Re: [Phys-L] Evaluation tests

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

I would not say that physics is harder, but it certainly is different.
Traditionally biology had a lot of memorization and little math, but things
have changed.  It used to be purely descriptive, but now students are asked
to memorize the Krebs cycle when they have little understanding of energy,
and the books still have a wrong take on breaking bonds.

Chemistry is also in many ways more descriptive in the early stages.
Students can learn the names for and the various reactions, elements,
chemicals...  These reasons are why the traditional sequence evolved of bio,
chem, physics.  Indeed Lawson has shown that understanding and  making
predictions involving things that you can not see is at the highest level of
thinking.  Chemistry has traditionally been structured so as to never ask
the important questions.  Students can slide through without understanding
that physical objects are made up of molecules.  Often they picture solids
as "containing" molecules, sort of like raising in a pudding.  But chemistry
is now starting to face up to the problems as the results of the chem.
conceptual evaluations are becoming known.

In physics on the other hand most of the concepts involve things you can not
see, so that raises the level of difficulty right at the beginning.
Traditionally this was swept under the rug by allowing students to memorize
and regurgitate problems they have seen.  Of course, bio and chem have
things that can not be seen.  For example evolution was found by Lawson to
require the highest level of thinking for understanding.  But force,
velocity... also require high levels of thinking according to his
experiment.

Real biology, and real chemistry are now facing up to the problems.  The
days of biology being butterfly collecting are essentially gone.  From the
point of the physicist, physics is easier because you take a few simple
ideas and work with them to make predictions.  This seems much easier than
memorizing the zoo of elements and details about them.

My daughter did alright in bio, but was not a top student.  But when she got
to inheritance and had to predict the results of breeding using Mendelian
concepts, she knocked it dead.  For her thinking it through was easier
because her dyslexia made random memorization difficult.  She tested already
at the formal operational level.  Students at the concrete operational level
find that sort of thing very difficult.  Essentially physics is easy for
students at the high levels of thinking, but opaque for concrete operational
students.  My daughter found biology to be boring and illogical so she
switched to chem and is pursuing a PhD.

So is physics more difficult?  It depends on the student.  If we pushed more
students to think and achieved higher thinking levels, most students might
find physics easier than chem or bio.  And physics can have all kinds of
nice fun experiments which are safe!!!

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


> This brings up a question which is interesting to me and I 
> don't know how to articulate it well.  Most physicists sat 
> that physics is different than chemistry or algebra.  I 
> believe it to be true.  But why is it different?  High school 
> chemistry (in the guise I saw) can be just as algebraically 
> intensive as high school physics.  So I don't quite buy the 
> idea that it is different by virtue of the applied math 
> skills required; though I do believe that that is a piece of 
> the "elephant" or a piece of the explanation.
>
> Also, can it be articulated in a way that you are willing to 
> repeat to your chemistry of biology or math colleagues in 
> polite company; i.e. in a way that doesn't reinforce the 
> stereotype of "arrogant" physicist.  Which is to say that I 
> don't quite believe it is sufficient, nor quite accurate, to 
> simply say physics is harder and you have to be smarter to be 
> successful at the course.