Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: AP Physics Students



Not only did they become "quite good scientists and engineers" with
traditional courses but they did it without computers in the classroom,
the internet, computer-assisted measurements, etc.

I suspect they also did it with quite a few high school instructors who
were not trained in physics.

----------------------------------------------------------
| Robert Cohen Department of Physics |
| East Stroudsburg University |
| bbq@esu.edu East Stroudsburg, PA 18301 |
| http://www.esu.edu/~bbq/ (570) 422-3428 |
----------------------------------------------------------

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, RAUBER, JOEL wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Hake [mailto:rrhake@EARTHLINK.NET]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 2:39 PM
To: PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
Subject: Re: AP Physics Students

. . .
What is the evidence (other than vague reference to our "current
science and technology") that students who went through such courses
"became quite good scientists and engineers." And even if such
evidence were to exist, it could be argued that, for example:
. . .



The evidence is prima facie, would anybody on this list or in
Science/Engineering education seriously argue with the following statements
(paraphrasing the evidence)

a) Most successful practioners of Engineering/Science in Industry or
Academia (as of say 1990)had there education in rather traditional type
courses, particularly their introductory physics instruction.

b) The fact that science and engineering practice has had resounding
successes in the 20th century points to the fact that they (or more properly
a sufficient subset) became "quite good scientists and engineers".








disclaimer:
I'm not saying (here) that these traditional courses caused the successful
engineering/science practice, but I would argue two points.

1) That the quoted statement above is so essentially obviously true, "prima
facie", that the opening clause "what is the evidence . . ." is unwarranted.

2) While the prima facie evidence doesn't prove a causality as noted above.
It certainly didn't hinder the creation of successful practioners (in the
sense of creating a sufficiently large set that achieved the critical mass
necessary to give society all the benefits of science and technology
advancement that has occured in the last century.)

(Note: I'm not saying that individuals didn't exist for whom traditional
courses didn't hinder their individual advancement.)