Becoming a Physics Teacher

  • #26
vela
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
14,666
1,293
Sad to say, most other teachers I have already dealt with will say things frighteningly close to what i hear from students who struggle in my courses - "I never liked math" or "i'm no good at this kind of stuff" or worse still "when i hear that physics stuff i get a headache.".
Unfortunately, this is just a reflection of the general attitude in the US that it's okay to be ignorant of mathematics.

I have found so far the struggle i am facing as a teacher is the student's initial fear or general animosity towards math [it really is the math and NOT the physics].
The irony is that doing the math, I heard, is usually the easiest part for students in intro physics. Why? Because they've had years of practice doing algebra. They may not be particularly good at it, but they have more experience solving for a variable than applying Newton's second law to a car going around a banked curve to figure out if it'll skid.
 
  • #27
19
0
I see you are a bit disgruntled.
Well, I think I want to be a physics/math teacher even if everything you just said is true. But I can't even imagine arguing with a student over their grade. I don't think there would be much to argue about. If they don't like their grade or the workload they can just get out. Or have administrators actually put pressure on you to change based upon students' whims?
Honestly, yes. I am currently on my 8th year teaching high school physics. Currently I am teaching all AP Physics. I spent an hour yesterday arguing with a parent who was worried about their child's grade, it was a B+. I had administrators pass two students who should have failed and not graduated. Their reasoning was that "I would be ruining their lives if they didn't graduate and lose out on scholarships". Both of these students never did anything and had grades below 30%.

That being said, it is not terrible. I still enjoy teaching, even if parents are an enormous pain and if there are days where it feels everyone thinks your worthless.
 
  • #28
1,011
242
Honestly, yes. I am currently on my 8th year teaching high school physics. Currently I am teaching all AP Physics. I spent an hour yesterday arguing with a parent who was worried about their child's grade, it was a B+. I had administrators pass two students who should have failed and not graduated. Their reasoning was that "I would be ruining their lives if they didn't graduate and lose out on scholarships". Both of these students never did anything and had grades below 30%.

That being said, it is not terrible. I still enjoy teaching, even if parents are an enormous pain and if there are days where it feels everyone thinks your worthless.
I would have stuck to my guns and not passed them. Dealt with anything that comes after accordingly.
 
  • #29
Andy Resnick
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
7,463
2,001
Honestly, yes. I am currently on my 8th year teaching high school physics. Currently I am teaching all AP Physics. I spent an hour yesterday arguing with a parent who was worried about their child's grade, it was a B+. I had administrators pass two students who should have failed and not graduated. Their reasoning was that "I would be ruining their lives if they didn't graduate and lose out on scholarships". Both of these students never did anything and had grades below 30%.

That being said, it is not terrible. I still enjoy teaching, even if parents are an enormous pain and if there are days where it feels everyone thinks your worthless.
I empathize- I haven't had to deal with parents, but I do regularly deal with... let's call them "immature"... students. And administration is currently "thinking about ways to speed the process to graduation", which has direct implications about pass rates in so-called 'gateway courses'.

And yes, the few 'stars' in my classes go a long ways towards counterbalancing the 'rocks'.
 
  • #30
BiGyElLoWhAt
Gold Member
1,570
116
From what I've read, it doesn't surprise me. Too many parents today focus on telling their children how 'special' they are but, Should We Tell Children They're "Special?".
Well at least if we tell them they're special, we don't have to worry about them juming in a plane to kamakaze pearl harbor o_O
I won't try to go to far into it, because it's somewhat off topic, but I think there's something to be said for breaking the community, or at least keeping it in check. You don't want your kids following blind. There's definitely too much of the whole "special" thing floating around however.
 
  • #31
BiGyElLoWhAt
Gold Member
1,570
116
Today's students want to be spoon fed, and they have a sense of entitlement to have things done the way they want them done, irrespective of what is correct or what serves the needs of the rest of the class. They are prone to argue about grades, work loads, class attendance, homework, etc. They are so special!!
I've noticed this as well. I don't teach, but I do tutor on occasion (outside of PF even!). About a week or so ago, I was helping my brother with logs. About 15 minutes into it I realized he didn't know how exponents worked and how logs and exponentials were related to each other. So I stopped with the logs, to backtrack into exponential equations, then wrote the analagous log and exponential equation... he fought me every step of the way, because that's not what they were learning, and he just wanted to pass the test. He wanted me to give him the information that he wanted and then to stfu. Quite frustrating.
 
