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: PSSC



This is ~ a duplicate for a previous thread on teaching theory.

Right it (Berk. PC) was a test of the theory that one could teach a subject
once, instead of the usually hit them many times with increasing force. The
conclusion I heard from faculty members at UCSB was that it didn't work.
We're back to the cover it again and again with increasing rigor. I don't
think the lack of $$ killed either program. Maybe I haven't looked at my
copies (BPP) closely, and/or Physics at the Jr/Sr. level is more difficult
(than in the 50-60's), as I thought the BPP was Jr/Sr. level.

bc

P.s. I find the BPlab. very good and have used it as a resource at various
venues.

"RAUBER, JOEL" wrote:

I'd add,

The Berkeley physics course was an introductory university course
designed to be a follow-on to the PSSC for students who had that
course in High School. It included five texts, each covering a
selected subset of the curriculum, and written by different people. I
think the course at UC Berkeley suffered the same fate as the course
at CalTech that gave rise tot he Feynman Lectures Volumes-it was just
too hard for any but the very best prepared and most talented
students.


If I remember correctly the Berkeley series of courses was a two year
sequence. If you look at the books they are an intermediate difficulty,
intermediate between your typical intro (calculus level) book and your
typical follow on junior/senior physics major course.

E.g. The E&M book might be viewed as being intermediate difficulty between
Halliday and Resnick (or say Tipler) and Reitz & Milfords E&M text (or say
David Griffith's book).