Re: Why Physics First?

["RAUBER, JOEL" <JOEL_RAUBER@SDSTATE.EDU>]

Hugh wrote in part:

> I suspect that the "physical science" courses that have been
> described here are not the common type. Most of the ones I have been
> in contact with have been about 90% chemistry and 10% physics, if
> they have any time left over at the end of the year. And the general
> quality of  the material has been such that they are almost worse
> than no course at all.
>
> It has also been typical of physical science courses that they are
> mostly taken by the non-academic types, and the serious students who
> wanted science courses were steered away from physical science and
> took only the traditional biology-chemistry-physics sequence.

Our physical science course was traditionally offered to 9th graders and was
part of the college track science sequence.  Actually it was required to
graduate for anybody, but the school made some attempt to collect "college
track" students together in the same sections.  If the physical science
course is done "right" in 9th grade (and the 70/30 mix on physics versus
chemistry was a wild guess based on old memory and there are many topics at
that level which could be categorized either way.) then I see little
advantage (to possibley negative advantage as Mike E. pointed out) to
elimnating physics from the senior year.

Joel R.

This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.