Re: [Phys-l] Engineering Physics

["Dr. Richard Tarara" <rtarara@saintmarys.edu>]

We've tried various permutations of what you describe.  I would offer that 
your early mistake was putting Chemistry majors in an Algebra based course. 
They should be, should always have been, in the Calculus course--certainly 
P-Chem needs that background.  Then today you would have two courses--one 
for Bio majors and a second for Chemistry & Engineering types.  This is what 
works best for us.  Combining the Bio and Chem students and then splitting 
the Chem students out for a third (Calc heavy) semester didn't work well. 
The math abilities of those two groups are very different.  Now it is a real 
bear to try and teach both courses at the same time--keeping track of where 
you are and what you've done and said in nearly identical (on the conceptual 
side) but reasonably different (on the math side) courses is a pain.

Rick  (Would like to separate the Engineering and Chem students as well, but 
don't have the staffing for that.  We also have gen-ed courses--one 
specifically aimed at education majors and another at the general 
population--with two full-time faculty and a part time adjunct.)



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Arts, Robert W." <rarts@pc.edu>
To: "Forum for Physics Educators" <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 11:06 AM
Subject: [Phys-l] Engineering Physics


> Greetings All,
>
> First some background on my problem........More than two decades ago we
> used to offer algebra-based general physics for our biology and
> chemistry majors and also calculus-based physics for those interested in
> engineering and graduate school opportunities.  Having neither a major
> nor a minor program in physics, as you can imagine, the calculus-based
> course was not heavily populated; if at all in given years.  Having only
> one physics professor on staff made it difficult justifying a course
> that might only have one or two students a year (not to mention the
> labs).  So, we then transitioned to a system where the calculus physics
> students would take the general lecture, the general lab, and then have
> an extra hour of "calculus" filler.  Well, needless to say, that did not
> work very well either.  So....a decade ago we killed the calculus
> physics listing and added a course called Engineering Physics for 2
> credit hours.  The pre-requisite is algebra-based physics I & II,
> calculus one, and a co-requisite of calculus II.  In this course we do
> not re-teach the concepts but rather dive into the math and theory
> behind the concepts/equations and their derivations (where applicable).
> Having personally done this for a while now, I am not satisfied with the
> best way to offer this course.  I have tried to use a university physics
> book and pick through relevant items, I've tried engineering outline
> books as the primary materials, and most recently, I have been using the
> Calculus 2000 text as it has the higher-order math applied to physics
> examples.
>
> We've been sparse in offering the course at all in the past couple of
> years due to a lack of interest (most physics students are going
> pre-med) but we have stepped up our pre-engineering transfer program and
> have a large group of those students in the pipeline now and foresee
> offering this course on a more regular basis.  So, I'm looking for the
> best way to deliver the "engineering/calculus" material in a two hour
> per week format.  We do not have the option of splitting it back out
> into two separate physics courses nor do we have the option of hiring
> another person....So....Might anyone offer a similar course that they
> could share experiences about?  Or might anyone have a suggestion for a
> text or approach?
>
> Regards, Robert.
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l