one planned but just sort of happened.


That's not entirely the fault of universities: in loco parentis, coupled with the raising of the legal drinking age to 21, has led to a lot of the above.

[ViewsofMars]

http://www.aapt.org/images/Poster10_27B_vsm.jpg

I located that jpg from the American Association of Physics Teachers - Teaching Resources http://www.aapt.org/Resources/. The poster was aimed at "Recruiting Physics Students in High School" during the summer of 2010. There are physics programs that do educate. :smile:
http://www.aps.org/units/fed/newsletters/summer2010/popkin.cfm

[DaleSpam]

Personally, I think that the best way of dealing with that is to teach more humanities to science people and change the reward structures so that people with deep science backgrounds are *encouraged* to run for office and become administrators.I think the best way of dealing with that is to protect individual liberties and remove the power from the politicians so that they can't mess anything up regardless of their ignorance. Then the science/engineering types can continue discovering and inventing new things.

But I won't hold my breath waiting.

[Ryker]

You do realize those politicians who you want to take power away from are people who were elected by you in a system supported by you, right?

[Andy Resnick]

I think the best way of dealing with that is to protect individual liberties and remove the power from the politicians so that they can't mess anything up regardless of their ignorance. Then the science/engineering types can continue discovering and inventing new things.

But I won't hold my breath waiting.

Ca you be more specific? As in, do you have a specific case in mind of a politician 'messing something up because of the their ignorance'?

I'm not saying that doesn't happen, I'm just curious what you are thinking.

[Andy Resnick]

I located that jpg from the American Association of Physics Teachers - Teaching Resources http://www.aapt.org/Resources/. The poster was aimed at "Recruiting Physics Students in High School" during the summer of 2010. There are physics programs that do educate. :smile:
http://www.aps.org/units/fed/newsletters/summer2010/popkin.cfm

Thanks for posting this resource!

[atyy]

Why does it have to be done on *their* terms? That silly notion leads to silly classes such as "Physics for Poets" and such. When we take liberal arts classes we do so on *their* terms. There is no "Creative Writing for Engineers" classes. If we want to take creative writing we take it right alongside English majors. If we want to learn Greek or learn to paint we take it right alongside linguistics or arts majors.

We have to take such courses on *their* terms because (a) *their* terms are the right terms for *their* courses, and (b) we aren't so mentally deficient that we cannot take one liberal arts course per semester taught on *their *terms. Saying that we need to teach science to liberal arts students on *their* terms is implicitly acknowledging that they are mentally deficient in some way. I disagree.


Any critical understanding of physics or chemistry most certainly does require calculus. Top-notch biology programs require their students to take calculus because a critical understanding of biology also requires calculus. Calculus is the starting point of the mathematics education for almost all science, technology, engineering, and math degrees.

But do we need real calculus? Isn't fake calculus enough? ie. like uniform motion, and knowing dx/dt is the slope, and reading the dx as a small change in x, and that area under the curve is the distance travelled, then for more complex problems you just break it up into little bits where the slope is constant. (I think only Jacobians for change of variables fall outside of this.)

[twofish-quant]

I think the best way of dealing with that is to protect individual liberties and remove the power from the politicians so that they can't mess anything up regardless of their ignorance. Then the science/engineering types can continue discovering and inventing new things.

Who watches the watchmen? If you remove power from "idiot politicians" then who gets it?

But I won't hold my breath waiting.

So what do you plan to do?

I like solving complex problems, and "getting something useful done" in a system and world made up of fallible, irrational, flawed human beings is a complex and interesting problem.

[twofish-quant]

That's not entirely the fault of universities: in loco parentis, coupled with the raising of the legal drinking age to 21, has led to a lot of the above.

One thing that happens a lot is that people are responsible for fixing problems that they had no real part in creating. A lot of social problems and issues get dumped on schools.

[twofish-quant]

here are physics programs that do educate. :smile:
http://www.aps.org/units/fed/newsletters/summer2010/popkin.cfm

I *HATE* that poster since it reinforces a lot of the hidden values and messages which I think are pretty wrong headed. I think Number ONE (i.e. that you should do something because it makes you well liked and because employers and universities want you do it) is a ***horrible*** thing to teach young people.

[G037H3]

I *HATE* that poster since it reinforces a lot of the hidden values and messages which I think are pretty wrong headed. I think Number ONE (i.e. that you should do something because it makes you well liked and because employers and universities want you do it) is a ***horrible*** thing to teach young people.

Well, you're dealing with superficial, lazy, irrational people.

