Should Physics Curriculum Prioritize Exams or Practical Skills?

[jim mcnamara]

Me == three language exams + several graduate level Math courses + Phycology + Mycology + Evolution. All for a degree in Botany, grasses mostly, admittedly really ancient.

In all of this - what I got and your students also get if you have the spirit of things to impart it:

learn how to learn.

Winnow. Realize when your prof is full of you know what.

Botany was not languages for me. Nor was it Engler & Prantl. It was fun. Even now, I can still pull out Agnes Chase and identify some poor little defenseless, undignified grass - undoubtedly with the wrong modern nomenclature. It is still fun. I don't really care what taxonomic result I get. It is a fun exercise.

I am considerably older than most people who post here. Things were different way back when. Far more stultified 50 years ago than now. But I got the message. Keep learning. Am I doing special things now ? Hell no. Do what interests you. I like programming. So that is what I pursue.

To the point --
As a teacher you cannot decide a priori what interests someone. You choose to teach what your experience and education dictates will fit the defined curriculum and the discipline at hand. And that changes constantly with research. Curricula are never static. Even in discplines like Classics, which has an overly stodgy reputation, IMO.

Most people with terminal degrees in Science ( where most == > 50% ) are active in other fields than the degree awarded. I got this statistic from the Chronicle of Higher Ed back in the '80's. I presume it is still reasonable. Correct me if I'm wrong, please. But you need to keep in mind - the student in your Physics 101 class may be modeling flow in gas lines, 50 years later. Protecting your grand-kids from instant vaporization. So I like to think as a write code myself ...

Anyway, wouldn't it be nice if your grand-kids were safe because you did a great job in Physics 101 and the student really glommed onto life-long learning? And now in 2145 she writes code to monitor the neighborhood tokamak?

The goal of Higher Ed programs should be: continuity of learning. Not how many $ you make. Not if your research area is trendy or cool. And most especially not if your curriculum is perfect.

Therefore I take issue with concepts like 'ideal curriculum'. There is no such a notion. Higher learning is not an exercise in modeling curricula. If you are not in a program that allows you to exercise and grow your learning abilities, then you are in the wrong system. Period. If the guy defining a perfect curriculum persists in doing it, then perhaps he should learn more about career exit strategies. Or maybe move out of Science into some discipline that is more, um, fuzzy.

Apologies, my 2 cents.

Very good thread. Thanks.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Very well put, jim.

 

[twofish-quant]

Anyway, wouldn't it be nice if your grand-kids were safe because you did a great job in Physics 101 and the student really glommed onto life-long learning?

I think it's wonderful. The trouble is that you have to eat. You just can't have an economy in which everyone is a full time astrophysicist. This just won't work. You just cannot build a society that ignores economic reality.

Also, I think you are being overly romantic. The reason that most bright US-born students go into law and management rather than science and engineering is that they get the perception that the life of most scientists and engineers is crap, and they get that perception because it's rooted in reality. You put an undergrad in front of a TA whose car is about to die and who can't afford repairs, and assistant professor that is going bonkers because they know that they won't get tenure but is trying this last desperate gasp to publish something, and you *seriously* expect them to be attracted to any of this?

Also, you simply cannot have an economy in which everyone spends all their time studying quantum mechanics and philosophy. Someone has to plow the fields and clean the toilets. What is wonderful about the age that we live in is that we are at the point where you don't have to divide society into people that work the fields and people that study classical Greek. If you can get a twenty year old a job as a plumber, then by the time they are 30, they may have enough saved up so that *then* they can study classic Greek or ancient philosophy.

I taught algebra for a while at UoP. My "hook" was that if you learn these math techniques you will make more money, and this was the totally honest truth. Now maybe a few of them will find that there is more to math than just making money, but if I don't present them some basic skills in a way that is useful to them, then no one will get to that point.

The goal of Higher Ed programs should be: continuity of learning. Not how many $ you make. Not if your research area is trendy or cool. And most especially not if your curriculum is perfect.

