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

[Andy Resnick]

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.

I agree exactly.

 

[atyy]

Is it true that there would be no light bulbs or airplanes without physics?

Of course that's true in the most general sense. But is it true in the sense of the poster, ie. without physicists? After all, engineers can do physics.

 

[G037H3]

I'm still waiting for my list. :P

 

[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

Thanks for posting this resource!

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.

Andy, thank you. I would also like to thank DH and atty. My property tax includes school bonds that are extremely high in my district. A great majority of high school students (girls and boy) in their sophmore year have taken chemistry and calculus. All of them are or have taken physics in his/her junior year. It appears to me the poster could have made a difference. I should mention that the parents of these children are high achievers. Matter of fact, the counties surrounding my community are filled to the brim with professionals.

The majority of the young people that I personally know will be going to the Friday dance this week at the school and will be participating in some sports activity this weekend. They are bright young people and, above all else, extremely polite to adults. They are well-mannered. As an adult woman, I find them to be like a fresh of breath air since they always share their enthusiasm with me. They seem to me to love school and home life. Least I forget, they love science.

G037H3 and twofish-quant, I'm sorry you don't like the poster.

 

[G037H3]

Andy, thank you. I also would like to thank DH and atty. My property tax includes school bonds that are extremely high in my district. A high majority of high school students (girls and boy) in their sophmore year have taken chemistry and calculus. All of them are taking physics in his/her junior year. It appears to me the poster has made a difference.

The majority of them will be going to the Friday dance this week at the school and will be participating in some sports activity this weekend. They are bright young people and, above all else, extremely polite to adults. They are well-mannered. As an adult woman, I find them to be like a fresh of breath air since they always share their enthusiasm with me. They seem to me to love school and home life.

G037H3 and twofish-quant, I'm sorry you don't like the poster.

Well if it's an middle/upper class European area, it's okay, but if the kids were really that bright you think the reasons to study science would be presented in a more intelligent manner.

 

[ViewsofMars]

Well if it's an middle/upper class European area, it's okay, but if the kids were really that bright you think the reasons to study science would be presented in a more intelligent manner.

It's a poster that motivates young people. It isn't a science class. Furthermore, I find your insult to be negative. I don't really look at life that way nor do some adults here, including those that I personally know.

 

[G037H3]

It's a poster that motivates young people.

For the wrong reasons.

It isn't a science class.

It isn't? I thought it was supposed to be, rofl.

Furthermore, I find your insult to be negative.

What insult?

I don't really look at life that way nor do some adults here, including those that I personally know.

Ad populum.

 

[ViewsofMars]

Again I repeat, "It's a poster that motivates young people. It isn't a science class. Furthermore, I find your insult to be negative. I don't really look at life that way nor do some adults here, including those that I personally know." Furthermore, I did also state, "They seem to me to love school and home life. Least I forget, they love science."

The poster motivates young people (high school age). The poster isn't meant to be a science class. These young people love science. They know as do many adults like myself that 'tough love isn't easy, but you love it'. The more you learn, the wiser you become. It takes long hours and discipline. It's not always easy, but it can be done if you love learning.

Thanks.

 

[Astronuc]

Re: The poster of Top 10 Reasons to study physics.

I was self-motivated to study math, physics and chemistry, and I never really cared for posters, which I took pretty much as administrative propaganda.

When I was in the lower grades 2-4, numbers and math intrigued me, and it seemed to come easy. About late 2nd grade or early 3rd grade, I remember reading an article about the effects of a thermonuclear weapon (hydrogen bomb). I was really impressed by the magnitude of destruction, i.e., a lot of energy. To this day, I still remember the image of a city, the rings of levels of devastation and how far out fire would propagate.

In 4th grade, I read voraciously on geography and geology (really rocks and minerals), and I started learning about elements, rudimentary chemistry and general science. My parents bought the Columbia Encyclopedia, which was a nice blend of humanities and science. In that book, I could read about geography, history, biographies, and various other topics in humanities, but also about physics and chemistry. There was some cross-referencing, so I could read about science and the scientists who practiced and contributed to science. That was when I learned about all the elements, the periodic table, chemistry, and more significantly for me, nuclear physics and astrophysics. I was hooked!

