On teaching

” .. then isn’t this an indictment of the entire American system?” — Otter, “Animal House”

I used to be a Richard Cohen. Target of “new math” courses my childhood. Frickin’ useless. Through my own efforts, I figured out the problem.

All those federal dollars spent on “improving” math education, and for what? It would be laughable — except for the damage done. Japan Inc. couldn’t have done more damage to the U.S. economy.

IMHO: more practice — less theory. More hands-on — less managing.

And a focused commitment to help students, not just beg for more federal money. Take a look at some of the new programs for intro stat’s — six, one-credit modules, rather than two, three-credit mod’s. Less cramming — more thinking.

H.J., at 8:05 am EDT on April 13, 2006

Some good points in this article, but it appears to me that nearly all such commentaries on the sorry state of much science education fail to focus on one of the major problems (or perhaps they fear doing so?). This “problem” is the “professional education cartel” itself. Throughout a 35-yr career as an educator, I have repeatedly seen the watering down of serious courses due to pressure from the “ed department” and their students, who are usually among the worst in any half-way rigorous class. Individuals who will teach our children should be among the BEST students in college, not the worst! But many mediocre students major in ed because (at many colleges at least) it’s an easy major, full of largely meaningless “ed” courses which would offend the intelligence of most 12-yr-olds. These students take precious few science or math courses, the ones they do take are watered down for their sake, many admit to a strong dislike or fear of science, and, as teachers, they will end up transmitting these negative feelings to their students. [Meanwhile, PhDs like myself are told we’re unqualified to teach even an elementary school class because we’re not “certified!"] Until this problem is faced, I fear we shall not see much improvement in the state of US education.

-John A. Conners, a semi-retired, caring & curmudgeonly prof

John A. Conners, at 11:40 am EDT on April 13, 2006

John Conners

Mr Connners,Your rant is outrageous and ill-informed.Provide substantial data for your claims that ed students are so terrible AND that ed departments put pressure on others and that they capitulate or retract those claims.

By the way, every PhD biologist, mathematician, historian, etc. who studied in American schools had teachers in high school who were trained in the ed schools you deride. They were good enough to send students on to get PhDs in those subjects, so they couldn’t be all bad, right?

Edy, at 3:30 pm EDT on April 13, 2006

Dumbed-down science is only half the problem

If we don’t need “Physics for Poets,” we likewise don’t need “Poetry for Physicists.”

I was a double major in college — English and math, with a minor concentration in philosophy. When I was invited into an honor fraternity that recognized academic excellence and leadership, I saw the other side of the problem. The guys from the humanities were capable of handling decisions that involved critical thinking and analysis. All our premed guys — who LIVED in the biology and chemistry labs — were woefully ignorant when the subject was making decisions on moral or ethical or social issues. Their analytical skills, their critical intelligence, were dreadfully underdeveloped and they were very comfortable making serious life-affecting judgments based on unexamined attitudes and prejudices.

As my career has developed in journalism and science writing, I’ve seen increased evidence of that analytical crippling, not so much in academic scientists as much as in the professions — physicians, etc.

As for my math major, I was too “pure” to take statistics and the more applied mathematical specialties — I stayed with calculus, number theory, etc. The lack of early education in statistics and research methods has made me less of a journalist and less of a citizen. I’ve had to learn the uses of statistics from experience.

Were I to design the perfect liberal arts curriculum, a course in critical reading and writing and a course in statistical and research methods would be the top requirements.

Bill Dockery, University of Tennessee, at 4:10 pm EDT on April 13, 2006

physics for everyone

The problem of teaching science to non-scientists is the same problem that confronts writers on popular science. I wish more attention was paid to the latter group’s successes. Instead of physics textbooks, I think, of instance, that Gamow and Pagels and Gribbin and others should be assigned. Textbook based teachihng in these courses is as ridiculous as teaching English literature by assigning an English grammar textbook. Popular science writers, the good ones, know that it isn’t math that makes science redoubtable to the amateur, but the lack of some narrative within which to grasp scientific knowledge. They supply one — or, actually, they supply a number of narratives.