But if you ignore economics, you are not going to get anywhere near that goal. Without some hard as nails thinking about who does what for whom, you are just ignoring reality, and once you start ignoring reality, bad things happen. Academia is supposed to be about free inquiry, but it has turned into a society of lords and serfs, because people are ignoring the fundamental economic reality that someone has got to plow the fields.

The reason I think places like University of Phoenix, community colleges, and vocational technical institutes are so important so that if you give people some practical skills which they can use to make money, then this gives them the chance to have some free time to do something like study quantum mechanics. If you have spare time and extra cash, you can study physics, or you can watch football, your choice. If you don't have basic marketable skills that will let you go out and be productive, then you just don't have this choice.

The good news is that by focusing on this student and giving them some very basic skills (Algebra I), you can greatly increase their productivity at very little cost, you then feed this extra wealth back into the system and then things just mushroom. What I think that MIT should do is to provide the next step. You are now 35, you have finally learned Algebra I, and you have a job as an HR rep. If you want, then MIT will teach you basic calculus and physics.

As far as inspiring people to learn physics. There are a *huge* number of Ph.D.'s and junior faculty that are totally burned out and disillusioned. If you put an undergraduate next to a graduate student or junior faculty that is trapped in the academic rat-race and who secretly hates their existence, people will figure this out. People are quite perceptive and they'll absorb these cues.

Higher learning is not an exercise in modelling curricula.

There's more to universities than learning. If you want to learn quantum mechanics for the sake of learning quantum mechanics, then all of this stuff about grades and degrees is just meaningless. If your only goal is "pure learning" then go on open courseware, buy some books from Amazon, and put an ad on craig's list for a tutor. You can get this done for pretty cheap.

But universities are not going to be able to make money off "pure learning." Columbia and NYU found this out when they offered some beautiful classes with some brilliant professors, and found that no one was going to pay $2000 for a course without credit. They lost millions on online learning before they pulled the plug.

Universities just don't make their money from education. They make their money from credentals. People just don't pay large amounts of money to universities for education. They pay large amounts of money for the piece of paper that let's them turn knowledge into cash. You see this at UoP. I can offer the same Algebra I class for a *LOT* less money than UoP charges for it. But no one cares. I can give them knowledge, but UoP controls that piece of paper that let's them turn that knowledge into cash.

Personally, I'm quite bothered by this. One thing that bothers me is that once things are about cash, then the people that control the curriculum are employers looking for cogs. I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing, but at some level, it really doesn't matter because its the reality.

Reality can be harsh. I wish I could say that employers are looking for physics bachelors because of their deep knowledge of quantum mechanics and insightful thoughts on space time. I wish I can say that, but I can't because it's not true. The reason bachelors degrees are required for most jobs is that it proves you can punch a time clock, sit through a boring meeting, and turn in a report that has meaningless stuff that you don't really believe on time, and whether you get your bachelors in physics or French literature really doesn't matter. Most of the people that I know with only a bachelors in physics went into management consulting.

One thing that I really like about University of Phoenix is that they are honest about one thing in a way that traditional academia is not. If you are not currently employed, University of Phoenix will not let you be an adjunct instructor. UoP is perfectly honest that there is just no way that you are going make a living wage working as an adjunct there. They are also perfectly honest that working as an adjunct at UoP is just not the stepping stone to greater things. Adjunct instructing at UoP is paid charity work which you do to make some extra cash on the side, and they set things up so you can work at the job that pays the rent.

 

[twofish-quant]

Yep- turns out there *was* a big change last year (2009)- MIT made $182M.

They didn't. In order to get that +$182M, they had to move $450M from an endowment that had already lost $1.8 billion. Also the fact that they mentioned FASB 157 and Level 3 assets makes me *REALLY* nervous.

And the reason I am engaging you in this (very professional, BTW) discussion is that you are unfortunately, *not* a lone voice in the wilderness- you accurately reflect the end product of 20 years of MBA-centric academia.

