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: Nuclear topics in physics?



Based on my experience in industry, I want to second John's comment below.
Most of what students will be doing in their real jobs if they are
scientists or engineers will result from their learning "on the job." They
need breadth to realize the connections and relationships of what they are
doing to other fields - both to use ideas from other fields in their work
and to see how what they are doing is really used. They need depth in order
to develop solutions to the problem they are working on.

I have a similar chart to John's at:
http://www.sci-ed-ga.org/pdfs/apsclrpres042501.pdf
slide #7


-----Original Message-----
From: John S. Denker
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 7:33 AM

Tangential but important note:

Ludwik makes some important points here about how to handle
the depth versus breadth issue. Students need a certain
amount of breadth. But breadth that is nowhere deep is
not right. The diagram I have in mind is this:

bbbbbbbbbdbdbdbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
bbbbbbbbbdbdbdbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
ddddd
ddddd
ddddd
ddddd
ddddd
ddddd
ddddd
ddddd

where breadth is indicated by "b" and depth (in one or
two topics) is indicated by "d".

This picture is the best possible outcome for a course.
The breadth of background is there ... and the students
see what is involved in thinking deeply about some topic.
In later life, they can do their own deep thinking about
topics that weren't deeply covered in class.

So this is an argument for having a "theme" to the course.
Ludwik is specifically suggesting a nuclear theme, but
that isn't the only choice. You could have a biophysics
theme, or an aerospace transportation theme, or whatever.