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: PER vs EdD (SciEd)



At 2:16 PM -0500 1/20/04, Edmiston, Mike wrote:
Larry Smith said, "So, if the Ed.D. is not terminal, which degree comes
after it?"

Notice that I said terminal degree IN THE FIELD.

The Ed.D. may be a terminal degree in the field of education, but it is
not the terminal degree in the field of physics.

I teach at a small college. One of the things that prospective students
(and parents) want to know is whether the courses will be taught by real
"whatever." In this
context I think "real" means that the person has done and/or is doing
physics research ...


With appropriate exceptions as needed for the wonderful people on this
list, _being_ a _real_ physicist (as per your definition) does not
guarantee that someone can teach it well. I would think the students (and
parents) would (i.e. should) want someone who is a _real_ physics
_teacher_. In many cases such physics teachers could also be real
physicists, but each set (real physicists and real physics teachers) has
members not in the other set. The intersection of the two sets may be the
ideal, but for introductory physics students parents should prefer a real
teacher/non physicist over a real physicist/non teacher.

Flowers,
Larry

P.S. (My current usage, as per your reply, disallows PhDs in physics who
are not doing physics research as physicists. And I'm not talking about
real teachers who know nothing about physics, but people, as John Denker
mentioned, who might be very bright, very knowledgeable about physics, but
have their degree and/or research in another field, including PER.)