You say that as if it is a bad thing...

You will notice that I'm one of the few people (maybe the only person) of my age been through the process that is still giddy about physics, and that's trying to get more kids interesting in science, math, and engineering. Sometimes, I get a little sad because I wish I was at some major university enlightening the youth about the grand mysteries of the universe.

Then I look at reality. Among all of the people in my cohort, I'm probably the one that is the most passionate about science and technology. Most of the people that graduated with me are completely burned out. If I kick myself out of my bubble and look at the people I know personally that have gotten junior faculty positions, I'm not very jealous. I know someone personally that just got denied tenure, and they are going totally crazy trying to figure out what to do next.

Education is a product, and MIT a widget factory. *I* am the one screaming that this has to stop, and *I* am the one fighting against the tide.

That's nice. Can you make the numbers work? If not, you are just shooting the messenger.

The basic problem is this. Universities don't make money by educating people. Universities make money by granting credentials. You can see this by fact that people are willing to pay much, much more money for a class that gets you a sheet of paper than one that doesn't.

The fact that universities make money by granting credentials makes them, for lack of a better word, impure. If you try to go for "pure learning" then the university is just not going to make enough money to support full time faculty.

 

[Andy Resnick]

You will notice that I'm one of the few people (maybe the only person) of my age been through the process that is still giddy about physics, and that's trying to get more kids interesting in science, math, and engineering.

Not hardly- it turns out you and I both went to very similar universities at the exact same time.

 

[twofish-quant]

Not hardly- it turns out you and I both went to very similar universities at the exact same time.

So that makes two of us. It's still pretty lonely. And one other thing that we have in common is that our career paths both took a detour outside of academia.

 

[Andy Resnick]

The basic problem is this. Universities don't make money by educating people.

That is exactly what I have been saying *all along*.

So the *real* problem is making universities a profitable business.

And that *is* a problem because trying to make a university profitable leads to universities acting just as you complain about- that is, they no longer educate students. And so that leads to what we see now- the downward drive to vo-tech training, online degrees, etc. etc.

How to balance the need to generate income with the mission of a higher *learning* is what we should be discussing. The modern research university is not a self-sustaining business model. Briefly, the faculty that are recruited to and are successful at a modern research university are not teachers. Students are left to fend for themselves. That works, as long as the university can cash in on it's reputation.

That is an opportunity for universities that *can* offer a quality learning experience for undergraduates. I would love the opportunity to get an undergrad ready for graduate school at MIT- my student would be well-prepared to take advantage of the opportunities there.

 

[twofish-quant]

So the *real* problem is making universities a profitable business.

I think the problem is making universities a business, profitable or otherwise.

Personally, I think that "pure learning" is wonderful, but the second people expect to be employed, then you've got yourself a business. If you want to pay people and then you bash MBA's, then chances are that you have a very badly run business.

The issue is not profit. The issue is viability. Personally, there's no reason I can see that a university should be expected to make a profit *provided* that if the university makes a loss, that we have some way of covering those losses so that the university doesn't run out of cash. If you are in a market economy, and you keep running losses and no one is putting in cash to cover those losses, then you just run out of cash and you have to shut down. Whether markets are the best way of running a society is a whole other discussion, but that gets too "theoretical.'

If you have people that are voluntarily willing to work for free, that's fine, it's even wonderful. The trouble is that in order to get people to work for free, you have to figure out how to get them to eat.

And that *is* a problem because trying to make a university profitable leads to universities acting just as you complain about- that is, they no longer educate students. And so that leads to what we see now- the downward drive to vo-tech training, online degrees, etc. etc.

If universities *can't* be mainly about education and more focused on training, then it's better if we structure them so that they are good at training. It's not that universities no longer educate students, it's that in some sense, the modern American university never really did. Why does the Department of Defense, give MIT so much money? It's to build better bombs. Nothing much to do with higher learning.