  • #32
symbolipoint
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
Gold Member
5,999
1,094
I've noticed this as well. I don't teach, but I do tutor on occasion (outside of PF even!). About a week or so ago, I was helping my brother with logs. About 15 minutes into it I realized he didn't know how exponents worked and how logs and exponentials were related to each other. So I stopped with the logs, to backtrack into exponential equations, then wrote the analagous log and exponential equation... he fought me every step of the way, because that's not what they were learning, and he just wanted to pass the test. He wanted me to give him the information that he wanted and then to stfu. Quite frustrating.
A cultural change is necessary. Education requires EFFORT; learning requires the LEARNER TO MAKE EFFORT TO STUDY and THINK.
 
  • Like
Likes PWiz and BiGyElLoWhAt
  • #33
1,011
242
I've noticed this as well. I don't teach, but I do tutor on occasion (outside of PF even!). About a week or so ago, I was helping my brother with logs. About 15 minutes into it I realized he didn't know how exponents worked and how logs and exponentials were related to each other. So I stopped with the logs, to backtrack into exponential equations, then wrote the analagous log and exponential equation... he fought me every step of the way, because that's not what they were learning, and he just wanted to pass the test. He wanted me to give him the information that he wanted and then to stfu. Quite frustrating.

Same here. I was teaching a student one time the shell method. They told me to skip the derivation and give them an answer. The derivation is really nice and explains why and how it works.


Although, I have a buddy who is always asking me to help him with questions. He just needs a hint and works on it. Comes back next day if he didn't solve and repeat. He makes up for all the other people.
 
  • Like
Likes BiGyElLoWhAt
  • #34
symbolipoint
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
Gold Member
5,999
1,094
Same here. I was teaching a student one time the shell method. They told me to skip the derivation and give them an answer. The derivation is really nice and explains why and how it works.


Although, I have a buddy who is always asking me to help him with questions. He just needs a hint and works on it. Comes back next day if he didn't solve and repeat. He makes up for all the other people.
That is why some teachers or professors require students show steps and the use of variables and drawings in order to issue credit. The final answer alone is meaningless. The analysis and solution process is what is important. I can recall a Physics professor giving a test and instructed that all problems on the entire test must be solved in symbolic form, only -- NO numerical results computed. ...and show all steps.
 
  • Like
Likes BiGyElLoWhAt
  • #35
BiGyElLoWhAt
Gold Member
1,570
116
Although, I have a buddy who is always asking me to help him with questions. He just needs a hint and works on it. Comes back next day if he didn't solve and repeat. He makes up for all the other people.
I love people like that. I had a few underclassmen at school that were like that. It was nice. I"ll do that crap for free =D (*cough* PF *cough*)

That is why some teachers or professors require students show steps and the use of variables and drawings in order to issue credit. The final answer alone is meaningless. The analysis and solution process is what is important. I can recall a Physics professor giving a test and instructed that all problems on the entire test must be solved in symbolic form, only -- NO numerical results computed. ...and show all steps.
Amazing. I wish more teachers did that. I'm very anti-calculator, lost my TI-89 because I haven't used it since Calc 1 when we had to plot and "guess" what the limit was. Other than that, if I need to evaluate a sine or cosine I'll use a basic scientific calculator on my phone, but that's about it. I think it's better for you that way, as well.
 
  • #36
vanhees71
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
15,369
6,750
I've very mixed emotions towards my own highschool teachers. Most of them were quite annoying but a few were really a gift. Among them was the physics teacher in the last 2 years towards the "Abitur" (I'm from Germany). In Germany you have to choose two main subjects ("Leistungskurse"), and I've chosen math and physics (the best decision in my life ;-)). The physics teacher was exceptionally good, and the reason is pretty simple: She was not trained as a physics teacher in the beginning but she studied just physics (at this time in Germany you got a "Diplomphysiker" which is equivalent to a today's master at universities), got her PhD in experimental atomic physics and then did some years of postdoc research in this field. She taught us physics in a very good way. It was challenging but precisely at a level you could just follow at high school, and it covered both the experimental and theoretical aspects very well. Even with the limited math you have at the high-school level we learnt how to apply calculus (which we learnt in math too of course) to physical problems. We even learnt the Schrödinger equation of quantum theory and solved the time-independent Schrödinger equation for simple model cases like the box and even the harmonic oscillator.