You can either focus on developing the talent of people who are already interested in physics/science in general, try to teach average people a tiny bit, or do nothing.

I'm in favour of the the first, but if you're in favour of increasing the average amount of physics/science education that an average teenager receives, then that requires a different approach than developing those with innate abilities.

[D H]

I *HATE* that poster since it reinforces a lot of the hidden values and messages which I think are pretty wrong headed. I think Number ONE (i.e. that you should do something because it makes you well liked and because employers and universities want you do it) is a ***horrible*** thing to teach young people.
Why is that? Most people do go to college to because that is the route to a better paying, more interesting job. Most businesses and governments that fund colleges do so because they think that the primary purpose of college is just that. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be better off and do something interesting and useful in the process.

That poster is a bit comic bookish, but then again it is aimed at people who now think everything should be compressed to 140 character statements. (End result: A generation of twits, but that is a different thread topic.)

[atyy]

I *HATE* that poster since it reinforces a lot of the hidden values and messages which I think are pretty wrong headed. I think Number ONE (i.e. that you should do something because it makes you well liked and because employers and universities want you do it) is a ***horrible*** thing to teach young people.

Is that because it's hard to predict what will gte one a job 4 years after entering college, or because you are bieng idealistic?

"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it. (Feynman, apparently)"

[twofish-quant]

Why is that? Most people do go to college to because that is the route to a better paying, more interesting job. Most businesses and governments that fund colleges do so because they think that the primary purpose of college is just that. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be better off and do something interesting and useful in the process.

The problem here is that you have to recognize that the powers that be are acting in their interests which may or may not be yours. To the head of a corporation, you are just an interchangeable part, and if making their money involves making your life miserable, they will go ahead and screw you over. One way that they do that is to keep you in enough debt so that you just never have quite enough money to get free of the system.

One question that you really have to ask is "how much money is enough?" and "what do you want out of life?" "Why do I believe what I believe?" Personally, I think that this is the whole point of higher education, but if you structure it to provide cheap labor to the power elite, then you'll miss out teaching things that might be useful for students.

That poster is a bit comic bookish, but then again it is aimed at people who now think everything should be compressed to 140 character statements. (End result: A generation of twits, but that is a different thread topic.)

Why are we trying so hard to teach people that aren't that interested in learning?

[Andy Resnick]

I *HATE* that poster since it reinforces a lot of the hidden values and messages which I think are pretty wrong headed. I think Number ONE (i.e. that you should do something because it makes you well liked and because employers and universities want you do it) is a ***horrible*** thing to teach young people.

Sure, there's an element of "Need a lawyer? call 1-800-SUE-4-YOU" advertising present. But the poster does not exist in isolation- there's career services offices at most colleges, for example. There's nothing wrong with a discipline promoting itself.

[Andy Resnick]

One thing that happens a lot is that people are responsible for fixing problems that they had no real part in creating. A lot of social problems and issues get dumped on schools.

I agree exactly.

[atyy]

Is it true that there would be no light bulbs or airplanes without physics?

Of course that's true in the most general sense. But is it true in the sense of the poster, ie. without physicists? After all, engineers can do physics.

[G037H3]

I'm still waiting for my list. :P

[ViewsofMars]

http://www.aapt.org/images/Poster10_27B_vsm.jpg

I located that jpg from the American Association of Physics Teachers - Teaching Resources http://www.aapt.org/Resources/. The poster was aimed at "Recruiting Physics Students in High School" during the summer of 2010. There are physics programs that do educate. :smile:
http://www.aps.org/units/fed/newsletters/summer2010/popkin.cfm
Thanks for posting this resource!
I *HATE* that poster since it reinforces a lot of the hidden values and messages which I think are pretty wrong headed. I think Number ONE (i.e. that you should do something because it makes you well liked and because employers and universities want you do it) is a ***horrible*** thing to teach young people.

Well, you're dealing with superficial, lazy, irrational people.

You can either focus on developing the talent of people who are already interested in physics/science in general, try to teach average people a tiny bit, or do nothing.

I'm in favour of the the first, but if you're in favour of increasing the average amount of physics/science education that an average teenager receives, then that requires a different approach than developing those with innate abilities.



Andy, thank you. I would also like to thank DH and atty. My property tax includes school bonds that are extremely high in my district. A great majority of high school students (girls and boy) in their sophmore year have taken chemistry and calculus. All of them are or have taken physics in his/her junior year. It appears to me the poster could have made a difference. I should mention that the parents of these children are high achievers. Matter of fact, the counties surrounding my community are filled to the brim with professionals.