And this, it seems to me, is vital to teaching science for non-scientists. It doesn’t mean teaching science-lite — it means teaching science from that narrative viewpoint.

roger, at 5:50 pm EDT on April 13, 2006

Let’s Abolish “Bonehead” English Comp, Too

This article was both interesting and disquieting. Interesting in that the arguments in defense of quality and rigor in hard science and liberal arts are eminently supportable in the abstract. Likewise, the condemnation of dumbing down curricula throughout the US education system. But disquieting also, in the sense that so many engineering and science students are as fear-paralyzed at the prospect of a rigorous English composition class as the liberal arts types are at the prospect of a rigorous statistics or physics class. Factor in GPA paranoia and a full-blown crisis erupts.

I don’t know the answer, but the old concept of a liberal arts education for all lower division students, followed by pursuit of declared majors in upper division only, appeals more an more. In my long-ago undergraduate experience, a couple of aspiring engineers (now highly successful in their fields) were well served by my “tutelage” that got them through “bonehead” English, aka English for Science and Math Students, and I was well compensated with illicit beer.

HS Thompson, at 5:55 pm EDT on April 13, 2006

Physics for future Presidents

At Berkeley, I teach “Physics for future Presidents.” This has replaced the failed “Physics for Poets” that preceded it. Enrollment has now grown from 35 to over 400. The title, abbreviated PffP, may be cute but it is not a joke. You can read my online textbook at my website, muller.lbl.gov/PffP. You can also watch my lectures, or subscribe to my podcasts, from links on the same site.

It is not “watered-down” physics. It is tough and deep. Take my exams (posted on the site) and see how well you do. Try them on your physics majors. Saying you can’t teach physics to students weak in math is like saying you can’t teach music to students who can’t sight-read music, or that you can’t teach art to students who can’t draw.

In PffP we follow the dictum of the novelist: show, don’t tell. The course is effective, in part, because I respect the students. They are smart; they just don’t do integrals for relaxation (like some of us do). After a few weeks into the class, they are more articulate on many subjects than is the typical physics major.

Future presidents are far more likely to come from this class than from our physics majors. They need to know about space (spy satellites), radioactivity (Chernobyl), energy (hybrid cars), magnetism (hard drives), waves (earthquakes), electromagnetic waves (UV, IR, microwaves), medical imaging (MRI, CAT and PET scans), quantum mechanics (lasers, transistors), much much more. I tell the students, if they leave the room saying “why do I need to know that?” then I have failed.

The approach is total immersion physics. It is easy to fill a semester with things that are important and interesting. After a semester, they have learned a lot that they will remember. By the end of the semester, the students have learned that they should never be intimidated again by high tech.

It works. Look at the web site www.muller.lbl.gov/PffP. Read the chapters. Use them for your class! (You have permission, although I would appreciate being informed.) Physics is the liberal arts of high technology. You are not educated unless you know this material. We need to reach ALL the students.

Richard A Muller, Professor of Physics at U. California at Berkeley, at 7:10 pm EDT on April 13, 2006

Response to “Larry’s” Earlier Comments

It might well be that some might characterize the polemic that you have presented as a version of the rigidly structured hierarchical academic mindset that I was describing. The latter, I might propose, is potentially an elitist threat to academic freedom—veiled in the call for undiluted academic standards.

D. Patrick Zimmerman, Psy.D., at 6:51 am EDT on April 16, 2006

I visited Prof. Muller’s site and partially agree with his claims for minimally mathematical physics instruction. I remember fondly his Modern Physics course for aspiring scientists and engineers from 24 years ago. His enthusiasm for the subject hasn’t dimmed.

I also think that Berkeley students, science majors or not, ought to see how many of the phenomena Prof. Muller discusses can be summarized in mathematical form. Yes, this requires at least mentioning calculus. I would hope that future Presidents (Berkeley has yet to produce its first) will have some grasp of rates of change. Misapplying equations for fun and profit is also a thriving modern industry. It’s hard to tell the difference between a bad equation and a good one without some experience of both.

I’d also like to agree with the posters who point out that liberal arts courses don’t cut much slack to scientists. Another vivid college memory was getting my compositions and term papers back with more red ink from the professor than blue ink that I’d contributed. High expectations of students in college ought not to require justification.