So my advice is, do not study physics for high-school teachers but simply physics and then become a high-school teacher. The most important thing for a good teacher in my opinion is to have a very solid knowledge about the foundation of the subject you want to teach and to be excited for this subject and be able to provide this excitement to your pupils.

I also cannot follow the lamento about the "bad kids today". That lamento is as old as mankind, and you find famous quotes by Sokrates about the spoiled youth of his days. I'm myself a postdoc researcher at a university and also teach from time to time, and I love it. It's a great opportunity to learn something new yourself and to (hopefully) help the students to learn something. I think in some sense the whole purpose of doing basic research is to figure new stuff out and then teach it to the next generation, and teaching should be done in a very close relation to the way science is really done. This is an idea, in Germany known as the Humboldtian idea about what a good university should be, coming unfortunately out of fashion.

What's even worse are the modern ideas about teaching and didactics. Often I hear statements from (physics) didactics people that all the fancy stuff the physics students have to learn are unnecessary for the teacher students, who need more good didactics than a solid foundation of the subject. For me this is nonsense, and a real danger for science education.
 
  • #37
1,011
242
I've very mixed emotions towards my own highschool teachers. Most of them were quite annoying but a few were really a gift. Among them was the physics teacher in the last 2 years towards the "Abitur" (I'm from Germany). In Germany you have to choose two main subjects ("Leistungskurse"), and I've chosen math and physics (the best decision in my life ;-)). The physics teacher was exceptionally good, and the reason is pretty simple: She was not trained as a physics teacher in the beginning but she studied just physics (at this time in Germany you got a "Diplomphysiker" which is equivalent to a today's master at universities), got her PhD in experimental atomic physics and then did some years of postdoc research in this field. She taught us physics in a very good way. It was challenging but precisely at a level you could just follow at high school, and it covered both the experimental and theoretical aspects very well. Even with the limited math you have at the high-school level we learnt how to apply calculus (which we learnt in math too of course) to physical problems. We even learnt the Schrödinger equation of quantum theory and solved the time-independent Schrödinger equation for simple model cases like the box and even the harmonic oscillator.

So my advice is, do not study physics for high-school teachers but simply physics and then become a high-school teacher. The most important thing for a good teacher in my opinion is to have a very solid knowledge about the foundation of the subject you want to teach and to be excited for this subject and be able to provide this excitement to your pupils.

I also cannot follow the lamento about the "bad kids today". That lamento is as old as mankind, and you find famous quotes by Sokrates about the spoiled youth of his days. I'm myself a postdoc researcher at a university and also teach from time to time, and I love it. It's a great opportunity to learn something new yourself and to (hopefully) help the students to learn something. I think in some sense the whole purpose of doing basic research is to figure new stuff out and then teach it to the next generation, and teaching should be done in a very close relation to the way science is really done. This is an idea, in Germany known as the Humboldtian idea about what a good university should be, coming unfortunately out of fashion.

What's even worse are the modern ideas about teaching and didactics. Often I hear statements from (physics) didactics people that all the fancy stuff the physics students have to learn are unnecessary for the teacher students, who need more good didactics than a solid foundation of the subject. For me this is nonsense, and a real danger for science education.

Yes. I can vouch for a similar experience. I took geometry in community college. My teacher was employed by nasa for over 30 years. He is quite older, and African American, so in that time period you had to be the best and it shows. He would go above and beyond n explaining the material, we even did origami, constructions (all other teachers skipped these), and he even taught us to work from a least 2 books given time constraints. He was really great because he understood the material at a real high level and could explain without sacrificing rigor.


However, there can be professors who are extremely brilliant, have created theories and useful research, however they can blow as educators.

I am experiencing this in my linear algebra class. The professor has written in countless journals, edits other people's research, and has multiple degrees (phd math, physics, masters engineering), the problem is he sucks as an educator. His test are basic, the problem is who have to teach yourself and we all have more than 1 class. There is literally 2 students in the class. He has a 90 percent failure rate for all classes. Surprised administration has not fired him.
 
