What criteria are used to evaluate research in academia?

[Dopplershift]

So I decided that I want to be a teacher (maybe high school and possibly college).

To those who are physics teachers / professors, I would like to know what advice you can give me as well as what you like about being a teacher, and what you dislike?

Thanks. :)

 

[Stephen Tashi]

The major limitation is that you can't be a good teacher to all students. Students are too variable for one particular approach to always work - and by "approach", I include your own personality and style (e.g. whether you tend to be light hearted and sarcastic or very serious and sympathetic).

Most teachers I've known formulate a theory of what a student "ought" to be able to do and they aim to be successful at teaching that type of student. If you're comfortable making judgements like that then you'll see problems in your teaching mainly as problems with the students - which can be blamed on the student, the parents, society, etc.

 

[Dr.D]

After 17 year of college teaching (Prof. of Mech Engr), you could not pay me to go back to teaching today. Today's kids are insufferable. They have been carefully taught that they are each special snow flakes, and that their needs, wants, and whims, are more important that those of the entire rest of the class, the teacher, etc. I would advise any sane person to stay away from teaching today.

 

[symbolipoint]

Depending on qualifications, advanced degree could make someone a fit for high school or college (community colleges). A change in the general maturity and motivation is between community college and university. You have PhD? If you are allowed a position at a university, at least the students are better. Teach high school? You teach both STUDENTS and THE COURSE(s). Teach university? You teach COURSE(s). Teach community college? Not sure what you teach for.

 

[NotZakalwe]

After 17 year of college teaching (Prof. of Mech Engr), you could not pay me to go back to teaching today. Today's kids are insufferable. They have been carefully taught that they are each special snow flakes, and that their needs, wants, and whims, are more important that those of the entire rest of the class, the teacher, etc. I would advise any sane person to stay away from teaching today.

Are today's kids really so different from kids from the 90's? I mean, I wouldn't know since I am one of "today's kids".

 

[Borg]

Are today's kids really so different from kids from the 90's? I mean, I wouldn't know since I am one of "today's kids".

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?".

there are dangers when we spend a lot of time focusing on what distinguishes our kids. Children can come to feel that they're better than others not in particular ways but in a global sense -- that's the essence of arrogance and entitlement. Children can also become brittle -- fearful and highly prone to shame-- when they sense they are not better than others.

The last couple of decades have seen the advent of "helicopter parents" who focus on seeing their children succeed at all costs - regardless of what the children actually achieve. I've read a good number of articles that all say the same thing - teaching children self-reliance is far more helpful than telling them how special they are. The examples at the beginning of this article were a real eye-opener.
Are We Raising a Generation of Helpless Kids?
I can only imagine what the instructors for these 'special' kids have to endure.

 

[Andy Resnick]

So I decided that I want to be a teacher (maybe high school and possibly college).
To those who are physics teachers / professors, I would like to know what advice you can give me as well as what you like about being a teacher, and what you dislike?

What I like: students often bring a certain creative/youthful energy to discussions- they are learning something for the first time, and their excitement is a positive.
What I dislike: Grading, and whining about grades.

Advice: being a good teacher requires very different skills than what is required to obtain an advanced degree in Physics (or any science), and that's especially true for High School teaching. Classroom management, developing rubrics, dealing with state instructional requirements, etc. are simply not part of science curricula. IMO, the best STEM teacher-prep programs are heavy on the STEM coursework and supplement with teaching courses, as opposed to being mostly education courses with a sprinkling of STEM-lite.

 

[Dr.D]

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!

It all began to change in the '60s and '70s, and by the late '80s it had gotten bad. Administrators make things worse because they always support the student (and his tuition $$) against the teacher. They don't care about education; for them, it is a big business.

I recommend becoming a plumber or an electrician.

 

[NotZakalwe]

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!

It all began to change in the '60s and '70s, and by the late '80s it had gotten bad. Administrators make things worse because they always support the student (and his tuition $$) against the teacher. They don't care about education; for them, it is a big business.

I recommend becoming a plumber or an electrician.

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?

 

[symbolipoint]

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?

High School, or College? For college students, do what you want or believe makes the most sense. Give the grade in a good systematic way, and stay with what you issue, within reason - mostly YOURS.

 

[e.bar.goum]

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!

It all began to change in the '60s and '70s, and by the late '80s it had gotten bad. Administrators make things worse because they always support the student (and his tuition $$) against the teacher. They don't care about education; for them, it is a big business.

I recommend becoming a plumber or an electrician.

I feel like you and Aristophanes might get along.

Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.

 

[StrangeCharm]

It's great that you want to be physics teacher! I strongly believe that we need teachers who:

1) teach well (i.e. really know their material and do a good job of conveying it to others)
2) serve as a mentor to students and help them succeed
3) inspire students to pursue different subjects (in this case, physics)

I'm an undergrad studying physics and am considering becoming a teacher myself.
Check out this cool opportunity:
http://woodrow.org/fellowships/ww-teaching-fellowships/

 

[bcrowell]

I'm a community college physics teacher, and I love my job. It's a job that allows me to be creative, be almost my own boss, and do intellectually stimulating work.