That pretty much determined my path through university and professionally. I did a lot of learning outside of the classroom, and well beyond what was required or expected of me (although at the time, I didn't think in those terms). Learning on my own just seemed a natural thing to do. Like eating, drinking, sleeping, etc, learning is for me a basic function, and learning is fun.

 

[ViewsofMars]

First off, physics is science. This is from the Office of Science - U.S. Department of Energy:

What is Physics?

Physics is all around us. It is in the electric light you turn on in the morning; the car you drive to work; your wristwatch, cell phone, CD player, radio, and that big plasma TV set you got for Christmas. It makes the stars shine every night and the sun shine every day, and it makes a baseball soar into the stands for a home run.

Physics is the science of matter, energy, space, and time. It explains ordinary matter as combinations of a dozen fundamental particles (quarks and leptons), interacting through four fundamental forces. It describes the many forms of energy—such as kinetic energy, electrical energy, and mass—and the way energy can change from one form to another. It describes a malleable space-time and the way objects move through space and time.

There are many fields of physics, for example: mechanics, electricity, heat, sound, light, condensed matter, atomic physics, nuclear physics, and elementary particle physics. Physics is the foundation of all the physical sciences—such as chemistry, material science, and geology—and is important for many other fields of human endeavor: biology, medicine, computing, ice hockey, television…the list goes on and on.

A physicist is not some geek in a long white coat, working on some weird experiment. Physicists look and act like you or me. They work for research laboratories, universities, private companies, and government agencies. They teach, do research, and develop new technologies. They do experiments on mountaintops, in mines, and in Earth orbit. They go to movies and play softball. Physicists are good at solving problems—all kinds of problems, from esoteric to mundane. How does a mirror reflect light? What holds an atom together? How fast does a rocket have to go to escape from earth? How can a worldwide team share data in real time? (Solving this last problem led physicists to invent the World Wide Web.)

Mechanics is an important field of physics. Developed by Sir Isaac Newton in the 17th century, the laws of mechanics and the law of gravity successfully explained the orbits of the moon around the Earth and the planets around the sun. They are valid over a large range of distances: from much less than the height of an apple tree to much more than the distance from the Earth to the moon or the sun. Newton’s laws are used to design cars, clocks, airplanes, Earth satellites, bridges, buildings—just about everything, it seems, except electronics.

Electricity is another example of physics, one that you may experience as a spark when you touch a doorknob on a dry winter day. The electrical attraction of protons and electrons is the basis for chemistry. Magnetism is another force of nature, familiar to us from refrigerator magnets and compasses. In the 19th century, James Clerk Maxwell combined electricity and magnetism. He showed that light is an electromagnetic wave that travels through empty space. (Waves had always required a medium, for example, water is the medium for ocean waves.) Other electromagnetic waves besides light also travel through empty space; hence radio signals can reach us from a Mars explorer.

Maxwell’s theory also showed that electromagnetic waves travel with the same speed (the speed of light), even if the person who sees it is moving. This is in conflict with Isaac Newton’s principle of relativity, which said a train’s headlight beam would have one speed as seen by the engineer and a different speed as seen by a person watching the train go by. Newton and Maxwell could not both be right about this matter, and in 1905, Albert Einstein resolved the conflict by allowing space and time to change, depending on motion. His special theory of relativity predicted that an object passing by would look shorter and a passing clock would run slower. These changes are too small to notice unless the object is moving very fast—Newton’s laws work just fine at the speeds of ordinary moving objects. But space really does shrink and time really does expand for particles moving at speeds near the speed of light (300,000 kilometers per second).

Another remarkable consequence of special relativity is the famous equation E=mc2, which says that mass is just another form of energy. This equivalence of mass and energy is the source of the energy that comes to Earth as sunlight. In the intense heat at the core of the sun, four hydrogen nuclei fuse into one helium nucleus and the mass difference is converted into radiant energy, which emerges as sunlight. E=mc2 is also responsible for the release of energy from fission of uranium in a nuclear reactor, and this energy is used around the world to make large amounts of electric power.

Einstein went on to replace Newton’s theory of gravity with his general theory of relativity, which says that space and time are changed not only by speed, but also by the presence of matter. Imagine space-time as a large sheet of rubber, and set a bowling ball on the sheet; it will be dimpled near the ball. A tennis ball rolled slowly near the bowling ball will curve around it and may settle into an orbit, just as the Earth orbits the sun. Today, the general theory of relativity is well-tested and is used to accurately determine the location of your car if you have a GPS (Global Positioning System) device.

Newton’s laws also break down on the tiny distance scales of atoms and molecules, and must be replaced by the theory of quantum mechanics. For example, quantum mechanics describes how electrons can only travel around the nucleus of an atom in orbits with certain specific energies. When an electron jumps from one of these orbits to another, the atom will absorb or emit energy in discrete bundles of electromagnetic radiation. Because the energies of different states of an atom are known with high precision, we can create highly accurate devices such as atomic clocks and lasers.

Quantum mechanics is also necessary to understand how electrons flow through solids. Materials that normally do not conduct electric current can be made to conduct when “doped” with atoms of a particular element. This is how we make transistors, microscopic electrical on-off switches, which are the basis of your cell phone, your iPod, your PC, and all the modern electronics that has transformed our lives and our economy.

There are still profound questions in physics today: what are the mysterious dark matter and energy that make up most of the universe? Are there more than three dimensions of space? The more we learn about physics, the more it will help us every day, and the better we will understand our place in the universe.
http://www.er.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2005/What_is_Physics.htm

The American Association for the Advancement of Science had an article written by Jim Austin on October 8, 2010 that I thought was profoundly true. Here's a snippet from it:

Improve K–12 education.
Just as Gathering Storm suggests, our society can never have too much scientific literacy or quantitative competency. But in accomplishing this policy objective, policymakers need to pay far more attention to restoring the prestige and professional rewards of the teaching profession. Let's make teaching math and science in the schools a good job for scientists with advanced degrees, as it is in some other countries. Unless you have very good educators, you cannot have good education, and bad jobs do not attract good people.
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2010_10_08/caredit.a1000097

 

[deluks917]

I'm amazed that anybody smart enough to be a good physicist was influenced by that poster. If you're going to try to inspire young people shouldn't you give them something a little bit deeper. Maybe have them read something like "surely you're joking mr. Feynman" or try to introduce them to good "textbooks" they could read like "space-time physics" or "what is mathematics." Perhaps encourage participation in math/physics olympiads. Show them the beauty of physics and mathematics. I wish someone had shown me that kind of stuff in high school. I think that poster is silly. I think it shows a lack of respect for high school students that we expect posters like that will "inspire them to go into physics."

 

[G037H3]

i'm amazed that anybody smart enough to be a good physicist was influenced by that poster. If you're going to try to inspire young people shouldn't you give them something a little bit deeper. Maybe have them read something like "surely you're joking mr. Feynman" or try to introduce them to good "textbooks" they could read like "space-time physics" or "what is mathematics." maybe encourage participation in math/physics olympiads. Show them the beauty of physics and mathematics. I wish someone had shown me that kind of stuff in high school. I think that poster is silly. I think it shows a lack of respect for high school students that we expect posters like that will "inspire them to go into physics."

+1...

 

[ViewsofMars]

I'm amazed that anybody smart enough to be a good physicist was influenced by that poster.