The majority of the young people that I personally know will be going to the Friday dance this week at the school and will be participating in some sports activity this weekend. They are bright young people and, above all else, extremely polite to adults. They are well-mannered. As an adult woman, I find them to be like a fresh of breath air since they always share their enthusiasm with me. They seem to me to love school and home life. Least I forget, they love science.

G037H3 and twofish-quant, I'm sorry you don't like the poster.

[G037H3]

Andy, thank you. I also would like to thank DH and atty. My property tax includes school bonds that are extremely high in my district. A high majority of high school students (girls and boy) in their sophmore year have taken chemistry and calculus. All of them are taking physics in his/her junior year. It appears to me the poster has made a difference.

The majority of them will be going to the Friday dance this week at the school and will be participating in some sports activity this weekend. They are bright young people and, above all else, extremely polite to adults. They are well-mannered. As an adult woman, I find them to be like a fresh of breath air since they always share their enthusiasm with me. They seem to me to love school and home life.

G037H3 and twofish-quant, I'm sorry you don't like the poster.

Well if it's an middle/upper class European area, it's okay, but if the kids were really that bright you think the reasons to study science would be presented in a more intelligent manner.

[ViewsofMars]

Well if it's an middle/upper class European area, it's okay, but if the kids were really that bright you think the reasons to study science would be presented in a more intelligent manner.

It's a poster that motivates young people. It isn't a science class. Furthermore, I find your insult to be negative. I don't really look at life that way nor do some adults here, including those that I personally know.

[G037H3]

It's a poster that motivates young people.

For the wrong reasons.

It isn't a science class.

It isn't? I thought it was supposed to be, rofl.

Furthermore, I find your insult to be negative.

What insult?

I don't really look at life that way nor do some adults here, including those that I personally know.


Ad populum.

[ViewsofMars]

Again I repeat, "It's a poster that motivates young people. It isn't a science class. Furthermore, I find your insult to be negative. I don't really look at life that way nor do some adults here, including those that I personally know." Furthermore, I did also state, "They seem to me to love school and home life. Least I forget, they love science."

The poster motivates young people (high school age). The poster isn't meant to be a science class. These young people love science. They know as do many adults like myself that 'tough love isn't easy, but you love it'. The more you learn, the wiser you become. It takes long hours and discipline. It's not always easy, but it can be done if you love learning.

Thanks.

[Astronuc]

Re: The poster of Top 10 Reasons to study physics.

I was self-motivated to study math, physics and chemistry, and I never really cared for posters, which I took pretty much as administrative propaganda.

When I was in the lower grades 2-4, numbers and math intrigued me, and it seemed to come easy. About late 2nd grade or early 3rd grade, I remember reading an article about the effects of a thermonuclear weapon (hydrogen bomb). I was really impressed by the magnitude of destruction, i.e., a lot of energy. To this day, I still remember the image of a city, the rings of levels of devastation and how far out fire would propagate.

In 4th grade, I read voraciously on geography and geology (really rocks and minerals), and I started learning about elements, rudimentary chemistry and general science. My parents bought the Columbia Encyclopedia, which was a nice blend of humanities and science. In that book, I could read about geography, history, biographies, and various other topics in humanities, but also about physics and chemistry. There was some cross-referencing, so I could read about science and the scientists who practiced and contributed to science. That was when I learned about all the elements, the periodic table, chemistry, and more significantly for me, nuclear physics and astrophysics. I was hooked!

That pretty much determined my path through university and professionally. I did a lot of learning outside of the classroom, and well beyond what was required or expected of me (although at the time, I didn't think in those terms). Learning on my own just seemed a natural thing to do. Like eating, drinking, sleeping, etc, learning is for me a basic function, and learning is fun.

[ViewsofMars]

First off, physics is science. This is from the Office of Science - U.S. Department of Energy:


What is Physics?

Physics is all around us. It is in the electric light you turn on in the morning; the car you drive to work; your wristwatch, cell phone, CD player, radio, and that big plasma TV set you got for Christmas. It makes the stars shine every night and the sun shine every day, and it makes a baseball soar into the stands for a home run.

Physics is the science of matter, energy, space, and time. It explains ordinary matter as combinations of a dozen fundamental particles (quarks and leptons), interacting through four fundamental forces. It describes the many forms of energy—such as kinetic energy, electrical energy, and mass—and the way energy can change from one form to another. It describes a malleable space-time and the way objects move through space and time.

