Re: Why Physics First?

[Jack Uretsky <jlu@HEP.ANL.GOV>]

Hi all-
        The names change a bit.  In 1937-41 the sequence was called:
General Science, Biology, Chemistry, Physics (non-calculus).  I knew the
arrangement of the planets (from the Buck Rogers star map on my wall) and
the valence of almost anything (from my Boy Scout chemistry merit badge).
                                Regards,
                                        Jack


On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Bob LaMontagne wrote:

> "RAUBER, JOEL" wrote:
>
> > I've mentioned this before, but it bears repeating.  When I was in high
> > school 71-75 in Georgia, the fairly standard curriculum was what I'd call
> > Physics First and Last.  They didn't call it that back then, the 9th graders
> > took something called "Physical Science" which was about 70% physics and 30%
> > Chemistry. Sophomores had Biology, Juniors had Chemistry, and Seniors
> > Physics.  This was probably thought of as physics last, I thought it served
> > me well.  Has this style curriculum changed sometime in the last 25 years?
> >
> > Joel R.
> >
> > This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.
>
> What goes around comes around!!
>
> What you describe is similar to a pilot program we are implementing here in
> Providence. Our college is working with a neighborhood inner city charter school
> (called TIMES2) whose theme is technology. We are using a physics first and last
> approach. The only difference from the sequence you mention is that it goes Physical
> Science - Chemistry - Biology - Physics. The idea is to guarantee that the Biology
> section has a firm grounding in the physical sciences. So far, the approach seems to
> be successful. We are keeping inner city kids in school (entrance is by lottery) who
> ordinarily would not.
>
> Bob at PC
>
> This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.

--
        "What did Barrow's lectures contain?  Bourbaki writes with some
scorn that in his book in a hundred pages of the text there are about 180
drawings.  (Concerning Bourbaki's books it can be said that in a thousand
pages there is not one drawing, and it is not at all clear which is
worse.)"
                                        V. I. Arnol'd in
                                Huygens & Barrow, Newton & Hooke

This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.