Watch out, you'll inflate our heads and we'll float off into space. Although it might be nicer down here without some of it.
If this is true, then we have to look at the way we teach physics to non-majors. There is a taboo at universities (at least, that's how it seems to me) against mentioning the fact that we have to teach humanities majors as radically different from the way we teach science majors. It seems that the university believes that both groups have the same skills when entering college, and both should be handled the same way (approximately) in introductory courses.
If we can get an admission that this isn't true, perhaps we can change lower division work so that it's more conceptually based. After all, I think conceptual physics would be more entertaining and easier to understand, covering everything from how space stations will work to what fusion reactors are, without the mathematical depth. But until we can force a breakaway, and get people to admit that actually teaching these students how to do physics is not a profitable endeavor, we're sort of stuck here.
It may be that students don't have the background to learn this stuff, but then why are we trying to teach it to them. Isn't there a more profitable use for both of us for our time?
"That's because we don't know what the fuck you're talking about, Mr. Quantum Mechanics."
The problem is, we know sort of what you're talking about, we just don't know why. And we don't get invited to keg parties.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-01 03:11 pm (UTC)If this is true, then we have to look at the way we teach physics to non-majors. There is a taboo at universities (at least, that's how it seems to me) against mentioning the fact that we have to teach humanities majors as radically different from the way we teach science majors. It seems that the university believes that both groups have the same skills when entering college, and both should be handled the same way (approximately) in introductory courses.
If we can get an admission that this isn't true, perhaps we can change lower division work so that it's more conceptually based. After all, I think conceptual physics would be more entertaining and easier to understand, covering everything from how space stations will work to what fusion reactors are, without the mathematical depth. But until we can force a breakaway, and get people to admit that actually teaching these students how to do physics is not a profitable endeavor, we're sort of stuck here.
It may be that students don't have the background to learn this stuff, but then why are we trying to teach it to them. Isn't there a more profitable use for both of us for our time?
"That's because we don't know what the fuck you're talking about, Mr. Quantum Mechanics."
The problem is, we know sort of what you're talking about, we just don't know why. And we don't get invited to keg parties.
Friending you by the way.