Freshman Advanced Physics
After a little bit of a silence blogging is back in style in Rigoland.
While reading Smolin's book I stumbled upon the passage in which he talks about how physics students are discouraged by the lack of interesting subjects early on and how at his school they had quantum physics as a freshman class. Smolin makes a good point that most of what is taught in our freshman classes is usually what students have seen in high school and it seems very boring. It is boring on two accounts: The subjects are never "cool" ones such as black holes, quantum physics, cosmology, etc. Secondly, the subjects are never too technical. For example, a rigorous treatment of Newtonian mechanics could be done at a freshman level (not boring), but students are made to solve inclined-plane problems instead (boring).
One thing that I think that is crucial to the overdue scientific revolution Smolin talks about in his book is a revision of how we teach physics at the undergraduate level. Not only in what we teach but in how we do it. In my experience, and I think that this is true for most of my peers trained in US institutions, the way we were taught was as if we weren't ready to learn. The overall attitude being we'll tell you in grad school. This has been doubly frustrating now after encountering the attitude of you should have learned all this in undergrad. I can understand where this comes from: physics requires quite a bit of math. However, me and I think my peers also wish more math had been taught math by the physicists.
Smolin's book never talks about the possible inadequacies of undergrad education (perhaps for good reason), which was a bit disappointing for me. Maybe it will get me to finish the essay I've been writing about this subject some day...
While reading Smolin's book I stumbled upon the passage in which he talks about how physics students are discouraged by the lack of interesting subjects early on and how at his school they had quantum physics as a freshman class. Smolin makes a good point that most of what is taught in our freshman classes is usually what students have seen in high school and it seems very boring. It is boring on two accounts: The subjects are never "cool" ones such as black holes, quantum physics, cosmology, etc. Secondly, the subjects are never too technical. For example, a rigorous treatment of Newtonian mechanics could be done at a freshman level (not boring), but students are made to solve inclined-plane problems instead (boring).
One thing that I think that is crucial to the overdue scientific revolution Smolin talks about in his book is a revision of how we teach physics at the undergraduate level. Not only in what we teach but in how we do it. In my experience, and I think that this is true for most of my peers trained in US institutions, the way we were taught was as if we weren't ready to learn. The overall attitude being we'll tell you in grad school. This has been doubly frustrating now after encountering the attitude of you should have learned all this in undergrad. I can understand where this comes from: physics requires quite a bit of math. However, me and I think my peers also wish more math had been taught math by the physicists.
Smolin's book never talks about the possible inadequacies of undergrad education (perhaps for good reason), which was a bit disappointing for me. Maybe it will get me to finish the essay I've been writing about this subject some day...
posted by rz at 6:05 AM
6 Comments:
Agreed, most people find science in almost all forms boring. Not because they do not understand it but do the fact that it doesn't maintain a persons interest when it is given to someone as "Work." People do not like doing work when they are learning, they like to have it flow right into their brain and know it now, not later.
Yeah, the "work" thing is also very true. I tend to not-want to do my homework even when I love the subject it is in.
But, there is something a bit more worrysome going on at the college level first year: even if you know calc and physics already you get to take another year of high school science. And that is *really* boring. I think this is not true of places like CalTech or Reed College, but I see no reason why going to a state school should preclude you from starting to study "real" science as soon as you get there if you are ready.
I see, well in August I'am going to the navy as a nuclear propulsionist. THe training is basically 77 credits worth of math and science for college. It spiked my interest to find that they jump full into it and within six months you are able to learn algbra to cal with chemistry to physics. I think teaching science or math should be fast paced, always keeping peoples minds on top of the subject.
I find that the worse thing to do in math or science is be very repetitive in a slow dull manner.
Oh I also what are some good books would you say for getting a good all around understanding of physics?
I bought "On the Shoulders of Gaints" and "Physics Demystified" as a self teacher before I go into the navy.
Aarin, (?)
The US military usually has its ways of getting you up to speed on the stuff you need very quickly. That being said, I highly doubt that one can legitimately call herself a 'scientist' after the navy training. You will know how to do what you need to do, not necessarily 'physics'. Do let me know what kinds of things you learn, though, these are mostly my semi-ignorant opinions.
As far as books, there is a few per subject and I can give you such a list if you want. For 'basic physics' (which you should do either in high school or college) my favorite one is Fundamentals of Physics by Haliday, Resnick and Walker. It is while reading that book that I decided I wanted to be a theoretical physicist.
Cool,
oh sorry not to introduce myself, I'am a good friend of your sister from Sacramento.
Yeah I feel the same about the the training, it will not give me the true title of scientist but I was hoping it would get me onto the right path.
I hope to continue while I'am in the service. My main reason for going with the Nuclear field is to get the basic creds for college and it helps once I go into college.
Do you think Borders would have the book?
Also how do you like theoretical physics?
Aarin,
Nice to 'meet' you man. My sister had told me who you were in an effort to kill my excitement about a new reader of my blog.
As for the book, I'd just buy it online. You might be able to find a used copy in good condition for cheap that way. There is an amazon link in my previous comment.
About the navy thing: I (ignorantly) presume that it is going to be hard to 'keep going' in science while in the navy. But it should definetly give you some good background. You'll get to real physics if you major in physics in college.
As for my theoretical physics... alcoholic of course. =) I'm not sure what do you mean. I like two areas mostly, Particle Physics and Quantum Computing and I tend to like blackboards a lot more than labs, hence the theoretical in front of both of those.
Post a Comment
<< Home