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

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
128 replies · 44K views
mathwonk said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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?
 
mathwonk said:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited: