[Phys-l] special ed/relativity

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 02/27/2008 05:51 PM, Richard Tarara wrote:
> ....  Understanding Special Relativity is a 
> difficult goal.  Some might offer then that one shouldn't even attempt such 
> at the gen-ed level, but I would counter that the real goal here is to show 
> why physics has moved beyond the Newtonian model (with which they can gain 
> reasonable, but seldom complete, understanding).

Students who can't do arithmetic need to be taught ... but do they 
need to be taught college-level physics?

Once upon a time, being able to divide by 10 without a calculator
was an admission requirement for college.  Shouldn't it at least
be a prerequisite for an /elective/ college course in physics?  If 
not a prerequisite, then at least a requirement for passing the 
first semester?

Students who can't cope with Newtonian mechanics need to be taught,
but do they need to be taught special relativity?  Whatever happened
to maxims such as "first things first" or "learning proceeds from 
the known to the unknown"?  How can they appreciate moving "beyond 
the Newtonian model" if they haven't yet arrived _at_ the Newtonian
model?

It sounds like they need a semester of remedial arithmetic followed
by a semester of remedial algebra.  But I wonder about that, too.
According to the description, they wouldn't even _pass_ remedial 
arithmetic ... yet they are expected to pass college physics?  
Something's broken.

Yes, I understand these are liberal arts students.  But is BS a
liberal art?  It seems to me that the course -- as described --
is training people to be BS artists, according to the policy:
"we are NOT trying to formalize".  That's practically the 
definition of BS, when people throw around the terminology from 
a technical field that they don't understand.  Also, consider 
what happens when folks hire someone after seeing "college 
physics" on the transcript from a from a "No. 1" ranked school 
for "academically ambitious women".  They're going to feel 
swindled when they discover that the hire has no idea what a 
dot product is, and can't divide by 10 without a calculator.

Furthermore, I'd wager that even though *some* students can't cope
with a fraction (e.g. the Carnot efficiency formula), there are 
others who can.  Less than 50% of frosh had SAT math scores below 
500 according to
  http://education.yahoo.com/college/facts/7613.html
Dumbing down the course to accommodate the ones who can't cope is a 
disservice to the others.

It seems that mentioning such students is an all-purpose discussion
killer.  If we can't discuss dot products, and can't discuss anything
that might involve fractions, what kind of physics are we allowed to
discuss in this forum?

I say again, such students have important needs, and we ought to
discuss that from time to time.  But could we please discuss it in
a separate thread?

There's a difference between special rel and special ed.