Re: Would Physics First Increase the Number of Physics Majors?

["John S. Denker" <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>]

On 04/28/2003 08:40 PM, Bob LaMontagne wrote:
> There should be more respect for degree programs
> ... where the emphasis is on immediate application of skills after
> completing the undergraduate degree.

Bingo!  Yes yes yes!

> ... like "applied Physics" ...

The whole concept of "Dept. of Applied Physics"
gives me the creeps because of what it suggests
about the other department.  What does the other
department call itself? "Dept. of Not-Good-For-Anything
Physics" ??

> Currently, these are looked at as 2nd tier programs.

That's not universally true, but all-too-widely true.

=========

Imagine a system where each professor depends on
having lots of grad students, and expects all
the grad students to get jobs as ... professors!
I call this the Professor Tribble problem.

Professor Tribble thinks his students are "2nd
tier" or worse if they don't grow up to be exactly
like him.

The issue here is not whether the field is called
Physics or Applied Physics or BioPhysics or any
other type of CompoundWordPhysics.  The issue is
whether the graduates are suited for a career as
something other than tribbles.

I can (with difficulty) imagine a system where
Professor T trains a whole bunch of "first-generation"
students who follow the pattern insofar as
becoming professors, but break the pattern insofar
as they train people for real-world jobs.  That
works in principle, but it is problematic in
practice, because there's no pathway for information
about the real world to leak into the educational
process.

Instead, it would make much more sense to require
every would-be professor to have a few years'
experience earning a living in the real world.
Better yet, expect them to continue as part-time
consultants to industry throughout their careers.

If you're not qualified to be an industry consultant,
what makes you think you're qualified to train
grad students?

===

In Europe it is common for people trained as
physicists to get jobs as bankers or managers.
The folks who hire 'em respect 'em because
they can think.

============
On 04/28/2003 09:58 PM, Hugh Haskell wrote:
> If we had some science teachers in the elementary schools who knew
> what they were doing, They could meet with the classes two or three
> times a week, and in that time get the students to understand huge
> amounts more than they do now.

This is a seriously good idea.

I know of some schools that have actually implemented
a version of this.  The itinerant science teachers
come around only every N weeks, not N times per week,
but it's better than nothing.  My henchpersons are
collecting information on this and I'll let you know
what they report.