How to balance the need to generate income with the mission of a higher *learning* is what we should be discussing.

I don't think you can, and I don't think that universities are the right place for "higher learning." If you try to "balance" things you just end up with something that does both vocational training and higher learning badly. University of Phoenix is not about "higher learning." So some degree neither is MIT.

When I teach at UoP, it's not about "higher learning". It's a set of vo-tech skills, but if you have someone with a comfortable job and steady income, *then* then can worry about "higher learning" or not. Their choice.

The modern research university is not a self-sustaining business model. Briefly, the faculty that are recruited to and are successful at a modern research university are not teachers. Students are left to fend for themselves. That works, as long as the university can cash in on it's reputation.

Sure. In the case of MIT, this works pretty well, because you admit students that both can and in some sense want to fend for themselves. You just don't go to MIT for the quality of classroom teaching. For me, that doesn't matter, because if I want to learn something, I prefer to buy a book rather than sit in a lecture hall.

MIT has some of the most incompetent teachers on the planet. But it doesn't matter. There was a required class that had a professor that was *so* incompetent, that the suspicion was that he was being purposeful incompetent so that he'd never have to teach a class again (and I think it worked). But it didn't matter. The students, the grad students, and the other teachers banded together, and people learned the material. If you put your typical MIT physics major in front of a totally incompetent teacher, it really doesn't matter. He or she will learn the material anyway. If you put that person in front of someone that is struggle with Algebra, it's a disaster.

Also, it's not just reputation. MIT and Harvard are going to do fine, because they just have too many friends and supporters in powerful places. It's not a matter of cashing in on reputation. It's about putting your students in places of power so that you can write laws and exercise power for the benefit of MIT and Harvard. There really is a "Harvard mafia" that runs astrophysics. Personally, it disturbs me because 1) it offends my sense of fairness but if I'm honest the more important reason is that 2) I'm not a full member of that mafia (although my advisor is).

That is an opportunity for universities that *can* offer a quality learning experience for undergraduates.

Sure, but different people have different needs and desires, and quality learning experience means different things to different people. Attending MIT is like joining the marines, it's great for some people, but it's a disaster for many or even most people.

 

[Andy Resnick]

And one other thing that we have in common is that our career paths both took a detour outside of academia.

1) So what?
2) That is irrelevant to the fact that I am paid to educate undergrads (and MS students).

 

[Andy Resnick]

I don't think you can, and I don't think that universities are the right place for "higher learning."

If that's true, then there is no reason to *have* a university. While I enjoy destroying idiotic things as much as the next person, without centers of learning the future will resemble "Idiocracy", and that's not a legacy I want to leave my kids.

In order to generate future scientists (or for that matter, an educated voting populace), those children need to *learn something*. Without school, where will they learn?

Look, anyone can read a book- and I agree, to the extent that elementary (remedial) function can be learned by reading a book, there will be a legitimate place for online courses. I've taught those, too- and for what they do, they are useful.

But for some activities, especially scientific activities, reading a book is insufficient. Troubleshooting experiments can't be learned from a book, for example. Designing useful experiments can't be learned from a book. It's clear where my bias is, but the reality is that a putative student cannot learn what I do from a book, and never will be able to.

Again, I see opportunity for an institution that can provide a *learning experience* that cannot be obtained from reading a book.

 

[Rika]

It's a serious problem in my country. Training vs education. And I wonder - what's wrong with having them both? What's wrong with creating academic degrees (for those who want to pursue science) and vocational degrees (for those who want to get a job). If there is med/law school what's wrong with engineering/other profession school? You could get general education during your freshman year and after that decide which degree (and major) you want to pursue (and still attend general, more popular science like lectures in literature, history, science etc. to understand world better). Some majors such as pure math or physics should be academic only with very limited number of students. It's not very profitable but other more profitable majors could earn money. If only few students were allowed to pursue academic degree there would be no problem with overproduction of phds (and then you could hire 1 professional scientist instead of 3 gratudate students and pay him/her well). And I guess it's fine because universities should educate ppl that country need. If you need plumbers you should educate plumbers. If you need physicists you should educate them. But if you need 10 plumbers and 1 physicist then what's the point in educating 10 physicists and 1 plumber?