Ravi NarasimhanRedondo Beach, CA

Ravi Narasimhan, at 5:20 am EDT on April 17, 2006

More than facts

“Science is more than just a collection of difficult facts to be learned. It’s a way of looking at the universe, a systematic approach to studying the world around us, and understanding how things work. As such, it’s as fundamental a part of human civilization as anything to be found in art or literature.”

While I agree with this assertion, I can honestly say that after taking my share of required science and math courses at a predominantly science-oriented university, I met very few scientists or mathematicians who could effectively convey this larger understanding of the scientific endeavor. Indeed, most were consumed by the minutiae—the facts and formulas, technical skills and methods—of their discipline to the detriment of any larger vision. Some didn’t even seem to know the history of ideas, the philosophy and religious traditions, or the cultural debates from which their own discipline evolved! For those students whose primary interest and skills are devoted to ideas, concepts, histories, languages, and communication, it’s difficult to get enthusiastic about a course that doesn’t convey or even seem to acknowledge that aspect of the subject. The “Physics for Poets” approach is an effort to bring the ideas back into the science and give students who aren’t number-oriented some access to the deeper significance of science and mathematics. In other words, to show them WHY science should interest them, and hopefully, encourage them to pursue the ideas THROUGH the formulas and equations. Perhaps that aspect of teaching isn’t necessary for those majors who already appreciate the purpose and history of their chosen fields, but for the vast majority of students, it’s a necessary precursor to learning.

As for the author’s assumptions about humanities “expectations,” I’m not sure what research he’s done on the sad state of writing and communication skills among college students! I’ve found most of my business and science-oriented students to be equally terrified, bored, confused, and intimidated at the prospect of writing an analytical essay as any of the mathophobic students that he talks about. I go out of my way to make my freshman writing seminars interesting and appealing to non-humanities majors by offering readings, projects, and analytical techniques that draw upon their own interests and abilities (like a “scientific method” handout on doing close-reading, or research topics on their own interests). I assume that it’s my responsibility to reach out to such students, even if this is the only English course they ever take (which is actually possible at my school!). That is to say, most of us already offer “Poetry for Physicists,” because in a society that increasingly values “marketable” skills over humanistic learning, we too have to offer “dumbed-down” versions of a once-rigorous humanities curriculum. I seriously doubt that any of his physics majors have had to learn the Latin and Greek, the philosophy and rhetoric, or the Shakespeare and Milton that were once required of all university-trained “scholars.”

The problems that he cites are real, but they aren’t unique to the sciences. The answer, though, is not to simply become more rigorous, but to do so in a way that will actually attract and benefit students wholistically. I’d love to see more interdisciplinary courses offered that might help to bridge the gaps between the sciences, social sciences, and humanities.

Earl Grey, at 11:10 am EDT on April 17, 2006

Response to Christopher Moore

this comment from Christopher Moore is uninformed and hugely insulting..."and high-school teachers are teaching science subjects they never even took in college. And ...able to get their degrees without the need to be competent at basic algebra.”

While this is far afield from Edward Morley’s original article...

Mr. Moore obviously has not spent any time with today’s high school teachers. Don’t lump us all together as teaching subjects we never covered in college. We are required by federal law (No Child Left Behind) to be highly qualified. I have an American Chemical Society certified chemistry degree with a minor in mathematics, a master’s degree in chemistry, and over 30 hours of additional graduate study in chemistry and physics. I teach rigorous chemistry and physics courses at my school, including a Physics course that meets the description of the “Physics for Poets” course. My students do the math, but I think it is equally important that the concept be clearly understood in terms of how it affects these students’ every day lives. I’ve prepared them to take physics in college at whatever level they choose. Isn’t that the important goal for the student who is not the science geek that I was in high school and college?

Amy Cox, Paducah Tilghman High School, Paducah, KY, at 12:55 pm EDT on April 17, 2006

Physics for idiots

I took the physics class for students who were not science or engineering majors at MIT back in 1970. It was popularly referred to as “Physics for Idiots.” As I recall, however, it required a modest command of diferential calculus, which might give you some idea of what the real freshman physics classes were like.

The point of this is that real science — at least real physics — requires math, just like studying real literature requires writing. Teaching physics without math is like asking students to analyze Shakespeare by drawing cartoons rather than writing.

