Re: Why Physics First?

[Bob LaMontagne <rlamont@POSTOFFICE.PROVIDENCE.EDU>]

"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.