There are many fields of physics, for example: mechanics, electricity, heat, sound, light, condensed matter, atomic physics, nuclear physics, and elementary particle physics. Physics is the foundation of all the physical sciences—such as chemistry, material science, and geology—and is important for many other fields of human endeavor: biology, medicine, computing, ice hockey, television…the list goes on and on.

A physicist is not some geek in a long white coat, working on some weird experiment. Physicists look and act like you or me. They work for research laboratories, universities, private companies, and government agencies. They teach, do research, and develop new technologies. They do experiments on mountaintops, in mines, and in earth orbit. They go to movies and play softball. Physicists are good at solving problems—all kinds of problems, from esoteric to mundane. How does a mirror reflect light? What holds an atom together? How fast does a rocket have to go to escape from earth? How can a worldwide team share data in real time? (Solving this last problem led physicists to invent the World Wide Web.)

Mechanics is an important field of physics. Developed by Sir Isaac Newton in the 17th century, the laws of mechanics and the law of gravity successfully explained the orbits of the moon around the earth and the planets around the sun. They are valid over a large range of distances: from much less than the height of an apple tree to much more than the distance from the earth to the moon or the sun. Newton’s laws are used to design cars, clocks, airplanes, earth satellites, bridges, buildings—just about everything, it seems, except electronics.

Electricity is another example of physics, one that you may experience as a spark when you touch a doorknob on a dry winter day. The electrical attraction of protons and electrons is the basis for chemistry. Magnetism is another force of nature, familiar to us from refrigerator magnets and compasses. In the 19th century, James Clerk Maxwell combined electricity and magnetism. He showed that light is an electromagnetic wave that travels through empty space. (Waves had always required a medium, for example, water is the medium for ocean waves.) Other electromagnetic waves besides light also travel through empty space; hence radio signals can reach us from a Mars explorer.

Maxwell’s theory also showed that electromagnetic waves travel with the same speed (the speed of light), even if the person who sees it is moving. This is in conflict with Isaac Newton’s principle of relativity, which said a train’s headlight beam would have one speed as seen by the engineer and a different speed as seen by a person watching the train go by. Newton and Maxwell could not both be right about this matter, and in 1905, Albert Einstein resolved the conflict by allowing space and time to change, depending on motion. His special theory of relativity predicted that an object passing by would look shorter and a passing clock would run slower. These changes are too small to notice unless the object is moving very fast—Newton’s laws work just fine at the speeds of ordinary moving objects. But space really does shrink and time really does expand for particles moving at speeds near the speed of light (300,000 kilometers per second).

Another remarkable consequence of special relativity is the famous equation E=mc2, which says that mass is just another form of energy. This equivalence of mass and energy is the source of the energy that comes to earth as sunlight. In the intense heat at the core of the sun, four hydrogen nuclei fuse into one helium nucleus and the mass difference is converted into radiant energy, which emerges as sunlight. E=mc2 is also responsible for the release of energy from fission of uranium in a nuclear reactor, and this energy is used around the world to make large amounts of electric power.

Einstein went on to replace Newton’s theory of gravity with his general theory of relativity, which says that space and time are changed not only by speed, but also by the presence of matter. Imagine space-time as a large sheet of rubber, and set a bowling ball on the sheet; it will be dimpled near the ball. A tennis ball rolled slowly near the bowling ball will curve around it and may settle into an orbit, just as the earth orbits the sun. Today, the general theory of relativity is well-tested and is used to accurately determine the location of your car if you have a GPS (Global Positioning System) device.

Newton’s laws also break down on the tiny distance scales of atoms and molecules, and must be replaced by the theory of quantum mechanics. For example, quantum mechanics describes how electrons can only travel around the nucleus of an atom in orbits with certain specific energies. When an electron jumps from one of these orbits to another, the atom will absorb or emit energy in discrete bundles of electromagnetic radiation. Because the energies of different states of an atom are known with high precision, we can create highly accurate devices such as atomic clocks and lasers.

Quantum mechanics is also necessary to understand how electrons flow through solids. Materials that normally do not conduct electric current can be made to conduct when “doped” with atoms of a particular element. This is how we make transistors, microscopic electrical on-off switches, which are the basis of your cell phone, your iPod, your PC, and all the modern electronics that has transformed our lives and our economy.

