The Case for Physics First

The Washington Post ^ | February 8, 2003 | ROB SNYDER

[Archangelsk]

The Case for Physics First
Saturday, February 8, 2003; Page A20

A Feb. 4 letter suggested that physics should not be taught before chemistry and biology because it is more abstract. But a first course in physics is the least abstract of any first-year high school science course.

Rather than having to imagine processes at an atomic or molecular level, or to imagine what occurs in biological systems, students in first-year physics can collect and analyze physical data as they experiment with falling objects, colliding carts, light bulbs, mirrors, etc.

[Archangelsk]

An excellent letter. Someone should start a charter organization called the FirstPHYSICS Movement Association (FMA). The members would be made up of physicists, engineers and other scientists who would volunteer to mentor and tutor junior high school students.

[billorites]

Simple Newtonian mechanics is easy for grade school kid to grok.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Definite interest, and possible crevo bump.

[KC_for_Freedom]

Physics is taught later in the education process to allow the use of higher levels of math. (the use of slopes and rates for example). But there are physics survey courses that are taught to persons who never intend to take the higher levels of math anyway. To give a survey course to a highly motivated student just gets in the way. Chemistry can be taught with much simpler levels of math, and colleges return to both courses after calculas because one can take on more and more as the level of math is higher. (for example differential equations, partial differential equations and integration).

the real moral, take the math.

[Archangelsk]

Physics is taught later in the education process to allow the use of higher levels of math.

For engineers, yes. However, F=ma is an algebra equation and vector problems only use rudimentary trigonometry. This is well within the capability of an 8th grader. Given all that, I agree with you that math is the key, but math courses can run concurrently with physics courses.

[Wonder Warthog]

"...the real moral, take the math."

You've hit it square on the head. I wish I had taken MUCH more math than just that required for a chemistry PhD. Unfortunately, most of the math instructors I chanced to have were pretty horrible (two REALLY GOOD ones, who were my saving, but the rest were REALLY mediocre).

[Wonder Warthog]

"However, F=ma is an algebra equation and vector problems only use rudimentary trigonometry. This is well within the capability of an 8th grader. Given all that, I agree with you that math is the key, but math courses can run concurrently with physics courses.

I don't know what country or schools you are talking about, but it certainly ISN'T any part of the US of A that "I" know about--by the 8th grade I certainly hadn't had either algebra or trig (just starting algebra). I doubt seriously that things have gotten BETTER in math instruction (and in fact I know they have gotten worse). The problem with having the math courses "run concurrently with the physics courses" is that they never really do. You invaribly hit a need in physics for a math concept you haven't yet had.

[Physicist]

The problem with teaching physics first is that even the most basic principles require mathematics that aren't usually taught until late in the game (vectors and trigonometry, for example). Chemistry and biology don't have these requirements.

It is inexcusable, however, that such an overwhelming majority of incoming college students have such a poorly developed "physics sense".

[PatrickHenry]

Certainly worth a ping.

[This ping list for the evolution -- not creationism -- side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. To be added (or dropped), let me know via freepmail.]

[PatrickHenry]

There's no reason not to have two physics courses in high school. The advanced course could come after some serious math had been learned. The early course could survey the history of the subject, the philosophy of science (scientific method, etc.) and it could easily take the student through the basic principles of several topics. Copernicus, Galileo, etc. had no calculus, and much of Newton's work doesn't require it either. An understanding of something as "exotic" as special relativity doesn't require all that much in the way of advanced math.

[Archangelsk]

The problem with teaching physics first is that even the most basic principles require mathematics that aren't usually taught until late in the game (vectors and trigonometry, for example). Chemistry and biology don't have these requirements.

It is inexcusable, however, that such an overwhelming majority of incoming college students have such a poorly developed "physics sense".

I agree that it's inexcusable. However, I look at my kindergartener who is currently immersed in recognizing fractions and fraction theory (pies, sets of things, cut up balls) and I ask myself why we can't accelerate these skills. Since I believe math and physics are languages (albeit left brain languages) and language - vocabulary, syntax, ability - is built through practice why are we waiting to introduce math skills? We certainly don't do it with English language skills.

[SpaceBar]

Chemistry as it is taught today is an empirical/classical oversimplification of physics, including continuum mechanics and statistical thermodynamics. Biology is the same thing but with an emphasis on organic systems. Physics is the core science and mathematics is the language. All other disciplines of physical science are subordinate to it.

