Re: Re[2]: a slightly different thread

[David Dockstader <DRDOCK00@UKCC.UKY.EDU>]

On Tue, 12 Nov 96 08:34:52 EST BETH THACKER said:
>             ...     it is much easier to pick up breadth, either in
>          another course or on your own.  I don't think it works so
>          easily the other way around.  It is much harder to get
>          depth, with only a breadth background.
>
>          Beth

I'm not sure I buy this.  Most of my students will never take another physics
course, however, I hope some of them will read the newspaper, magazines, etc.
and all of them will watch TV.  If they see a headline that sounds familiar
I think they are more likely to read the article, watch the program, etc.
For example:  Consider particle physics.  I like the Rober March Physics for
Poets presentation and give my intro students something like that whether I
use his book or not.  Nobody has much of a clue about particle physics after
this.  However, they do have a vague feeling that it's an endless job and that
people keep finding new things and giving them funny names.  When they see an
article or TV program about some new discovery I think they will have more
interest than if they had never heard of it before.  If giving them this
exposure means they don't really understand some aspect of force or
acceleration, I'm comfortable with this trade off.  I think there is some
merit in giving nonphysics majors some exposure to what is currently going on
in other areas of physics as well as ways people are applying physics in
engineering.  Even art majors like to know what's going on.  Think about how
many copies of Popular Science are sold every month.  Even Scientific American.
Nobody gets an in depth understanding from these rags, but their life is richer
for the experience and I'm comfortable with an intro physics course with the
same result.