Death to “Physics for Poets”?
By Christopher MooreEdward Morely advocated the end of “Physics for Poets” yesterday at insidehighered.com. Or did he? Although I believe he is not advocating the end to physics classes for non-majors, I think he does take issue with the conventional wisdom of how such classes should be taught.
Conventional wisdom … has it that there are three basic elements that go into making up a good non-majors science course. First, the class should cover a relatively narrow range of topics…
Second, the topic chosen as the focus of the course should be something relatively modern…
The third element is perhaps the most important: the course should involve the minimum possible amount of math.
I definitely agree with Morely that this is the prevailing attitude among college (and high school) administrations and fellow faculty. These basic elements are not completely misguided, but polling non-science educators about what works in and should be done in science classes will always lead to something stupid!
Why do we require science classes for non-science majors? Morely states:
Science for non-majors offers an important chance to reach out to students outside the sciences, and try to give them some appreciation for scientific inquiry. This is critically important, as we live in a time where science itself is under political assault from both the left and right.
Or as I like to say: Physics is a liberal arts education for a technological society. Anyway, asking why non-science majors have to take science is like asking why non-english majors have to take a literature class, or why non-art majors have to take some sort of fine arts class. Neither required English nor required art is under attack. If you want a college degree you have to have a basic command of the English language. Makes sense to me.
But why do we keep dumbing down math and physics classes? Let’s look at the points above.
Although it is completey appropriate for one to have an understanding of both verbs and adjectives, requiring a non-science student to conceptually grasp both force and electric potential may be asking too much. I’m not quite sure how one would go about constructing a physics class with a “narrow range of topics.”
But if you could create such a class, how good could it possibly be if we’re confined to teach only “relatively modern” topics. Once again I’m at a loss. How do I teach someone about, say, Organic Light Emitting Diodes (OLEDs) without broaching the concepts of force and electrical potential … or just about any other basic concept of physics … or chemistry. And while we’re on the subject, how am I supposed to teach students how a television works without refering to an electron gun?
And if we’re to impart an appreciation of scientific inquiry, then how am I to do so without at least acknowledging the tools that make such possible.
So do we trash “Physics for Poets”?
Morely doesn’t have much of a solution, and neither do I. A general disdain for math and science is ingrained in our culture. The only way we can reverse that is by changing the culture of education from elementary school on. “Physics for Poets” has to become just as stupid a concept as “Poetry for Physicists” is now.
The main reason math and science gets back-of-the-bus treatment in secondary school is that elementary teachers are largely psychology majors, middle school teachers are mostly english and history majors, and high-school teachers are teaching science subjects they never even took in college. And these folks were able to get their degrees without the need to be competent at basic algebra.
I’m gearing up for a cultural revolution. Who’s with me?
No Comments »
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