There are still profound questions in physics today: what are the mysterious dark matter and energy that make up most of the universe? Are there more than three dimensions of space? The more we learn about physics, the more it will help us every day, and the better we will understand our place in the universe.
http://www.er.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2005/What_is_Physics.htm

The American Association for the Advancement of Science had an article written by Jim Austin on October 8, 2010 that I thought was profoundly true. Here's a snippet from it:


Improve K–12 education.
Just as Gathering Storm suggests, our society can never have too much scientific literacy or quantitative competency. But in accomplishing this policy objective, policymakers need to pay far more attention to restoring the prestige and professional rewards of the teaching profession. Let's make teaching math and science in the schools a good job for scientists with advanced degrees, as it is in some other countries. Unless you have very good educators, you cannot have good education, and bad jobs do not attract good people.
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2010_10_08/caredit.a1000097:smile:

[deluks917]

I'm amazed that anybody smart enough to be a good physicist was influenced by that poster. If you're going to try to inspire young people shouldn't you give them something a little bit deeper. Maybe have them read something like "surely you're joking mr. Feynman" or try to introduce them to good "textbooks" they could read like "space-time physics" or "what is mathematics." Perhaps encourage participation in math/physics olympiads. Show them the beauty of physics and mathematics. I wish someone had shown me that kind of stuff in high school. I think that poster is silly. I think it shows a lack of respect for high school students that we expect posters like that will "inspire them to go into physics."

[G037H3]

i'm amazed that anybody smart enough to be a good physicist was influenced by that poster. If you're going to try to inspire young people shouldn't you give them something a little bit deeper. Maybe have them read something like "surely you're joking mr. Feynman" or try to introduce them to good "textbooks" they could read like "space-time physics" or "what is mathematics." maybe encourage participation in math/physics olympiads. Show them the beauty of physics and mathematics. I wish someone had shown me that kind of stuff in high school. I think that poster is silly. I think it shows a lack of respect for high school students that we expect posters like that will "inspire them to go into physics."

+1.......

[ViewsofMars]

I'm amazed that anybody smart enough to be a good physicist was influenced by that poster.

Delucks, the poster was from the American Physical Society - Physics. Gabriel Popkin works on education projects for the American Physical Society. He graduated in 2003 with a B.A. in physics from Wesleyan University. Honestly, I don't think it wise to knock down the APS where the poster was located or Gabriel Popkin. Maybe if you had read the entire page from the link I earlier provided, you would know about the purpose of the poster. Furthermore, I'm somewhat appalled by the fact that some people on this topic have been knocking down the APS who promoted the poster! Let's review what it says about the poster from an earlier link I provided:


Recruiting Physics Students in High School

Gabriel Popkin

What would you think if your child came home from school and told you that he or she had been advised not to take physics? You would probably be shocked, but the unfortunate fact is that such advice is frequently dispensed by well-meaning guidance counselors and others who are involved in helping high school students make academic decisions. These advisors often fear physics might hurt students’ GPAs, and therefore their college prospects. They may have had a negative experience with physics - perhaps during their own high school career - or they may know nothing about physics at all beyond what is in the popular media, which is largely that physics is an impossibly complex subject reserved for geniuses (see the TV show The Big Bang Theory for ample evidence of this).

About a year ago, a group of us at APS and AAPT met to discuss the issue and begin developing an information campaign that would counteract the negative publicity that we know physics often gets. Although we did not have hard data on the prevalence of students being dissuaded from taking physics in high school, we had received an alarming number of independent reports of this phenomenon occurring in different parts of the country, and felt compelled to take action on behalf of the physics education community. One of our initial decisions was to enlist physics teachers to provide information to students and guidance counselors. Many teachers are members of AAPT and APS, read our organizations’ publications, and attend their meetings; in addition, they are our natural allies in this campaign.

Our efforts were also informed by focus groups conducted among high school students by John Rice of CommonSense Communications, a marketing consulting firm. This initiative, though in its early stages, has yielded some clues into how high school students think about physics, and why more of them do not take it. Rice thinks the fundamental problem is a dire lack of knowledge among high school students about how physics can help them in their careers and their everyday lives. He says, "High school students who take physics usually like it - especially if it is hands-on - however, almost all of them plan on majoring in engineering, because they know what they can do with engineering. They have no idea what they can do with physics. They do not know that they can use physics to treat cancer, design an electric guitar, or develop new sources of energy. There is a near-complete lack of connection between the physics taught in high school and any possible applications." As for those who choose not to study physics, Rice says that he thinks "They know what chemistry and biology are, but they do not know what physics is, or how it could be useful in their lives. All they know is that it is hard, and they are afraid it will kill their GPA."

Data from the America Institute of Physics show that about a third of US high school graduates take physics at some point. By comparison, over 90% take biology and over 60% take chemistry, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. The fraction taking physics represents a major gain over two decades ago, when it was around a fifth, but it still indicates that two-thirds of our high school graduates have not taken physics - not to mention all those who do not graduate from high school. If these students hope to compete in the high-tech 21st-century economy, they will be at a major disadvantage.