The main negative would be the bureaucracy, which has gotten much, much worse since I started teaching in 1996; the California community college system seems to be emulating the worst absurdities of No Child Left Behind in many ways.

Unlike Dr.D, I have not seen a downward trend in students' behavior or abilities. There is a book called Academically Adrift that summarizes some of the research on this topic. There is objective documentation for certain downward trends, but as far as I can tell it does not support any claims of a vast change over the last 40 years. A lot of annoying student behavior is actually a rational response to the system's incentives. For example, there are overwhelming incentives for community college students to drop courses with a W and repeat them for a higher grade.

 

[symbolipoint]

bcrowell said this:

...A lot of annoying student behavior is actually a rational response to the system's incentives. For example, there are overwhelming incentives for community college students to drop courses with a W and repeat them for a higher grade.

That is very true and not a bad arrangement. The only disagreeable part of that is a student who could earn a C might drop with a W instead of take a more manageable course load and learn the material better. At least you expect the students at your school (community college) are adults, so not as much k-12 administrative and parental interferences.

 

[bcrowell]

bcrowell said this:That is very true and not a bad arrangement. The only disagreeable part of that is a student who could earn a C might drop with a W instead of take a more manageable course load and learn the material better.

It's a massive waste of educational resources to teach the course twice to the same student. We (department and teachers) get shamed and blamed because the student didn't "succeed" the first time. The school loves it because it means double the state revenue. We have a lot of students who can't get into classes because they're all full; they wouldn't be full if we didn't have so many students taking every class twice.

 

[symbolipoint]

It's a massive waste of educational resources to teach the course twice to the same student. We (department and teachers) get shamed and blamed because the student didn't "succeed" the first time. The school loves it because it means double the state revenue. We have a lot of students who can't get into classes because they're all full; they wouldn't be full if we didn't have so many students taking every class twice.

An amazing problem; surprising to me. The instructor, teacher, professor, should not be blamed for that. Students are trying to make their best choices. The drop with W saved me once. The students are the ones who need to earn their wanted credit. That can happen only when they do the needed learning. Teacher presents the material; teacher assigns what to read; teacher answers students' questions to help make things more clear. That is basically what the teacher can do. Students must study. Later, if student drops, this is nearly never (or usually is not) the teachers' fault.

From your own experience, you best know what the dropping students' current letter grades were. A reasonable student should drop with a W only if earning less than C.

 

[vela]

At least you expect the students at your school (community college) are adults, so not as much k-12 administrative and parental interferences.

Unfortunately, some students don't seem to realize they're expected to act like adults and take responsibility for their education. I've been mystified by some of my students this semester who don't do the homework and predictably do poorly on the tests. And this is after repeated reminders that homework is a big part of their final grade. I honestly wonder why they bothered to enroll in the course.

 

[brainpushups]

I love my job. It's a job that allows me to be creative, be almost my own boss, and do intellectually stimulating work.

I would like to echo Ben's sentiments here. I teach at a small independent high school and find the work exciting and engaging. I also have the freedom to design curriculum and essentially be my own boss. I have never felt any pressure from the administration for poor student performance, but we are small enough (about 130 students) that the entire faculty and administration knows each student personally. The staff is also quite small (obviously), work well together collaboratively, and are not at all apathetic about teaching (which many teachers in the public school I taught in seemed to be).

I think where you end up teaching could make a big difference. I wouldn't go back to teaching in public high school after seeing what education could and should be like. On the other hand many people choose the public system because they feel they can make the greatest difference there.

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip> For example, there are overwhelming incentives for community college students to drop courses with a W and repeat them for a higher grade.

There has been a recent and dramatic change to that policy here (public 4-year university) in reaction to the situation you describe- we now (academically) penalize students for excessive 'W's: students can be put on academic probation/suspension/expulsion for either low GPA or "unsatisfactory progress toward degree", defined as not completing at least 2/3 of the courses a student initially enrolled in each semester.

 

[symbolipoint]

There has been a recent and dramatic change to that policy here (public 4-year university) in reaction to the situation you describe- we now (academically) penalize students for excessive 'W's: students can be put on academic probation/suspension/expulsion for either low GPA or "unsatisfactory progress toward degree", defined as not completing at least 2/3 of the courses a student initially enrolled in each semester.

That policy seems as described, not too bad. Students who are doing things right will not likely risk probation, and can still avoid excessively low grade point average. That "2/3" part is a little tough. Anyone enrolled in only three courses in the term can risk only doing poorly in 1 course.

Some schools also have a policy about excessive course repetitions regardless of W, F, or D. The idea there is that if someone cannot pass a course after two repetitions, then he must get help officially in some way.