  • #38
symbolipoint
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
Gold Member
5,999
1,094
Yes. I can vouch for a similar experience. I took geometry in community college. My teacher was employed by nasa for over 30 years. He is quite older, and African American, so in that time period you had to be the best and it shows. He would go above and beyond n explaining the material, we even did origami, constructions (all other teachers skipped these), and he even taught us to work from a least 2 books given time constraints. He was really great because he understood the material at a real high level and could explain without sacrificing rigor.


However, there can be professors who are extremely brilliant, have created theories and useful research, however they can blow as educators.

I am experiencing this in my linear algebra class. The professor has written in countless journals, edits other people's research, and has multiple degrees (phd math, physics, masters engineering), the problem is he sucks as an educator. His test are basic, the problem is who have to teach yourself and we all have more than 1 class. There is literally 2 students in the class. He has a 90 percent failure rate for all classes. Surprised administration has not fired him.
The constructions for Geometry are absolutely needed. Studying without handling them is a highly inferior Geometry education. Also, not quite Origami, there are some excellent paper-fold activities which help in some geometric concepts and theorems. One of the Prentiss-Hall books included them.

The student must do his own learning. One should not expect the professor to put all the learning into you like installing a piece of software through an installer file. A teacher may help, and often is very helpful in helping to show a method or some other explanation or demonstration. Still, if only two students still in a class,...?
 
  • #39
1,011
242
The constructions for Geometry are absolutely needed. Studying without handling them is a highly inferior Geometry education. Also, not quite Origami, there are some excellent paper-fold activities which help in some geometric concepts and theorems. One of the Prentiss-Hall books included them.

The student must do his own learning. One should not expect the professor to put all the learning into you like installing a piece of software through an installer file. A teacher may help, and often is very helpful in helping to show a method or some other explanation or demonstration. Still, if only two students still in a class,...?
Yes. Only 2 students everyone dropped before midterms. I understand up to isomorphism. Yeah I'm aware that it is ultimately the students job to learn the material, and oftentimes when going or already in a graduate program, we have to learn things on our own. Don't mind learning on my own, I am of the mentality that things should be learned for the sake of knowing them ie, ie no incentive, just to say aww I understand this, now let me show someone else. And he is not hard, I've had harder teachers but they were great lectures.

However, let's say you are an engineerir and you know you are not good at constructing bridges. If the bridges fall and you know you are not good at them. Should you be allowed to engineer? Same with teaching. If you are not a good teacher why teach? Go into the private sector instead.
 
  • #40
1,011
242
The constructions for Geometry are absolutely needed. Studying without handling them is a highly inferior Geometry education. Also, not quite Origami, there are some excellent paper-fold activities which help in some geometric concepts and theorems. One of the Prentiss-Hall books included them.

The student must do his own learning. One should not expect the professor to put all the learning into you like installing a piece of software through an installer file. A teacher may help, and often is very helpful in helping to show a method or some other explanation or demonstration. Still, if only two students still in a class,...?

And are you talking about geometry for the classroom (yellow book)? It was a fun read, I prefer ed kisselev. Tho.
 
  • #41
symbolipoint
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
Gold Member
5,999
1,094
And are you talking about geometry for the classroom (yellow book)? It was a fun read, I prefer ed kisselev. Tho.
I was referring to college preparatory "Euclidiean" Geometry as students study while in high school or the remedial course of comparable content at a community college.
 
  • #42
vanhees71
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
15,369
6,750
However, there can be professors who are extremely brilliant, have created theories and useful research, however they can blow as educators.

I am experiencing this in my linear algebra class. The professor has written in countless journals, edits other people's research, and has multiple degrees (phd math, physics, masters engineering), the problem is he sucks as an educator. His test are basic, the problem is who have to teach yourself and we all have more than 1 class. There is literally 2 students in the class. He has a 90 percent failure rate for all classes. Surprised administration has not fired him.
This is a problem. Mastering the subject is necessary but not sufficient for good teaching. Of course, you must at least have some passion for teaching. Many professors see teaching as a annoying inconvenience and their main passion is research. If you'd fire such people, you'd get rid of some of the most brillant scholars. It's well known that people like Bohr, Pauli, Dirac, and Einstein were lousy teachers although they did groundbreaking research and their papers are also very well written and understandable. Only if it came to prepare lectures for nice teaching, they didn't care much. And even the most brillant mind must prepare his or her lectures to make them good for the students. Of course, there are also counterexamples like Planck, Sommerfeld, and Feynman who all were brillant teachers on top of being geniusses in research.
 
