Re: [Phys-l] Lecture Isn't Effective: More Evidence #2

[Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>]

On 2011, Jul 19, , at 18:29, carmelo@pacific.net.sg wrote:

> Isn't The Feynman Lectures still effective?
> The conclusion should be "many did not know how to deliver lecture  
> effectively."
>
>
> Best regards,
> Alphonsus

Not what I'd read**!  Here's some evidence:

"It is also acknowledged that these books are not well suited for beginning physics students. Feynman's introductory physics courses themselves, on which the books were based, were apparently failures--James Gleick details this in his biography of Feymnan (Genius)."

http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0000qV


I asked about the Eisberg and Lerner's text -- why it wan't used?  The reply was for the same reason Feynman's failed.


**IIRC, on this list.  The above (and below) is a google result.

bc, thesis student of Bob Eisberg (ca. 1962 - '65) and uses both for reference.


"...

Most physicists readily admit that the only subfields of physics they understand are (1) their area of research, and (2) the subjects they're teaching. Whether this teaching benefits the students as much as it does the teacher varies from teacher to teacher. In Feynman's case, his three book "Feynman Lectures" set is regarded as an amazingly insightful presentation of basic physics--if you already have a good working knowledge of basic physics. It is popular amongst grad students preparing for qualifying exams. It is also acknowledged that these books are not well suited for beginning physics students. Feynman's introductory physics courses themselves, on which the books were based, were apparently failures--James Gleick details this in his biography of Feymnan (Genius).

..."

-- Tom Metcalf (email), October 17, 2003