 

[fishspawned]

I am now finishing my first year teaching high school physics and pre calculus / calculus. Here is my current take on this job [i should mention that I am in my 40s and this is not my first profession].

I do not agree with earlier sentiments of the entitlement attitude of the kids these days. I feel that as I have gotten older, I have more and more looked at my life when I was in high school with increasingly rosier glasses and hat I was completely different from the ones i see now (truth being is that the only thing different is me - because i grew up and i have a hard time seeing myself as a completely different person - which i was). Thankfully I have a few old diaries that force me to rethink this position. I see little difference between who i teach and who i was when i was 17.

I find that to truly have the skills to teach you should first and foremost have a passion for the subject. I have found that I really really enjoy teaching math and the enthusiasm I have in the classroom spreads. Kids should be smiling and wanting to come to your class.

There is also a certain special place provided for those teaching physics and high math. Most of the people around you do not understand it and therefore provide you with a great amount of autonomy to run your class the way you want. 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.".

Which bring me to the final point. 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]. This has has been built into some of the children from an early age and this is for another discussion at another time - 'cus i could wax one for a long time about that]. This will take some doing to break. When you add this to an attitude that "grades define one's intelligence" then you have to come up with a methodology that breaks both of these misunderstandings. You have to teach them that A) math is awesome and will help them throughout your life and B) grades are meaningless - understanding is to be the real focus.

 

[MidgetDwarf]

I'm a community college physics teacher, and I love my job. It's a job that allows me to be creative, be almost my own boss, and do intellectually stimulating work.

The main negative would be the bureaucracy, which has gotten much, much worse since I started teaching in 1996; the California community college system seems to be emulating the worst absurdities of No Child Left Behind in many ways.

Unlike Dr.D, I have not seen a downward trend in students' behavior or abilities. There is a book called Academically Adrift that summarizes some of the research on this topic. There is objective documentation for certain downward trends, but as far as I can tell it does not support any claims of a vast change over the last 40 years. A lot of annoying student behavior is actually a rational response to the system's incentives. For example, there are overwhelming incentives for community college students to drop courses with a W and repeat them for a higher grade.

I thin, I had you as a professor. I won't say who you are out respect lol. Those challenge questions were indeed challenging.

 

[symbolipoint]

I thin, I had you as a professor. I won't say who you are out respect lol. Those challenge questions were indeed challenging.

fishspawned has the right intentions as a teacher. Maybe now you appreciate what he tried to do. The challenge questions have a couple of purposes. One is to provoke students into more practicality in a topic; and two is to give the better students something intellectual adventurous to do.

 

[MidgetDwarf]

No, I actually enjoyed his class. If indeed it is him which I suspect. Helped me better to critically think and make up conceptual porblems.

And it was not treated as a let's see what formulas I can plug into what equations.

 

[symbolipoint]

fishspawned has the right intentions as a teacher. Maybe now you appreciate what he tried to do. The challenge questions have a couple of purposes. One is to provoke students into more practicality in a topic; and two is to give the better students something intellectual adventurous to do.

No, I actually enjoyed his class. If indeed it is him which I suspect. Helped me better to critically think and make up conceptual porblems.

And it was not treated as a let's see what formulas I can plug into what equations.

How you felt was not clear. Any implication that you did not enjoy the course was not exactly what I tried to say. Very possibly some students would have felt too much work from the course and would have blamed their teacher for it.

Physics teachers, even in college and university, must deal with students who are uncomfortable and upset with what the study requires - even GOOD teachers of the subject will have students who do not like the course and do less than good in a course. On top of all this, sometimes a physics teacher may ask a hoped-to-be, stimulating question to give students more opportunity for intellectual fun and accomplishment. Meanwhile, the struggling students just feel overwhelmed.

 

[vela]

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.

 

[Birkeland]

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.

 

[MidgetDwarf]

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.

 

[Andy Resnick]

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'.

 

[BiGyElLoWhAt]

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
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.

 

[BiGyElLoWhAt]

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.

 

[symbolipoint]

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.

 

[MidgetDwarf]

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.

 

[symbolipoint]

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.

 

[BiGyElLoWhAt]

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.

 

[vanhees71]

I've very mixed emotions towards my own high school 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 learned how to apply calculus (which we learned in math too of course) to physical problems. We even learned 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.

 

[MidgetDwarf]

I've very mixed emotions towards my own high school 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 learned how to apply calculus (which we learned in math too of course) to physical problems. We even learned 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.

 

[symbolipoint]

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,...?

 

[MidgetDwarf]

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.

 

[MidgetDwarf]

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.

 

[symbolipoint]

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.

 

[vanhees71]

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.

 

[Lowedown]

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.

 

[RaulTheUCSCSlug]

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.

 

[symbolipoint]

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.

 

[vanhees71]

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!

 

[atyy]

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.

 

[ShayanJ]

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!)

 

[BiGyElLoWhAt]

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.

 

[symbolipoint]

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.