  • Like
Likes CalcNerd and RaulTheUCSCSlug
  • #43
16
2
The last time I remember having a serious student/teacher conference it involved the parents, the dean, a guidance counsellor, a teacher rep from the NEA, and an administrator while I was almost lost in the crowd. The students have social media sites where they can vent against or rate teachers publicly. If you choose high school teaching be prepared to face that lack of support from the school administration.
 
  • #44
RaulTheUCSCSlug
Gold Member
179
25
I have no idea if this adds to the conversation or not, but one of the reasons why I decided to study physics was my high school physics teacher. (Mind you he was my biology teacher, then later my conceptual physics, then my IB (AP equivalent kinda) Physics teacher) Little did I know how difficult and extremely rewarding this major would be. I still thank him for leading me down this treacherous, mentally straining path.

He was kind, very willing to do one on one, and didn't mind "flipping the classroom" every once in a while. I think that is why I responded to his teaching so well. While other students thought of it as a "lame" way of teaching, I was never not entertained, and now I have the pleasure of calling him my friend. So there is my... I guess experience with Physics teachers. He seemed stressed out every once in a while, but that was because he cared about his job, and now he is the science administrator for the high school, and wants to move on to the district later on.
 
  • #45
symbolipoint
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
Gold Member
5,999
1,094
This is a problem. Mastering the subject is necessary but not sufficient for good teaching. Of course, you must at least have some passion for teaching. Many professors see teaching as a annoying inconvenience and their main passion is research. If you'd fire such people, you'd get rid of some of the most brillant scholars. It's well known that people like Bohr, Pauli, Dirac, and Einstein were lousy teachers although they did groundbreaking research and their papers are also very well written and understandable. Only if it came to prepare lectures for nice teaching, they didn't care much. And even the most brillant mind must prepare his or her lectures to make them good for the students. Of course, there are also counterexamples like Planck, Sommerfeld, and Feynman who all were brillant teachers on top of being geniusses in research.
If that is how the great researcher professors are, why are they allowed to teach or why expect them to teach? If a professor is bad, really bad at teaching, or if he really does not WANT to teach, then his teaching makes no sense.
 
  • #46
vanhees71
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
15,369
6,750
That's a good point, but you need positions for that, and usually a professor at a university is expected and supposed to teach. Behind this is the very good tradition, established in the 19th cenctury (at least in Germany) that there should be a unity in research and teaching. Good teaching at university should aim at making the students fit for doing research, and this can be best done by a researcher, who knows what's needed and what should be emphasized even in very "classical" subjects. E.g., nowadays we teach classical mechanics in the theory course with a large emphasis on the Hamilton principle, the canonical formalism and (if it's a good lecture) Poisson brackets and Lie-group and -algebra approaches to physics. The reason is obvious: That's what prepares you best for quantum theory, which every physicist must master to have a chance to get into conbemporary research. I always wonder, how old-fashioned on the other hand, Electromagnetism is taught. Usually you go through the whole development from electrostatics, magnetostatics to the full Maxwell equations and only at the end you mention the relativistic approach. I'd put it right in the opposite sequence: Preparing for the space-time picture of (special) relativistic physics in the mechanics course and then start right away with electromagnetism in the relativistic formulation. That makes everything much more clear and easy than the old-fashioned approach!
 
  • Like
Likes BiGyElLoWhAt
  • #47
atyy
Science Advisor
13,917
2,189
Behind this is the very good tradition, established in the 19th cenctury (at least in Germany) that there should be a unity in research and teaching. Good teaching at university should aim at making the students fit for doing research, and this can be best done by a researcher, who knows what's needed and what should be emphasized even in very "classical" subjects.
In Germany, how are physics undergraduates that don't go on to research prepared for work? Here on PF one is seeing every week some thread that a physics major doesn't give one any marketable skills, especially in the post 2008 econonomic context. Do German physics departments have a philosophy on this, and what do their graduates go on to do?

