Hacker News Reader

Comment by nutjob123 | Hacker News Reader

I don't like the subject selection for their first course. I think that the benefit of freshman physics isn't necessarily learning classical mechanics (F=MA, FBD's, kinematics, ect.) but teaching students to connect analytical thinking with mathematics and giving them a strong start for a science or engineering curriculum. I am not against learning for the sake of learning but I don't see how this would be useful to anyone who wasn't going to take more science or engineering classes, in which case they would have to re-take a physics course for real credit. I guess that I am less thrilled by their subject selection because the free cs courses already available online are useful and teach easily applied concepts but introductory physics just warms students up to begin working on a full B.S. degree.

View on HN

Physics education is extremely baroque. There is a set way of teaching which has been done for the past 50 years and nothing is going to change it unfortunately.

Everyone learns from the same exact textbooks. My professors were using the same exact edition of Kleppner and Kolenkow (Into Classical Mechanics) textbook I used. It's even a point of pride for them. The canonical set of books are:

K&R -> Intro Mechanics

Taylor -> Advanced Mechanics

Griffiths -> E&M and Quantum

Sakurai -> Quantum

Boas -> Mathematical methods

(I'm prolly missing a few)

Every physics student in the US is familiar with these books.

Part of the reason for the intransigence is that it weeds out the weaklings. They make Physics very difficult and impenetrable in part so that 1/2 the class drops out and goes to do Bio or CS(which are taught sooo much better) and you're left with the most hard working masochistic students of whom the top 10% will become grad students and slave away for minimum pay for 7 years.

I mean.. they're not actively planning this in an evil-planning-room, but that's the end results and the physics establishment is happy and no one is pushing for new methods of teaching.

There are better books out there.

Advanced Mechanics: UPGRADE: Sussman and Wisdom

Basic Quantum: UPGRADE: Wichmann

MIT still hasn't figured out a great way to teach physics, I'd look at this as another attempt.

Currently MIT offers 4 classes that count for the 8.01 (mechanics) requirement: 8.012, 8.01, 8.01L, or 8.011

Before they even place you in a class, they have you take an analytical exam to determine which class is recommended. This happens during orientation before classes begin, and it's the first of many things MIT does to help you pass the 8.01 requirement.

8.011 is the easiest, but they don't let you take it unless you've already failed one of the other subjects.

8.01 and 8.01L cover the same content, but 8.01L offers an extra month to go over that content. If you try and pass 8.01, but end up with a D (non-passing), they'll let you switch to 8.01L for the extra month.

8.01 is also a TEAL class, which is specially structured (and costs a lot of professor time) to encourage students to work together, and offers time in class to individually work on examples (as opposed to just listening to a professor).

The amount of effort MIT puts in to getting kids to pass the 8.01 requirement on their first try is exceptional. But with all their attempts, many still need to take 8.011.

I don't have numbers, but I'd guess that MIT spends more money teaching students mechanics than any other single graduation requirement. That probably made it a good guinea pig for this course, being that it's focused on education research.

I think the problem is that many of the stronger incoming students at MIT (at least from the US) will have already done AP Physics and thus not be taking mechanics at all.

I think it's a great subject for their experiment though: they want to design a system to teach deep problem-solving skills, and introductory physics (of the variety aimed at physicists and mathematicians, not engineers and liberal arts students) is generally the first place students are really challenged in that regard. The other place would be a formal mathematics course, but that would make an even gnarlier subject for an online course and would have even narrower appeal.

Those analytical skills stand very well on thier own without the need for further study to justify them.

Calculus and mechanics are part of a well rounded education in the same way as Shakespeare's principle tragedies, or an understanding of the causes and consequences of WWI are.

The fact that these building blocks of knowledge are going to be available in the near future for free to anyone with an internet connection is a modern wonder of the world.

This is a project from a Physics Education Research group, so the topic is pretty much their bread and butter. I think they probably hope that their methods will apply throughout the sciences and beyond eventually, but you can't blame them for building on their own field first. (PER is also the best established science ed. discipline, as far as I'm aware.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com