In his Phys-L post of 28 Apr 2003 12:36:32-0600 of the above subject
title, Jim Green wrote:
"I don't understand why we would try artificially to increase the number of
physics majors . . .[by implementing Physics First] . . . . Maybe to
increase the number of physicists? If there really is a shortage of
physicists, it would be easier to let the marketplace do the job as
it does in most other fields -- just pay them more. Maybe to
increase the number of physics instructors? Ditto. Of course the
various teachers unions would have a fit."
To which Bob LaMontagne replied:
"I totally agree, both in terms of the number of physics majors and
the concept of free market determining salaries . . . . The number of
responses to advertisements for college level physics teaching
positions is overwhelming. It's nice to fill our departments with
students, but it's somewhat unethical to send great numbers into a
saturated market."
Hugh Haskell then commented:
"Perhaps we could safely increase the number of physics majors if
every one of them didn't expect to eventually earn a PhD and work in
a research institute. David Goodstein, vice-provost at CalTech has
argued . . . .Goodstein (1999). . . that we ought to be touting
physics as *the* liberal arts major of the 21st century--one which
will prepare students to be productive and creative citizens without
expecting that most will eventually get PhDs."
How many subscribers have ever heard of "Curriculum S"? Once again
Ken Ford (1987) had the right idea in the late 1980's:
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
"From the Š.. second Ann Arbor Conference, November 1962 - came a
succinct and memorable recommendation: that two kinds of curricula for
physics majors be developed (to meet the needs of two kinds of
students). These were named curriculum R and curriculum S. CURRICULUM
R (for Research) was the then-current (and still dominant)
undergraduate curriculum, whose principal aim is to prepare students
for graduate study in physics. CURRICULUM S (for Synthesis) was to
serve students who wanted to study physics as background for
something other than physics research: business, law, medicine,
teaching, some other scientific study, or just informed citizenship.
What has happened? Sad to say, nothing. Curriculum R was already
strong and is still strong. Curriculum S DID NOT EXIST THEN AND IT
DOES NOT EXIT NOW (in first approximation)." (My CAPS.)
Curriculum R is an austere four-story building, taller than it is
wide. The diligent physics major climbs through its layers of
requisites and prerequistes and emerges on top, ready to ascend to
graduate school. (At the second-floor level is a well-traveled ramp
over which engineering students - and some other students - depart
after completing the first year of the curriculum.)
Next door is the Curriculum S desert, containing only a few scattered
blossoms . . . . another curriculum has come into being. . .
Curriculum T (for terminal). . . . (with) courses on astronomy, arms
control, solar energy, conceptual physics, physics of music, physics
and sports, high-fidelity sound, and on and on . . .
IT IS TIME TO LOOK AGAIN AT CURRICULUM S . . . . . WE NEED MAJORS
WITH ASPIRATIONS OTHER THAN PHYSICS RESEARCH. Ours is an exciting
field, a central part of the liberal arts. It provides a useful
background for many activities. Should we not promote its serious
study by future teachers, lawyers, and business people. Above all, WE
NEED A PHYSICS MAJOR PROGRAM SUITABLE FOR (AND ATTRACTIVE TO) SOME OF
THE TEACHERS OF THE NEXT GENERATION - NOT JUST HIGH-SCHOOL PHYSICS
TEACHERS, BUT ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHERS AS WELL." (My
CAPS.)
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Today, just as
in the 1960's and 1980's, neither the "Ford Ramp" [Ford (1989)] to
science/math literacy nor "Curriculum S" (Hake 2000), which might
help to furnish large numbers of EFFECTIVE K-12 teachers to implement
the Ramp (Hake 2002), are visible (in first approximation) in U.S.
education.
The academic area is one of the most difficult areas to change in our
society. We continue to use the same methods of instruction,
particularly lectures, that have been used for hundreds of years.
Little scientific research is done to test new approaches, and little
systematic attention is given to the development of new methods.
Universities that study many aspects of the world ignore the
educational function in which they are engaging and from which a
large part of their revenues are earned.
Richard M. Cyert, former president of Carnegie Mellon Univ. in
"Problem Solving and Education: Issues in Teaching and Research," ed.
by D.T. Tuma and F. Reif (Lawrence Erlbaum, 1980)
REFERENCES
Ford, K.W. 1987. "Guest Editorial: Whatever Happened to Curriculum
S?" Phys. Teach., March 1987, pp. 138-139. See also Jossem (1964).
Ford, K.W. 1989. "Guest Comment: Is physics difficult?" Am J. Phys.
57(10): 871-872.
Goodstein, D. 1999. Oersted Medal acceptance speech, "Now Boarding:
The Flight from Physics," Am. J. Phys. 67(3): 183-186. "If the
profession of teaching physics were a business, we would be filing
for bankruptcy." See also Goodstein (2000).
Hake, R.R. 2000. "Is it Finally Time to Implement Curriculum S?" AAPT
Announcer 30(4), 103; online as ref. 13 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>.
Hake, R.R. 2002. "Physics First: Opening Battle in the War on
Science/Math Illiteracy?" Submitted to the American Journal of
Physics on 27 June 2002; online as ref. 20 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/>.
Jossem, E.L. 1964. "Undergraduate Curricula in Physics: A Report on
the Princeton Conference on Curriculum S," Am. J. Phys. 32(6):
491-497.