It also hurts their chances of getting into a good university. According to Vikki Otero, Senior Assistant Director of Admissions at the University of Colorado at Boulder, "College admissions is never just about the GPA. We are interested in seeing that students have maintained an excellent college prep curriculum. A transcript with physics is better than one without it." This sentiment is echoed by Greg Pyke, Senior Associate Dean of Admissions at Wesleyan University, a liberal arts university in Middletown, Connecticut. Pyke says, "Highly selective colleges and universities look for students who have taken a very demanding program in high school, which includes courses such as physics. The rigor of the program is often more important than the final grades they get." Over three-quarters of incoming Wesleyan freshmen have taken physics in high school; at Caltech, physics is a requirement for admission.

With all this in mind, we have developed a multi-pronged approach to recruiting high school students, which began with a survey of physics teachers to gather best practices for increasing course enrollments. This yielded a number of interesting and clever strategies that included making sure the chemistry and math teachers in their school promote physics to their students (since these courses typically come before physics in the curriculum); inviting guidance counselors into their classroom to observe hands-on activities; and doing fun labs and activities in high-visibility places around the time that students enroll in courses for the following year. Much of this wisdom was distilled in an article [1] in The Physics Teacher by Earl Barrett, a high school teacher with many years’ experience in recruiting students to his program.

Our next effort was to develop a poster entitled "Top 10 Reasons Why You Should Take Physics." This poster uses humor and colorful graphics to communicate the many benefits of studying physics, which range from broad incentives such as "Physics teaches you how to think," to specific careers and technologies that rely on physics. We have distributed this poster to thousands of physics teachers by inserting it into an issue of The Physics Teacher as well as by handing it out at APS, AAPT, and National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) meetings. The poster can also be downloaded or ordered.These are the first steps we have taken toward filling the physics information vacuum, but there will need to be many more if we are going to ensure that every student has the opportunity to enjoy the benefits that physics has to offer. Some future efforts we have in mind are:

Publishing an op-ed piece in The Science Teacher about the importance of physics in the high school curriculum.

Designing a brochure for teachers to give to guidance counselors explaining the benefits their students will get from taking physics.

Creating an online "toolkit" for teachers to recruit more students into physics classes. This will have a home on the web.

Engaging Society of Physics Students chapters in recruiting high school students to study physics.
http://www.aps.org/units/fed/newsletters/summer2010/popkin.cfm


If you're going to try to inspire young people shouldn't you give them something a little bit deeper. Maybe have them read something like "surely you're joking mr. Feynman" or try to introduce them to good "textbooks" they could read like "space-time physics" or "what is mathematics." Perhaps encourage participation in math/physics olympiads. Show them the beauty of physics and mathematics. I wish someone had shown me that kind of stuff in high school. I think that poster is silly. I think it shows a lack of respect for high school students that we expect posters like that will "inspire them to go into physics."


By your comment as noted above, you are a high school student. I know many high school students that like the poster. Also, as an adult I do think that is strickly your opinion. I do think you misunderstood the intent of the poster. I'm sorry to hear you weren't encouraged to take a physics class by a parent, teacher, or counselor at school since it's a known fact that admission into a major univeristy today requires a high school physics course. I've made it quite clear in earlier postings that the poster has had a positive effect to a degree. Of course, teachers make the difference in the long run. :biggrin:


I think reading is great fun! Here is something to review that was from this past summer: http://www.aps.org/units/fed/newsletters/summer2010/upload/summer10.pdf

[deluks917]

^I am not in high school. I guess I can see the value of these posters in convincing students parents to let them study physics. I'd be fine if the poster just tried to show that physics majors have successful careers. It could list average salary or GRE/MCAT scores by major. That's real information that also makes physics look attractive. The problem with the poster is that its full of statements that are ultimately meaningless. What does "Physics teaches you how to think" actually mean? Wouldn't a literature professor say studying literature teaches you how to think? If we want to convince students we should try to teach them what is actually different about physics.

[Sankaku]

I don't think it wise to knock down the APS where the poster was located or Gabriel Popkin.
I am somewhat neutral on the whole poster thing, however, I think that it is important to be able to question anyone from anywhere. That is what science is about. Argument purely from authority is dangerous. I also believe that people in the thread have given quite reasonable opinions as to why the poster (and things like it) are not effective, no?

