Note: There is a strong and pointed opinion at the end of this message. If
you don't want to read the whole message, you may want to skip to that part.
There is some rationale to study physics, then chemistry, then biology
because that progression builds upon itself in a logical manner. Leon
Lederman has espoused this approach and I have read articles he has written
and I have attended talks he has given. Indeed, we use that approach
somewhat in college. All of our science majors (even biology majors) must
take a year of calculus-based physics. We want them to do this either as
freshman or as sophomores so they get it done before they take too many of
their chemistry and biology courses. The physics not only forms a
foundation of topics such as energy, momentum, conservation laws, etc... but
we also teach a lot of statistics, treatment of data, writing of lab
reports, etc. In other words, in my physics class I am laying down many
scientific ideas and methods that the other profs want their students to
have experienced before they come to their classes.
However, this only works in college because the students take calculus as
freshman and physics as sophomores, or they take calculus and physics
concurrently as freshmen. I cannot possibly endorse this approach for
high-school freshman where they don't have anywhere near the math to do
physics properly. Unless they have algebra down pat, and can also do
geometry and trig, I think they have no business in physics.
* * * Opinion begins to get developed here. * * *
I was called in to help evaluate a local school in which the lone physics
teacher was being besieged by all the other science teachers (all biologists
by training, even though some taught other subjects such as chemistry). The
physics teacher was upset because she was being forced to move physics from
the senior year to the freshman year. She wanted my help.
It became clear that the biologists were after two things. (1) They wanted
the physics teacher to deal with freshmen because they were tired of dealing
with the masses (the hoards of students). They wanted to turn around the
numbers trend for all students to fulfill required science credits by taking
biology... then chemistry and then physics would have few and more dedicated
students. "Give the physics teacher the flunkies, and let us teach
microbiology and anatomy and cool things like that to the juniors and
seniors.?"
(2) They did want some of what Lederman espoused. They wanted students to
have more idea of physics principles before taking biology. But they didn't
need a strongly mathematical approach to physics. A purely conceptual
approach was all they wanted. Mind you, this meant there would be no
mathematical-based physics being taught in that school at all. Conceptual
physics would become the only physics course, and it would be taught for the
lowest-common-denominator student.
* * * Opinion strongly stated here. * * *
If your high school is pushing for physics in the first year of high school,
watch out. What are the motives? I think there is strong motive among the
biologists and some chemists to attempt a switch with the physicists. For
years the physics teacher has gotten the cream of the crop because the
ho-hum students have already satisfied their science requirement before they
got to physics. The biologists want to turn that around. Let the hoards of
students with zero science interest take physics instead of biology. Then
let us teach some more advanced biology. In the schools I have examined
that are pushing for this, I see essentially no scientific logic behind
their push. It seems totally based upon selfish motives.
Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D. Phone/voice-mail: 419-358-3270
Professor of Chemistry & Physics FAX: 419-358-3323
Chairman, Science Department E-Mail edmiston@bluffton.edu
Bluffton College
280 West College Avenue
Bluffton, OH 45817