 

[twofish-quant]

If that's true, then there is no reason to *have* a university.

It depends on what you think the purpose of the university is. One fundamental fact is that universities are not getting billions of dollars in tax money and government support for the primary purpose of "higher learning." "Higher learning" is a merely by-product. It's a good by-product, but you have to understand why the money is being given.

Also if you want to run a post-industrial society, you need something like a university. Post-industrial societies require *massive* numbers of people pushing papers from point A to point B.

In order to generate future scientists (or for that matter, an educated voting populace), those children need to *learn something*. Without school, where will they learn?

Libraries. Museums. The workplace. Chat rooms. If you want to learn about waves, go out on the beach. If you want to learn something about observational astronomy, get a telescope and go out in your backyard. One thing that I try to get my students in intro astronomy to do is to just go outside for a few hours look at the stars and watch them move. It's amazing how many people have never done that.

You definitely need a structured education environment up until high school. After high school, you can make things unstructured.

Also, I don't think that there is much economic demand for more professional scientists. We don't need more professional scientists. The demand isn't there. We need to figure out how to let people have scientific careers without being full-time scientists.

The problem with scientists is that one scientist can change the world. So why do we need a hundred. That's the problem with creative professions. One creative person can transform history. But that's a bummer if you are the second person with the same idea.

Plumbers and managers aren't like that. If you have a hundred broken toilets or 100 workers that need supervision, it doesn't matter *how* good a plumber or manager you are, you need warm bodies. This is also good if you *aren't* the worlds best plumber. If you aren't the worlds best physicist, then there's really not that much for you to do, since the world's best physicist has already discovered what needs to be discovered.

If you are an average plumber or even a *bad* plumber, there are still toilets for you to fix.

The result of this is that there is going to be a lot more demand for schools teaching plumbing and managing than physics. Bummer.

But for some activities, especially scientific activities, reading a book is insufficient. Troubleshooting experiments can't be learned from a book, for example. Designing useful experiments can't be learned from a book. It's clear where my bias is, but the reality is that a putative student cannot learn what I do from a book, and never will be able to.

Absolutely. That's why you need to put people where the action is. If you want people to learn research, put them in a research institute. This is one reason that the University of Phoenix model works really well for some things, but is extremely difficult to extend to others.

You can teach things like education, management, nursing, and human resources with the UoP model, because the online learners are in almost all cases actively working as educators, managers, nurses, and human resources people. So there is no need to provide a "laboratory" because the students are already in the lab. So a lot of bachelors of nursing courses involve having nurses in a forum swap stories and share experiences. Same with masters of education courses.

You couldn't teach plumbing that way, and I'm trying to figure out how you can teach physics. The good thing about physics is that a lot of the "bottlenecks" are things that you can teach remotely. You can't teach how to operate an oscilloscope remotely, but you can teach differential equations if you have the right tools.

This is why university presidents that think that they can just copy UoP are in for a rude shock. If you put ten 35 year-old office workers in a chat forum and ask them to discuss management, you've got the basis for a good class or degree on management. All of them are either managers or at least have day to day dealings with managers.

If you put ten 18 year-old that are full time students in the same situation, you got nothing.

 

[Andy Resnick]

But if you need 10 plumbers and 1 physicist then what's the point in educating 10 physicists and 1 plumber?

To some extent I agree with you. That said, I don't pick who enrolls in CSU. I don't control who signs up for my class, and I don't decide who selects a major in Physics.

So, if a student comes to me, desiring an education, I have a duty to provide the best possible education that I can. That means my class is geared towards their interests and needs, and my research is used as an educational tool as well.