The reason is obvious: That's what prepares you best for quantum theory, which every physicist must master to have a chance to get into conbemporary research. I always wonder, how old-fashioned on the other hand, Electromagnetism is taught. Usually you go through the whole development from electrostatics, magnetostatics to the full Maxwell equations and only at the end you mention the relativistic approach. I'd put it right in the opposite sequence: Preparing for the space-time picture of (special) relativistic physics in the mechanics course and then start right away with electromagnetism in the relativistic formulation. That makes everything much more clear and easy than the old-fashioned approach!
I haven't seen an introductory book that does it that way, but there are some that start with the complete Maxwell's equations. I think one can still justify a 3+1 approach since quantum field theory is properly formulated in 3+1D, not 4D (considering the Hamiltonian formulation more fundamental than the path integral). Here are some books that start with Maxwell's equations.

https://books.google.com/books?id=LIwBcIwrwv4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Essentials of Electromagnetism By David Dugdale

http://web.mit.edu/6.013_book/www/
Electromagnetic Fields and Energy by Herman Haus and James Melcher


Purcell is an "old fashioned" text, but I think it has the most wonderful derivation of Lamor radiation that I haven't found elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
  • #48
2,788
587
nowadays we teach classical mechanics in the theory course with a large emphasis on the Hamilton principle, the canonical formalism and (if it's a good lecture) Poisson brackets and Lie-group and -algebra approaches to physics.
Can you mention a classical mechanics textbook with such an approach?(I know, Hamilton's principle and canonical formalism are easy to find in textbooks but I don't remember a textbook using Lie groups and Lie algebras!)
 
  • #49
BiGyElLoWhAt
Gold Member
1,570
116
Usually you go through the whole development from electrostatics, magnetostatics to the full Maxwell equations and only at the end you mention the relativistic approach. I'd put it right in the opposite sequence: Preparing for the space-time picture of (special) relativistic physics in the mechanics course and then start right away with electromagnetism in the relativistic formulation. That makes everything much more clear and easy than the old-fashioned approach!
I would have loved that. In our intermediate EM class, we basically got told that magnetic fields are relativistic electric fields, without really an explanation of what that meant. In the curriculum at my school, interm EM is the 3rd class on EM you take, although the second that is dedicated explicitly to the subject. I also got a reference to a book that seemed to have little insight into the matter. I wish I could remember the name.
 
  • #50
symbolipoint
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
Gold Member
5,999
1,094
That's a good point, but you need positions for that, and usually a professor at a university is expected and supposed to teach. Behind this is the very good tradition, established in the 19th cenctury (at least in Germany) that there should be a unity in research and teaching. Good teaching at university should aim at making the students fit for doing research, and this can be best done by a researcher, who knows what's needed and what should be emphasized even in very "classical" subjects. E.g., nowadays we teach classical mechanics in the theory course with a large emphasis on the Hamilton principle, the canonical formalism and (if it's a good lecture) Poisson brackets and Lie-group and -algebra approaches to physics. The reason is obvious: That's what prepares you best for quantum theory, which every physicist must master to have a chance to get into conbemporary research. I always wonder, how old-fashioned on the other hand, Electromagnetism is taught. Usually you go through the whole development from electrostatics, magnetostatics to the full Maxwell equations and only at the end you mention the relativistic approach. I'd put it right in the opposite sequence: Preparing for the space-time picture of (special) relativistic physics in the mechanics course and then start right away with electromagnetism in the relativistic formulation. That makes everything much more clear and easy than the old-fashioned approach!
I would like to better understand university teaching versus university research. Do faculty come to the position as professor and really view teaching as an annoying distraction to research? Does the department put higher priority on research than on teaching? Do professors really want a research job but hope to do as little teaching as possible? Maybe the class laboratory sections are too few hours per week and a big increase in class-time devoted to laboratory work or lab exercises could make students into better researchers.
 

Related Threads on Becoming a Physics Teacher

Replies
3
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Sticky
  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
41K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
15K
Replies
6
Views
14K
Replies
2
Views
9K
Replies
29
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
7K
Replies
10
Views
1K
Top