[Archangelsk]

We certainly don't do it with English language skills.

do it = wait

[Nebullis]

These course are quite independent of each other at the high school level. The question should be how early to start math and physics. I vote for very early.

[Saturnalia]

That it is. When I was in high school, I was part of a
group that taught the kiddies interesting physics stuff.
We had a massive demonstration outside with all three lever
classes, wheels, etc. All the good stuff.

For the younger kiddies, we had a demonstration involving
measurement, specifically the measurement of piglets.
My physics teacher was also a pig farmer, so we had a ready
supply of piglets. We would bring two or three into a classroom
(the pigs are much calmer in groups) and let the
kids play with and measure the piggies. Lots of fun,
provided the piglets didn't decide to pee on you.

[Physicist]

I ask myself why we can't accelerate these skills.

Because in public education, they are forbidden from going faster than some bureaucrat (read: democrat) imagines the slowest child can go. No child is left behind, because no child is permitted to run.

[Media Insurgent]

Back when I was in high school in New York State, the curriculum did give you a taste of physics early on. You took a class in 9th grade called Science 9 which spent half the year on basic chemistry, and the second half on basic physics. Then after that you took Biology, Chemistry and Physics, in that order, over the next three years.

Of course I was always such a lousy student in math, that I struggled in everything but biology. I really kick myself now for not applying myself more in math classes back then. The moral mentioned above of "Take the math" is very apt in more fields than just science.

[Archangelsk]

Because in public education, they are forbidden from going faster than some bureaucrat (read: democrat) imagines the slowest child can go. No child is left behind, because no child is permitted to run.

I'll take a stab at that. I've seen some tremendous public education programs: McLean and Falls Church, VA, Bethesda, MD and my area's public school system. Not to put a political spin on it - although that's hard to do - but three of the four I mentioned are Republican enclaves with upper middle class families dominating the demographics (the lone democratic one, Bethesda, is awash in money too). I think you can see the points here: one, there is more money in the communities to support public education; two, families are more traditional (two parent households); and, three, the parents were instilled with idea that education (continuous education) is the key to success.

A bit off track from the discussion but nonetheless germane.

[longshadow]

The problem with teaching physics first is that even the most basic principles require mathematics that aren't usually taught until late in the game (vectors and trigonometry, for example). Chemistry and biology don't have these requirements.

I can personally attest to this, having been in the unusual circumstance of having taken Senior High Physics as a freshman in High School. The only reason it was remotely feasible was due to the agressiveness of my Junior High Math teacher, who beat Algebra I into the heads of half my Junior high class. The trig/vector material would have been a problem for most students, but luckily, I was able to pick it up on the fly, or already knew the basic trig relations.

But the sad reality is, for most students, this isn't an option, for the reasons "Physicist" has indicated.

As an aside, I have also done a stint as a instructor in a private high school, in which I concurrently taught, among other things, both conventional Senior Physics as well as a freshman-level (math-lite) version of Physics.

My sense is that the math-lite version is fine, if you teach it to students who otherwise would never take Senior Physics at all. It is no substitute for the real thing, however, and would be inadequate as preparation for anyone intending on taking college level physics.

Lastly, the importance of Mathematical knowledge as a prerequisite to doing serious science, especially Physics, cannot be overstated. I cite as evidence the fact that the people in my college Freshman Physics course who struggled the most were the handful who had never studied Calculus in High School. The were like deer-in-the-headlights; doomed before they ever started the course. Unable to weild the Mathematical tools needed to solve the problems, they spent the bulk of their time struggling with the Math, and never had the opportunity to devote the time needed to comprehend the Physics itself.

If our society is to progress, we must force Algebra and Trig down into the grade-school curriculum, to make room for Calculus (and if I had my druthers, a basic course in linear Vector Spaces). This, in turn, requires students to understand and be fluent in things like "fractions" BEFORE they get their drivers license, which is a circuitous way of saying that that "feel-good" there-are-no-wrong-answers Math instruction needws to be banished forever from the classroom.

Given the problems inherent in the public education system, and the entrenched interests of incompetent teachers, bloated arrogant administrators, and their unions, I suspect this goal will not see frution until the day what we get rid of public education altogether, and put it inthe hands of private enterprise, subject to the comeptitve forces of the market place, as it should be.

[longshadow]

Physics is the core science and mathematics is the language. All other disciplines of physical science are subordinate to it.

That's worth repeating; is is so true, and so succinct.