Delucks, the poster was from the American Physical Society - Physics. Gabriel Popkin works on education projects for the American Physical Society. He graduated in 2003 with a B.A. in physics from Wesleyan University. Honestly, I don't think it wise to knock down the APS where the poster was located or Gabriel Popkin. Maybe if you had read the entire page from the link I earlier provided, you would know about the purpose of the poster. Furthermore, I'm somewhat appalled by the fact that some people on this topic have been knocking down the APS who promoted the poster! Let's review what it says about the poster from an earlier link I provided:

Recruiting Physics Students in High School

Gabriel Popkin

What would you think if your child came home from school and told you that he or she had been advised not to take physics? You would probably be shocked, but the unfortunate fact is that such advice is frequently dispensed by well-meaning guidance counselors and others who are involved in helping high school students make academic decisions. These advisors often fear physics might hurt students’ GPAs, and therefore their college prospects. They may have had a negative experience with physics - perhaps during their own high school career - or they may know nothing about physics at all beyond what is in the popular media, which is largely that physics is an impossibly complex subject reserved for geniuses (see the TV show The Big Bang Theory for ample evidence of this).

About a year ago, a group of us at APS and AAPT met to discuss the issue and begin developing an information campaign that would counteract the negative publicity that we know physics often gets. Although we did not have hard data on the prevalence of students being dissuaded from taking physics in high school, we had received an alarming number of independent reports of this phenomenon occurring in different parts of the country, and felt compelled to take action on behalf of the physics education community. One of our initial decisions was to enlist physics teachers to provide information to students and guidance counselors. Many teachers are members of AAPT and APS, read our organizations’ publications, and attend their meetings; in addition, they are our natural allies in this campaign.

Our efforts were also informed by focus groups conducted among high school students by John Rice of CommonSense Communications, a marketing consulting firm. This initiative, though in its early stages, has yielded some clues into how high school students think about physics, and why more of them do not take it. Rice thinks the fundamental problem is a dire lack of knowledge among high school students about how physics can help them in their careers and their everyday lives. He says, "High school students who take physics usually like it - especially if it is hands-on - however, almost all of them plan on majoring in engineering, because they know what they can do with engineering. They have no idea what they can do with physics. They do not know that they can use physics to treat cancer, design an electric guitar, or develop new sources of energy. There is a near-complete lack of connection between the physics taught in high school and any possible applications." As for those who choose not to study physics, Rice says that he thinks "They know what chemistry and biology are, but they do not know what physics is, or how it could be useful in their lives. All they know is that it is hard, and they are afraid it will kill their GPA."

Data from the America Institute of Physics show that about a third of US high school graduates take physics at some point. By comparison, over 90% take biology and over 60% take chemistry, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. The fraction taking physics represents a major gain over two decades ago, when it was around a fifth, but it still indicates that two-thirds of our high school graduates have not taken physics - not to mention all those who do not graduate from high school. If these students hope to compete in the high-tech 21st-century economy, they will be at a major disadvantage.

It also hurts their chances of getting into a good university. According to Vikki Otero, Senior Assistant Director of Admissions at the University of Colorado at Boulder, "College admissions is never just about the GPA. We are interested in seeing that students have maintained an excellent college prep curriculum. A transcript with physics is better than one without it." This sentiment is echoed by Greg Pyke, Senior Associate Dean of Admissions at Wesleyan University, a liberal arts university in Middletown, Connecticut. Pyke says, "Highly selective colleges and universities look for students who have taken a very demanding program in high school, which includes courses such as physics. The rigor of the program is often more important than the final grades they get." Over three-quarters of incoming Wesleyan freshmen have taken physics in high school; at Caltech, physics is a requirement for admission.

With all this in mind, we have developed a multi-pronged approach to recruiting high school students, which began with a survey of physics teachers to gather best practices for increasing course enrollments. This yielded a number of interesting and clever strategies that included making sure the chemistry and math teachers in their school promote physics to their students (since these courses typically come before physics in the curriculum); inviting guidance counselors into their classroom to observe hands-on activities; and doing fun labs and activities in high-visibility places around the time that students enroll in courses for the following year. Much of this wisdom was distilled in an article [1] in The Physics Teacher by Earl Barrett, a high school teacher with many years’ experience in recruiting students to his program.