I cannot pick a goal for the student- nor should I. What I *can* do is help them achieve their goal.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Chat rooms.

Seriously? I'm hoping you are joking.

 

[twofish-quant]

It's a serious problem in my country. Training vs education. And I wonder - what's wrong with having them both? What's wrong with creating academic degrees (for those who want to pursue science) and vocational degrees (for those who want to get a job).

Terrible idea. The trouble is that is sets an either/or situation, and it's really, really bad for people that want to spend their life doing science. The harsh reality is that there are not that much job openings for full time professional scientists so if you want to survive in the post-modern economy, you have to learn something vocational. People that want to do science need to be encouraged to pick up some vocational skill along the way.

If there is med/law school what's wrong with engineering/other profession school?

It silos knowledge. If you want to be a top-flight engineer, you will have to learn something about law. If you want to be a top-flight lawyer, chances are that you will have to learn something about engineering. Even if you want to leave most of the work to a specialist, you need to know enough so that you know you've gotten the right specialist.

Also this doesn't deal with shifts in the economy. There may be a technological change that either renders most lawyers obsolete or renders most engineers obsolete.

If only few students were allowed to pursue academic degree there would be no problem with overproduction of phds (and then you could hire 1 professional scientist instead of 3 gratudate students and pay him/her well).

Except that you can't. The thing about scientific research is that there is a *huge* amount of grunt work. You don't need that many people to come up with the brilliant idea, but you need tons of people to reduce data, do computer runs, type up papers. There is a lot of science that just need large numbers of warm bodies. It's not the glamorous "eureka" parts, but there are things that just have to be done.

So you need grad students. To pay for grad students, you need tuition from undergraduates.

Now what you *could* do is to hire people directly as something which are "science nurses" and make that as a career. The trouble with that is that then the economics blows up. You can get grad students to work cheap on the idea that they are going to get something bigger and better later. If it is obvious that they won't, then they demand more money.

There is another problem. Right now grad students are "temporary". They'll be gone in a few years. If you have people spend their entire careers in one place, they are going to end up demanding large amounts of power. So you have to put together an "up or out" system.

If you need plumbers you should educate plumbers. If you need physicists you should educate them.

Who is this "you"? Whoever this "you" is they have a lot of power to decide the fate of people's lives. That's probably too much power.

But if you need 10 plumbers and 1 physicist then what's the point in educating 10 physicists and 1 plumber?

So who decides? Also what's wrong with being a physicist-plumber?

 

[Andy Resnick]

One fundamental fact is that universities are not getting billions of dollars in tax money and government support for the primary purpose of "higher learning."

Again, here is where you extrapolate your own experience to the larger world, and it's incorrect. Is that true sometimes? sure. It's not a "fundamental" fact.

And I'm talking about more than just creating professional scientists. I'm talking about creating an educated voting population.

I think the value of Physics I and II is not just that it teaches non-majors some elementary physics- one of my course goals (stated in the syllabus) is to show the student that rational explanations of things have value.

And how are my students of today going to get the tools they need for the jobs of tomorrow? Your job didn't exist when you were in school- is it wrong for me to want to give my students the same opportunities that you had? Is that not the purpose of education?

Seriously dude, have you *seen* the dialog on most chat rooms?

 

[Rika]

Terrible idea. The trouble is that is sets an either/or situation, and it's really, really bad for people that want to spend their life doing science. The harsh reality is that there are not that much job openings for full time professional scientists so if you want to survive in the post-modern economy, you have to learn something vocational. People that want to do science need to be encouraged to pick up some vocational skill along the way.

That's why I said - why can't we speed up "natural selection" process and start it during college admission (not during post-doc or tenure-track)? If you need 5 new physicists then educate 5 physicists not 50000. And then 49995 ppl are forced to find other idea for their furture. It's much better doing this when you are 18 than when you are 30.

I still find this shocking. Mostly because in my country people are strongly discouraged so they won't pursue scientific career. In my country being Steven Hawking isn't cool. So people who truly want to be scientists have no problem with finding a position.