DL, at 1:20 pm EDT on April 18, 2006

dumbing down is powerful and self-regenerating

Personally the article I agree with. I teach in a University in Australia where the ‘Americanization’-sorry this term has connotations with the present subject matter- of what used to be *free* higher education has led to what most academics in the physical sciences would definitely attest to as ‘dumbing down’.

A senate inquiry into this a year or so ago and a major expose on national TV (here in Oz)last year started tackling this posed question-a question the modernizers of H Education wish would not be asked (as is true of the Federal governement here).

The main trouble with dumbing down is that it is much like a leak..if left it just gets worst and everything gets wet. It is a self perpertuating condition with positive feedback.

By conforming to the stategies implicit in creating and delivering watered down courses an academic is seen within the ‘modernist’ or ‘practical’ paradigm. The NEED to do this is without question-student (and money) throughput.

Such academics -the compliant who go along with this-are the very ones whom progress, at least in a ‘corporate’ environment that passes for a University these days. The result is that this fact-and it is one- is dismissed and those who promulgate it are either victimized or in someway sidelined tactically-fuddy duddies. And so it goes on-unspokenly encouraged by Deans and startegies of administration.

If it were just restricted to physics/maths for non majors then a possible honest alternative would be to just say-’well-they are just not capable of freshman physics/maths to any degree, so simply do not include it’.

Unfortunately the admin’ overheads of delivering courses means there is a need to decrease the total number of subjects on offer resulting in science majors often being forced into classes watered down for the non majors. Also it would be an admission that a ‘liberal arts’ degree is no longer obtainable by the majority of Univ’ entrants in this day and age.

Physical science without maths is much like a guitar with no strings-and just about as useful. If you don’t want to play physical science-don’t do it, but then don’t try and pass off a guitar with no strings as a guitar either. It’s a dis-service to all. Go read a Sunday paper color supplement.

And for the detractors, think about the effects of dumbing down when you drive over a few bridges built by engineers who have been scaled up in marks to get the pass rates ‘required’ by faculty.

The problem is endemic and not just restricted to non major courses. Very sad.

almost_ad_enuff, csu, at 11:45 am EDT on April 20, 2006

Scientific Method above all

If your primary goal is, as it should be, for your non-science students to graduate with a set of fundamental tools for evaluating various claims against science, from fraud and pseudoscience to intelligent design, then above all you need to teach them scientific method. The individual fields of science don’t really matter to humanities students, but the methodology underpinning all branches of science does, and can even help these students later in life to deal with non-scientific issues they may incur.

1. State the Question. Perhaps the most difficult part is asking the right question, correctly identifying the problem.2. Research. Gather data. 3. Form your hypothesis. Based on the data you’ve gathered, what do you think the answer to the question will be? Assuming your hypothesis is correct, what testable predictions can you make?4. Devise experiments that test your hypothesis’s predictions, and carry them out.5. Do your experimental results support your hypothesis, or not? If not, is your hypothesis wrong, or is there a problem with your experiment? Reset, repeat till experimental results consistent with hypothesis.6. If results consistent over enough time, experimentation, and peer review, hypothesis becomes a Theory. A Theory is not yet a Law, though. Draw the distinction.

Simplify if necessary, run a high-school level science fare in your course with easy-to-do experiments that follow scientific method. Or abstract the method away from science completely, and apply in it some other venue, heck to Shakespeare or something. It’s not the science that’s important, but that the students understand that basis of all science is this patient, iterative, empirical, critical approach to determining the answers questions about the world.

Byron Gibson, Software Engineer, at 5:30 am EDT on June 9, 2006

Physics for Idiots

35 years ago I took the “Physics for Idiots” class at MIT. Of course, at MIT, even that class for non-science, non-engineering majors, required some competency with differential calculus — just not multivariable calculus. I guess in hindsight I think that was just right. Everybody who goes to college should be required to learn basic calculus, whether they are going to MIT or U. Conn, and whether they are majoring in physics or english literature. How in the world can we expect to have citizens who know enough about science to participate in and vote on important public policy matters involving signficant scientific questions, if they haven’t learned enough calculus to take a basic physics class?

DBL, at 1:55 pm EDT on October 16, 2006