Our next effort was to develop a poster entitled "Top 10 Reasons Why You Should Take Physics." This poster uses humor and colorful graphics to communicate the many benefits of studying physics, which range from broad incentives such as "Physics teaches you how to think," to specific careers and technologies that rely on physics. We have distributed this poster to thousands of physics teachers by inserting it into an issue of The Physics Teacher as well as by handing it out at APS, AAPT, and National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) meetings. The poster can also be downloaded or ordered.These are the first steps we have taken toward filling the physics information vacuum, but there will need to be many more if we are going to ensure that every student has the opportunity to enjoy the benefits that physics has to offer. Some future efforts we have in mind are:

Publishing an op-ed piece in The Science Teacher about the importance of physics in the high school curriculum.

Designing a brochure for teachers to give to guidance counselors explaining the benefits their students will get from taking physics.

Creating an online "toolkit" for teachers to recruit more students into physics classes. This will have a home on the web.

Engaging Society of Physics Students chapters in recruiting high school students to study physics.
http://www.aps.org/units/fed/newsletters/summer2010/popkin.cfm

If you're going to try to inspire young people shouldn't you give them something a little bit deeper. Maybe have them read something like "surely you're joking mr. Feynman" or try to introduce them to good "textbooks" they could read like "space-time physics" or "what is mathematics." Perhaps encourage participation in math/physics olympiads. Show them the beauty of physics and mathematics. I wish someone had shown me that kind of stuff in high school. I think that poster is silly. I think it shows a lack of respect for high school students that we expect posters like that will "inspire them to go into physics."

By your comment as noted above, you are a high school student. I know many high school students that like the poster. Also, as an adult I do think that is strickly your opinion. I do think you misunderstood the intent of the poster. I'm sorry to hear you weren't encouraged to take a physics class by a parent, teacher, or counselor at school since it's a known fact that admission into a major univeristy today requires a high school physics course. I've made it quite clear in earlier postings that the poster has had a positive effect to a degree. Of course, teachers make the difference in the long run.


I think reading is great fun! Here is something to review that was from this past summer: http://www.aps.org/units/fed/newsletters/summer2010/upload/summer10.pdf

 

[deluks917]

^I am not in high school. I guess I can see the value of these posters in convincing students parents to let them study physics. I'd be fine if the poster just tried to show that physics majors have successful careers. It could list average salary or GRE/MCAT scores by major. That's real information that also makes physics look attractive. The problem with the poster is that its full of statements that are ultimately meaningless. What does "Physics teaches you how to think" actually mean? Wouldn't a literature professor say studying literature teaches you how to think? If we want to convince students we should try to teach them what is actually different about physics.

 

[Sankaku]

I don't think it wise to knock down the APS where the poster was located or Gabriel Popkin.

I am somewhat neutral on the whole poster thing, however, I think that it is important to be able to question anyone from anywhere. That is what science is about. Argument purely from authority is dangerous. I also believe that people in the thread have given quite reasonable opinions as to why the poster (and things like it) are not effective, no?

 

[Andy Resnick]

I am somewhat neutral on the whole poster thing, however, I think that it is important to be able to question anyone from anywhere. That is what science is about. Argument purely from authority is dangerous. I also believe that people in the thread have given quite reasonable opinions as to why the poster (and things like it) are not effective, no?

I'm neutral as well, and I think you've correctly identified the crux of the debate: what is the *effectiveness* of this poster (or 'physics advertising' in general)? Is it even possible to measure the impact of that particular poster?

Clearly, the poster is not trying to reach every single demographic.

 

[ViewsofMars]

I'm neutral as well, and I think you've correctly identified the crux of the debate: what is the *effectiveness* of this poster (or 'physics advertising' in general)? Is it even possible to measure the impact of that particular poster?

Clearly, the poster is not trying to reach every single demographic.

Hi Andy et al ~ I think the topic itself hasn't totally revolved around a poster. (Start from page 1. lol) I have been marketing and advertising reputable websites such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Office of Science - U.S. Department of Energy, and the American Physical Society. It has been a great opportunity for me to present those websites. Hopefully, viewers will explore them. Those are great websites that educate.