It silos knowledge. If you want to be a top-flight engineer, you will have to learn something about law. If you want to be a top-flight lawyer, chances are that you will have to learn something about engineering. Even if you want to leave most of the work to a specialist, you need to know enough so that you know you've gotten the right specialist.

I have never said that interdiciplinarity is a bad thing. The point is that law course for engineers should be designed in a different way than the same course for law students.

Now what you *could* do is to hire people directly as something which are "science nurses" and make that as a career. The trouble with that is that then the economics blows up. You can get grad students to work cheap on the idea that they are going to get something bigger and better later. If it is obvious that they won't, then they demand more money.

I don't know if I understand correctly but are you saying that you can trick so many young and intelligent people? That you can tell such obvious lies for so many years? That people believe in a "work hard on this project so we will reward you and you will get a position" and other stuff?

There is another problem. Right now grad students are "temporary". They'll be gone in a few years. If you have people spend their entire careers in one place, they are going to end up demanding large amounts of power. So you have to put together an "up or out" system.

It's just simply amazing how societies are different in different countries. In my country it is obvious that if you have finished technical vocational school and work as "science nurse" under professor (it's very prestigious posintion in my country) then you are a fly and it's funny if you try to demand any power. It's also funny when you try to demand more money because working at public institution is stable and gives you some social benefits. In my country there used to be technical vocational schools, science nurses and people were working in one place their whole life. It's not any different nowadays.

Also what's wrong with being a physicist-plumber?

Because you end as frustrated physicist-plumber. That's wrong.

 

[Andy Resnick]

After high school, you can make things unstructured.

Absolutely untrue- I, for one, would not want to be operated on by a surgeon that is a product of 10+ years of unstructured education. And if you keep the structure of boards or other licensing certification, you are setting up the students to fail.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Also what's wrong with being a physicist-plumber?

I agree with that- I wish I had more plumbing skills, frankly.

 

[Andy Resnick]

That's why I said - why can't we speed up "natural selection" process and start it during college admission (not during post-doc or tenure-track)? If you need 5 new physicists then educate 5 physicists not 50000. And then 49995 ppl are forced to find other idea for their furture. It's much better doing this when you are 18 than when you are 30.

Because in the US, people have the freedom to study whatever they want to <mumbles something about the 'pursuit of happiness' as opposed to 'entitled to happiness'>

 

[Rika]

Because in the US, people have the freedom to study whatever they want to <mumbles something about the 'pursuit of happiness' as opposed to 'entitled to happiness'>

But not everyone can study at MIT, right? There is a limit in every university, right? So you still can study whatever you want.

While I sometimes honestly curse system in my country (we can't choose subjects) it still has some good points: in my country every physics major include at least 2 c++ courses. So you are forced to learn some plumber skills which isn't that bad.

 

[Andy Resnick]

But not everyone can study at MIT, right? There is a limit in every university, right? So you still can study whatever you want.

I don't understand what you mean. The freedom to study physics does not imply the right to obtain a BS degree from MIT.

 

[Rika]

I don't understand what you mean. The freedom to study physics does not imply the right to obtain a BS degree from MIT.

I don't know about US but here there is always a limit to certain major - only 300 people can get accepted into law every year or 120 can study MechE at certain university. So you can study law or MechE if you get accepted. What I try to say is - if you don't need as much physicists as MechE a limit should be different - let's say 15 people.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I don't know about US but here there is always a limit to certain major - only 300 people can get accepted into law every year or 120 can study MechE at certain university. So you can study law or MechE if you get accepted. What I try to say is - if you don't need as much physicists as MechE a limit should be different - let's say 15 people.

Ok. If I understand you, then there are similar limits in the US- medical school. There may be others (like dentistry? veternarian?) as well.

