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

[Dale]

My 2 cents:

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

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

 

[Andy Resnick]

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

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

 

[Andy Resnick]

My 2 cents:

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

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

 

[D H]

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

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

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

 

[jhae2.718]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Andy Resnick]

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

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

 

[Andy Resnick]

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

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

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

 

[D H]

That is a reprehensible attitude and anti-education.

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

 

[Andy Resnick]

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

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

 

[jhae2.718]

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

 

[Andy Resnick]

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

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

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

 

[Daverz]

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

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

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

 

[jhae2.718]

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

Point taken.

 

[D H]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[twofish-quant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[twofish-quant]

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

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

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

 

[twofish-quant]

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

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

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

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

 

[Astronuc]

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

More or less spot on. I'd modify it though and say the 'best' students teach themselves.

 

[D H]

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

Perhaps. Most engineers have to take eight liberal arts courses during the course of their undergraduate education. Similar requirements apply to students of the sciences in schools that award a BS degree. Some science students go to schools that award a BA rather than a BS degree, and the liberal arts requirements for those students can be considerably higher. So, perhaps engineering and science schools need to up the ante on the number of humanities classes their students need to take. The downside is that keeping an undergraduate degree to a four year program would inevitably decrease the technical knowledge of those graduates.

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

 

[jhae2.718]

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

Please, no.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Personally, I think <lots of good stuff>.

Excellent post, I completely agree.

 

[Astronuc]

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

Perhaps. . . .

Excellent post, I completely agree.

Volunteers?!

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

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

 

[Andy Resnick]

Volunteers?!

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

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

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

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

 

[G037H3]

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

 

[Ryker]

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

 

[Andy Resnick]

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

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

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

 

[G037H3]

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

 

[twofish-quant]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[twofish-quant]

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

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

 

[twofish-quant]

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

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

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

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

 

[twofish-quant]

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

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

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

 

[jhae2.718]

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

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

 

[chronon]

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

Your invention <writing> will enable them to hear many things without being properly taught, and they will imagine that they have came to know much while for the most part they will know nothing. And they will be difficult to get along with, since they will merely appear to be wise instead of really being so

But more specifically Newman's argument was that education should be deeper, rather than a shallow education in a lot of subjects. However, Geremia is saying that Physics courses should be widened to include a lot more of the history of physics - that seems to me to be saying the opposite.

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

 

[Andy Resnick]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[twofish-quant]

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

There are a few of problems with this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Andy Resnick]

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

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

 

[ViewsofMars]

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

 

[Dale]

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

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

But I won't hold my breath waiting.

 

[Ryker]

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

 

[Andy Resnick]

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

But I won't hold my breath waiting.

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

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

 

[Andy Resnick]

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

Thanks for posting this resource!

 

[atyy]

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

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


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

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

 

[twofish-quant]

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

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

But I won't hold my breath waiting.

So what do you plan to do?

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

 

[twofish-quant]

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

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

 

[twofish-quant]

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

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

 

[G037H3]

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

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

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

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

 

[D H]

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

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

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

 

[atyy]

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

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

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

 

[twofish-quant]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Andy Resnick]

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

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