I’ve never seen a situation when knowing more is detrimental. Sure, they might not be able to explain why what they do is right, but very often in life, we first learn how to do things and much later why what we do is correct.
Wouldn’t many state flagships be only moderately selective for admission (sometimes because they also function as broad-access universities, such as in Arizona and Hawaii) but still be major research institutions?
If he was at the level you describe, it is very unlikely that moving another organization wouldn’t affect his research funding at all.
Interesting deflection, but I’m not sure his career choices are what’s at issue here, are they?
You make it sound like he is complaining that the college he is at is too selective for admissions, and that students had to do things to get admitted that are not necessarily helpful in learning physics when they are actually in college.
1 Like
I was speaking only in terms of Cal Poly. They have admitted by what was until 2013 a public facing algorithm. By all accounts, it’s probably still in use, and unlikely much different.
EDIT: OH, now I get what you were saying. You meant at other schools. INDEED! And that’s what people bristle about, that admissions aren’t purely meritocratic based on academic record, but other, more squishy things, that many may have no access to or awareness of.
2 Likes
I have, and I suspect you have too, but it is not so much a matter of “knowing more” but rather not really understanding what they supposed “know.” At the most basic level, think of kids who “learn” elementary level math by memorizing tables. They can perform (and often do --hands first in the air every time) but they don’t necessarily understand. When they hit a level where they actually need to have deeply understood what they have been doing, they are behind, and either struggle to get caught up or they may end up hating math and going in a different direction. If you don’t believe me, ask any grade school teacher or middle school teacher who has more than a rote understanding of elementary school math.
2 Likes
That phrase just made me think of Carey Mulligan (“An Education”)…
When they hit the level they need to have deep understanding, they will gain it much easier by having the experience doing it without it. I am sure, although you understand multiplication very well, you probably don’t have a lot of knowledge of the algebraic rings that define at theoretical level the addition and multiplication operations. Is that going to make it harder for you to learn it? Not likely.
Not too selective. But focused on factors that don’t necessarily make for the best physics students. That’s at least how I understood it. I didn’t take his observation as being exclusive to his institution, but rather a broader indictment of what we currently value in adolescent education.
Going to a less renown research institution wouldn’t make a difference if that institution was valuing the same types of things in admissions. In other words, while Institution X may get national contest honorees and school Y may get local and regional honorees, both schools are playing the same game.
I don’t think he is alone in his distaste for the way adolescents are being taught. A number of competitive high schools are altering their curriculum and doing away with things like AP courses so they can focus on more in-depth education, rather than a more rote education.
What, in your opinion, should a kid do in high school if they really, really like math/physics?
If I can perform multiplication based only memorizing tables, then I’m going to give up on math long before I ever “hit the level” where I have to learn such things.
I’m really in no position to say, and am definitely not the best person to ask. Most obviously because I’m not a physicist, but also because my views on education are apparently out of vogue.
Generally, I always try to encourage my family to make educational choices based on furthering their education, rather than on getting a grade, winning a contest, showing up an adversary, or attaining some down-river goal of an acceptance into this or that university, or a job at this or that consulting firm. If they win a contest or get an award along the way, then great, but the skills and preparation necessary win contests and awards don’t always correspond to advancing one’s education, so it isn’t easy to navigate.
As for physics in particular, I recall recently reading here that a few parents had provided their kids with the Feynman Lectures on Physics and that struck me as the sort of material that might provide a worthwhile educational experience for someone interested in physics, but not having read them myself I honestly I have no idea whether it is or not.
That is not true. I have done multiplication based only on memorizing tables in 2nd and 3rd grade, but that didn’t stop me to do more later, including (somewhat) understanding ring theory.
Do you understand how long division works? Do you need to understand it in order to perform it?
You obviously believe that they shouldn’t learn more math and physics than what is taught in high school, otherwise it might affect their understanding in college? Or I misunderstand you position?
Most of the kids that do physics at that level have read Feynman’s Lectures, if not all, at least the Five Easy Pieces.
It may not be true for you, but it is true for many. As I said, some struggle to catch up, others end up hating math and giving up.
I think so, and whatever understanding I have helps me perform it. But my understanding of math is pretty limited and I’d quickly hit a wall where my ability to perform outpaced my understanding, and that’s were I’d be stuck. Unless I went back and struggled through to gain that understanding, and I’m too old for that.
Great. It sounds like my instincts were correct and that it was at least a somewhat appropriate suggestion.
Missed this above . . . I don’t “obviously believe” that and never suggested it. In fact I specifically suggested reading beyond the high school curriculum, did I not? For my family, I just don’t view adolescent academic competitions as the best means to a sound education, for reasons I think I have explained. Your views may vary.
1 Like
I think you misunderstood what some of these competitions are. The materials for many of them ARE outside of the HS curriculum, as they should be if they’re consdered to be extracurricular activities. These materials are often not even covered in typical college curricula.
I am not sure how much college level physics you know, but I would suggest you download the IPhO problems and check them out. They require in-depth understanding of physics similar, or even higher than what you would learn from Feynman’s Lectures. There is no rote memorization that can make you being able to compete at that level.
I know, because about a million years ago, in a galaxy far far away, when I was in high school I was part of that crowd.
And although I didn’t pursue physics in college, my friends didn’t have any problems with physics, and easily earned their PhDs in the field.
1 Like
No one needs to do anything beyond taking and enjoying the maths and physics classes their high schools offer. If they want to do more, foster that. Otherwise, I’m a big believer that in the quest to get “educated” our children miss out on the outdoors, music, arts and friendships. Encourage study for mastery and not just to get to the next step and they’ll be more than fine.
2 Likes
I would like to see a teenager reaching that level of accomplishment because her parent forced her to. 
I have no idea why people think that there are no friendships formed when you participate in these competitions. My best and longest friendships are with the people I prepared for these competitions with.
They are little different than any other sport, with both the good and bad things. But, unlike sports, the knowledge and the skills you get are DIRECTLY applicable to the subjects you study in college.
3 Likes
Hmmm, not sure what I wrote to create this impression, but I understand the topics covered go beyond the usual high school curriculum.
Epistemologically, I just don’t view adolescent education as a sport to be won, and I don’t think that someone who has trained and drilled for these tests is necessarily better prepared educationally than someone who hasn’t. Accordingly, I have my doubts about any admissions policy that would rely heavily on such tests, especially when they are dominated by a few predictable schools and a small subset of kids who have been trained to take the tests from an early age. But like I said, my views on the issue aren’t exactly in vogue.
4 Likes