In the US, once people graduate medical school, they have to undergo a 'residency' program, which is similar in spirit to a post-doc:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residency_(medicine)

There's a finite number of residency slots so in effect, 'match day' limits the number of practicing neurosurgeons, radiologists, urologists, etc.

That has worked spectacularly well in the past- the average quality of US docs is possibly the best average in the world.

But it does raise the question "How many docs should there be?"

The problem is, US Medical Schools grew really fast over the past 15 years due to the doubling of NIH research awards. Many top Medical schools have adopted the business model of education: chase grant dollars, have the students fend for themselves.

So, while much of this thread could be taken as academic (pun possibly intended), we should keep in mind that the choices we are discussing have very real consequences.

 

[Rika]

Ok. If I understand you, then there are similar limits in the US- medical school. There may be others (like dentistry? veternarian?) as well.

In the US, once people graduate medical school, they have to undergo a 'residency' program, which is similar in spirit to a post-doc:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residency_(medicine)

There's a finite number of residency slots so in effect, 'match day' limits the number of practicing neurosurgeons, radiologists, urologists, etc.

It's similar to medicine and law (especially) in my country. Mostly due to the fact that you need not only urologists but also radiologists. It's the same with law. Not everyone can be a judge.

That has worked spectacularly well in the past- the average quality of US docs is possibly the best average in the world.

But it does raise the question "How many docs should there be?"

The problem is, US Medical Schools grew really fast over the past 15 years due to the doubling of NIH research awards. Many top Medical schools have adopted the business model of education: chase grant dollars, have the students fend for themselves.

So, while much of this thread could be taken as academic (pun possibly intended), we should keep in mind that the choices we are discussing have very real consequences.

Still we don't need as much physicists as MDs. No matter what docs are much more needed and they always be. Still there are limits. I don't think that similar limits will hurt when it comes to physics. And there are still open universities. So even if you don't get accepted into BSc physics program you still can study physics in your free time. I believe that being well-educated person who understands the world doesn't come with an university-level knowledge in a specific field.

 

[Count Iblis]

1) European students objected to "requiring quizzes, homework, and attendance, rather than evaluating students solely on big final exams, as too micromanaging and make(ing) university too much like secondary school"

I agree with this objection. I have seen myself how such a system dumbs down students. What happens is that students will tend to focus on all their homeworks assignments. Getting the answer correct is now a priority. Even if you've done so without undestanding everything properly, the best strategy is to move on and finish your other homework assignments.

The assignments one can give also necessarily have to be quite a bit easier compared to optimally chosen practice problems. You can't give any challenging exercises to students as compulsory homework, because students who have mastered everything should be able to get a 100% score.

What also happens is that students will use computer algebra systems like Mathematica to do the computations in their assignments. This is catastrophic for physics students because they used to get most of their math skill training from doing physics problems.

 

[Jake4]

That's interesting- my students say they like the immediate feedback they get from regular homework, it helps them feel more confident that they understand the material. Or it's a warning that they don't understand it as well as they should.

Either way, it's peripheral to any discussion regarding *subject competence*. I'm thinking long-term: how to get the students (mostly non-majors) to understand that physics is a tool they can use, and it's a very useful tool.

I would have to agree. A topic can easily be skimmed, and thought to be understood. Also there is definitely the concept of practice. A lot of different processes in physics and mathematics really stick once done many times over. I used to look at formulas and wonder how anyone could remember any of them, until I started to apply them.

Homework, is great, and is the single best indicator that you are up to speed.

 

[Andy Resnick]

All undergrad students need to understand that they are considered 'clients' or 'customers' of the institution- not just research universities, but nearly every higher education institution.

Tacitly or explicitly, the student is put in charge of their own education- the student has the sole responsibility to learning the material.

So, students- you need to tell the institution what your needs are. For example, this spring the physics majors at CSU lobbied the provost's office not to cut the summer research program. And they were successful!

That's the trade-off. The student is responsible for their own education, so the student needs to communicate his/her needs to the administration CLEARLY and EFFECTIVELY.