We have over 5,000 views to this topic. I wish Physics Forums had the ability to keep demographics as to how many people came from what country. I'd like to see that.

I need to return to this topic later and reply to deluks917.

Best wishes to everyone. Make it a great day!

 

[Andy Resnick]

Hi Andy et al ~ I think the topic itself hasn't totally revolved around a poster. (Start from page 1. lol) I have been marketing and advertising reputable websites such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Office of Science - U.S. Department of Energy, and the American Physical Society. It has been a great opportunity for me to present those websites. Hopefully, viewers will explore them. Those are great websites that educate.

Exactly- that's the correct counterpoint- the poster you linked to does not exist in isolation. We have a bizillion physics posters/advertisements/PR material all over the department; the College of Science has untold numbers of science materials up on the walls.

The error in this thread was in removing that context.

 

[mathwonk]

I think we need to put more responsibility on ourselves. Why did we not get any education from our program? Most human phenomena are linked to the motivation for the observed behavior.

If a professor is motivated by receiving high class evaluations he/she may water down the course in order to deceive students into thinking they are doing well. If the professor is motivated by having more time for his/her research, then he/she may short circuit the preparation of the course to put more time into their research.

But if we want to learn as much as possible, we may still benefit from courses taught by research oriented profs by realizing we need to devote more time, but that we can put more confidence in the wisdom of their remarks.

Do we want a course taught by someone who coddles us or someone who has a lot to say even if they spend little time deciding how to say it simply?

When choosing courses we should interview the professor and get a feel for what the approach to the course will be.

Some of us choose schools based on the political impact of a degree from those schools rather than based on how devoted the professors at that school are to teaching. then we get what we asked for.

so a course may be hard because the instructor spent little time making it clear, or because they did not really understand the stuff themselves, or because they expected more from us than we were prepared to give. In all cases try to talk with other students to find those who are succeeding and learn from them how to do so also.

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>

When choosing courses we should interview the professor and get a feel for what the approach to the course will be.

<snip>

Mathwonk,

I pulled out this line because I think it succinctly communicates a bias in your post (which I find perfectly reasonable). This bias is "the student is a client".

While I'm not going to deny the many realities of higher education, I'll simply point out that in my personal experience (from both sides of the classroom), my best learning experiences have resulted from collaborative effort, not unidirectional transmission.

Regardless of the classroom/institution, any student who goes into the classroom with the mentality of "I paid for the teacher to provide me an education" is going to be sorely disappointed.

And besides, how does your statement work with *required* courses?

 

[Astronuc]

When choosing courses we should interview the professor and get a feel for what the approach to the course will be.

That was more or less my approach. I would browse the course catalog and determine what courses were available and who would teach them. That worked well for electives, but required courses essentially means one is stuck with the single professor who teaches that course. However, I could go a talk to the professor and get some idea of what was going to be taught and how. Then I could supplement the course text and classroom notes with other resources - usually library books or journals.

I read trade journals as an undergrad and grad student in order to get a feel for the technology/science and what issues I was likely to face when I went into industry, or what research areas were particularly critical. Apparently that's a rather unusual approach, which explains why when I interview or interact with students in my field, they tend to be somewhat clueless about the industry in which they hoped to be employed. And the faculty is sometimes not far behind.

 

[mathwonk]

Andy, I do not see how my statement can in any way be read as biased in favor of unidirectional transmission of information. That is one thing the interview can reveal. It can also reveal that the education will be collaborative. I also emphasized personal responsibility of the student. What am I missing?

 

[Andy Resnick]

Andy, I do not see how my statement can in any way be read as biased in favor of unidirectional transmission of information. That is one thing the interview can reveal. It can also reveal that the education will be collaborative. I also emphasized personal responsibility of the student. What am I missing?

I'm not sure what you mean- I said your post conveyed a reasonable point of view, in concordance with many realities of higher education.