[Andy Resnick]

I am somewhat neutral on the whole poster thing, however, I think that it is important to be able to question anyone from anywhere. That is what science is about. Argument purely from authority is dangerous. I also believe that people in the thread have given quite reasonable opinions as to why the poster (and things like it) are not effective, no?

I'm neutral as well, and I think you've correctly identified the crux of the debate: what is the *effectiveness* of this poster (or 'physics advertising' in general)? Is it even possible to measure the impact of that particular poster?

Clearly, the poster is not trying to reach every single demographic.

[ViewsofMars]

I'm neutral as well, and I think you've correctly identified the crux of the debate: what is the *effectiveness* of this poster (or 'physics advertising' in general)? Is it even possible to measure the impact of that particular poster?

Clearly, the poster is not trying to reach every single demographic.

Hi Andy et al ~ I think the topic itself hasn't totally revolved around a poster.:biggrin: (Start from page 1. lol) I have been marketing and advertising reputable websites such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Office of Science - U.S. Department of Energy, and the American Physical Society. :biggrin: It has been a great opportunity for me to present those websites. Hopefully, viewers will explore them. Those are great websites that educate.

We have over 5,000 views to this topic. I wish Physics Forums had the ability to keep demographics as to how many people came from what country. I'd like to see that. :cool:

I need to return to this topic later and reply to deluks917.

Best wishes to everyone. Make it a great day!:biggrin:

[Andy Resnick]

Hi Andy et al ~ I think the topic itself hasn't totally revolved around a poster.:biggrin: (Start from page 1. lol) I have been marketing and advertising reputable websites such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Office of Science - U.S. Department of Energy, and the American Physical Society. :biggrin: It has been a great opportunity for me to present those websites. Hopefully, viewers will explore them. Those are great websites that educate.



Exactly- that's the correct counterpoint- the poster you linked to does not exist in isolation. We have a bizillion physics posters/advertisements/PR material all over the department; the College of Science has untold numbers of science materials up on the walls.

The error in this thread was in removing that context.

[mathwonk]

I think we need to put more responsibility on ourselves. Why did we not get any education from our program? Most human phenomena are linked to the motivation for the observed behavior.

If a professor is motivated by receiving high class evaluations he/she may water down the course in order to deceive students into thinking they are doing well. If the professor is motivated by having more time for his/her research, then he/she may short circuit the preparation of the course to put more time into their research.

But if we want to learn as much as possible, we may still benefit from courses taught by research oriented profs by realizing we need to devote more time, but that we can put more confidence in the wisdom of their remarks.

Do we want a course taught by someone who coddles us or someone who has a lot to say even if they spend little time deciding how to say it simply?

When choosing courses we should interview the professor and get a feel for what the approach to the course will be.

Some of us choose schools based on the political impact of a degree from those schools rather than based on how devoted the professors at that school are to teaching. then we get what we asked for.

so a course may be hard because the instructor spent little time making it clear, or because they did not really understand the stuff themselves, or because they expected more from us than we were prepared to give. In all cases try to talk with other students to find those who are succeeding and learn from them how to do so also.

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>

When choosing courses we should interview the professor and get a feel for what the approach to the course will be.

<snip>

Mathwonk,

I pulled out this line because I think it succinctly communicates a bias in your post (which I find perfectly reasonable). This bias is "the student is a client".

While I'm not going to deny the many realities of higher education, I'll simply point out that in my personal experience (from both sides of the classroom), my best learning experiences have resulted from collaborative effort, not unidirectional transmission.

Regardless of the classroom/institution, any student who goes into the classroom with the mentality of "I paid for the teacher to provide me an education" is going to be sorely disappointed.

And besides, how does your statement work with *required* courses?

[Astronuc]

When choosing courses we should interview the professor and get a feel for what the approach to the course will be. That was more or less my approach. I would browse the course catalog and determine what courses were available and who would teach them. That worked well for electives, but required courses essentially means one is stuck with the single professor who teaches that course. However, I could go a talk to the professor and get some idea of what was going to be taught and how. Then I could supplement the course text and classroom notes with other resources - usually library books or journals.

I read trade journals as an undergrad and grad student in order to get a feel for the technology/science and what issues I was likely to face when I went into industry, or what research areas were particularly critical. Apparently that's a rather unusual approach, which explains why when I interview or interact with students in my field, they tend to be somewhat clueless about the industry in which they hoped to be employed. And the faculty is sometimes not far behind.

[mathwonk]

Andy, I do not see how my statement can in any way be read as biased in favor of unidirectional transmission of information. That is one thing the interview can reveal. It can also reveal that the education will be collaborative. I also emphasized personal responsibility of the student. What am I missing???

