| 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] |
At 11:11 2002/02/01, Mark Shapiro wrote:
... the old California standards made it very easy for a student to avoid
the basic sciences
altogether.
Avoidance of basic science in California is not limited to the K-12 grade
levels. In the two-year colleges, students must complete at least one
course in the natural sciences to graduate in any major. However, this can
be a course in either life or physical science, in principle allowing
students to earn an associate (two-year) degree without having taken any
physical science at all. Some colleges are more demanding, having chosen to
exceed state-mandated minimums by requiring two science courses, one each
in physical and life science. Even at these colleges, however, the physical
science requirement may often be fulfilled by taking astronomy, geology, or
even physical geography, which still allows students to avoid "basic"
physical science (which I think has been implicitly defined in this thread
as physics or chemistry).
Given that California's geology is prone to frequent seismic shake-ups (we
had a 4.2 in the neighborhood just this week), it seems that the
geosciences should be of special interest to students in our state; with
proper teacher training, it should be possible to mix in a little "basic
science" in the form of wave physics, too. Although I agree that more basic
science should be required, I hate to see any pre-existing science
requirement being dismantled, especially when it seems so appropriate to
the local environment. Also, it is better to teach some "non-basic" science
than none at all, which is the likely alternative.
--MB