 

[mathwonk]

maybe i didn't understand the phrase "the student is a client". or maybe i can't see my own biases.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I cribbed the phrase "the student is a client" from "the patient is a client" (healthcare issues...) It's a way of expressing the idea that a student, by paying tuition, purchases an education- the student is a client, or a paying customer, of the institution.

 

[Moonbear]

I'm going to go all the way back to the OP. The OP states that s/he attended a state university. All of the discussion raised neglects the function of a state university. Without knowing exactly which one it was, it's hard to say for certain. However, quite a lot of state universities are part of the land grant system. The mission of those universities is spelled out by the Federal laws that funded them, particularly the Hatch Act and Morrill Acts. The purpose of those universities is to provide a PRACTICAL education to the general population, originally with an emphasis in agriculture.

The "aristocracy" who could afford to obtain a private education would/could be taught in the more classical ways that included plenty of navel gazing over philosophy and literature, in preparation to marry well and inherit Daddy's fortunes. In contrast, land grant universities are intended to provide higher education for people to be employable. Today, there are plenty of other private universities with myriad missions from religious education to educational opportunities for minorities to more liberal arts training. Perhaps the real flaw in the "system" is that high school guidance counselors don't spend enough time informing students about these different opportunities so they select a college/university most suitable for what they want to get out of their 4 years of education there.

The discussions in this thread could be held for any major, really. When you're trying to condense a few hundred years of research (at minimum) into a 4-year education, going back and trying to read all of the primary literature is not a good use of the time. Instead, textbooks condense all of that into the essentials. Those essentials give you the preparation you need to use your education for the jobs you're most likely to do with your chosen major. If you want to go beyond that education, those essentials also give you the preparation to do more self-learning later, either simply for your own edification, or if you desire to attend graduate school. In graduate school, you WILL read the primary literature. You may not need to go all the way back to the beginning, but often you will have a course or two along the way that requires reading a small sampling of the early literature in your chosen field. I've done that for my own field. Frankly, I agree with those who will tell you it is not the least bit helpful for understanding modern science. It's mostly amusing to see how simplistically people viewed things so far back in time; students doing science fair projects do more challenging research than those early studies included. It's more interesting for the perspective of just how far we've come.

From a broader perspective of educating students, it's also important to remember that a student can only get out of an education what they put into it. Faculty are there to help focus and direct the studies, help explain some of the more difficult concepts, and give feedback assessing the students' progress, but the responsibility for learning is all on the shoulders of the students. Nothing but your own self-motivation prevents you from picking up other materials of interest to you and studying them on your own.

 

[mathwonk]

I guess I sort of see myself like Mr Miyagi in the karate kid. I expect only commitment from the student, and then I feel I am responsible to help the student achieve the student's own goals. We are sort of like family. I love them and owe them the best I have. They are not really customers of mine since my compensation is not directly related to their tuition. If they want to look at me that way, that's ok, because i have learned some students do not want to commit, and only want a more distant relationship with knowledge, but they won't learn as much in my opinion.

That's why I like the "flat rate" system a professor works under. I feel I am compensated by the state sufficient (or almost sufficient) to live, and in return I try to spread the gospel of mathematics education to as many in the public as possible. That's why I participate here for free. I enjoy it and hope it can do some good. I have never been a tutor, charging so much per hour. If a student needs 2-3 hours of my time to grasp something, I will give it as long as I have the energy. As I grow older that is harder, but I used to be able to outlast almost any student.

I believe the natural world of science and math is a beautiful one, and it is a privilege to have it rendered visible so that we can enjoy it. The ability to think rationally and logically is also useful in life and i think our world would be a better place if more people learned to practice it. I think most teachers I know teach because they want to share a vision, not to fulfill a business deal.

 

[mathwonk]

I think I was agreeing with your point Andy, that a student cannot expect the program to do all the educating, that he/she has to participate in it. I am not sure I was clear on this.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I think I was agreeing with your point Andy, that a student cannot expect the program to do all the educating, that he/she has to participate in it. I am not sure I was clear on this.

I dig it- cheers!