[Andy Resnick]

Andy, I do not see how my statement can in any way be read as biased in favor of unidirectional transmission of information. That is one thing the interview can reveal. It can also reveal that the education will be collaborative. I also emphasized personal responsibility of the student. What am I missing???

I'm not sure what you mean- I said your post conveyed a reasonable point of view, in concordance with many realities of higher education.

[mathwonk]

maybe i didn't understand the phrase "the student is a client". or maybe i can't see my own biases.

[Andy Resnick]

I cribbed the phrase "the student is a client" from "the patient is a client" (healthcare issues...) It's a way of expressing the idea that a student, by paying tuition, purchases an education- the student is a client, or a paying customer, of the institution.

[Moonbear]

I'm going to go all the way back to the OP. The OP states that s/he attended a state university. All of the discussion raised neglects the function of a state university. Without knowing exactly which one it was, it's hard to say for certain. However, quite a lot of state universities are part of the land grant system. The mission of those universities is spelled out by the Federal laws that funded them, particularly the Hatch Act and Morrill Acts. The purpose of those universities is to provide a PRACTICAL education to the general population, originally with an emphasis in agriculture.

The "aristocracy" who could afford to obtain a private education would/could be taught in the more classical ways that included plenty of navel gazing over philosophy and literature, in preparation to marry well and inherit Daddy's fortunes. In contrast, land grant universities are intended to provide higher education for people to be employable. Today, there are plenty of other private universities with myriad missions from religious education to educational opportunities for minorities to more liberal arts training. Perhaps the real flaw in the "system" is that high school guidance counselors don't spend enough time informing students about these different opportunities so they select a college/university most suitable for what they want to get out of their 4 years of education there.

The discussions in this thread could be held for any major, really. When you're trying to condense a few hundred years of research (at minimum) into a 4-year education, going back and trying to read all of the primary literature is not a good use of the time. Instead, textbooks condense all of that into the essentials. Those essentials give you the preparation you need to use your education for the jobs you're most likely to do with your chosen major. If you want to go beyond that education, those essentials also give you the preparation to do more self-learning later, either simply for your own edification, or if you desire to attend graduate school. In graduate school, you WILL read the primary literature. You may not need to go all the way back to the beginning, but often you will have a course or two along the way that requires reading a small sampling of the early literature in your chosen field. I've done that for my own field. Frankly, I agree with those who will tell you it is not the least bit helpful for understanding modern science. It's mostly amusing to see how simplistically people viewed things so far back in time; students doing science fair projects do more challenging research than those early studies included. It's more interesting for the perspective of just how far we've come.

From a broader perspective of educating students, it's also important to remember that a student can only get out of an education what they put into it. Faculty are there to help focus and direct the studies, help explain some of the more difficult concepts, and give feedback assessing the students' progress, but the responsibility for learning is all on the shoulders of the students. Nothing but your own self-motivation prevents you from picking up other materials of interest to you and studying them on your own.

[mathwonk]

I guess I sort of see myself like Mr Miyagi in the karate kid. I expect only commitment from the student, and then I feel I am responsible to help the student achieve the student's own goals. We are sort of like family. I love them and owe them the best I have. They are not really customers of mine since my compensation is not directly related to their tuition. If they want to look at me that way, that's ok, because i have learned some students do not want to commit, and only want a more distant relationship with knowledge, but they won't learn as much in my opinion.

That's why I like the "flat rate" system a professor works under. I feel I am compensated by the state sufficient (or almost sufficient) to live, and in return I try to spread the gospel of mathematics education to as many in the public as possible. That's why I participate here for free. I enjoy it and hope it can do some good. I have never been a tutor, charging so much per hour. If a student needs 2-3 hours of my time to grasp something, I will give it as long as I have the energy. As I grow older that is harder, but I used to be able to outlast almost any student.

I believe the natural world of science and math is a beautiful one, and it is a privilege to have it rendered visible so that we can enjoy it. The ability to think rationally and logically is also useful in life and i think our world would be a better place if more people learned to practice it. I think most teachers I know teach because they want to share a vision, not to fulfill a business deal.

[mathwonk]

I think I was agreeing with your point Andy, that a student cannot expect the program to do all the educating, that he/she has to participate in it. I am not sure I was clear on this.

[Andy Resnick]

I think I was agreeing with your point Andy, that a student cannot expect the program to do all the educating, that he/she has to participate in it. I am not sure I was clear on this.

I dig it- cheers!