Should Physics Curriculum Prioritize Exams or Practical Skills?

[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.