<p>Hi all. I'm sure most of you are now aware of the revisions to the AP Physics B course. Just to recap, Physics B will now be split into two separate APs: Physics 1 and Physics 2. Both are algebra based, but Physics 1 will focus on kinematics, waves/sound, and basic electricity concepts, while Physics 2 will focus on a more rigorous study in electricity as well as discussion thermodynamics, fluids, magnetism, optics, and quantum/atomic/nuclear physics. More info can be found here: <a href="http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/ap/ap-physics-1-and-2-course-and-exam-description.pdf">http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/ap/ap-physics-1-and-2-course-and-exam-description.pdf</a>.
I didn't actually take a Physics B course, but I took a class called Physics H that was closely modeled after Physics B and ended up scoring a 5 on the exam. I have to agree with College Board in their reasoning of splitting up Physics B: it was simply too much of a time crunch to teach kids kinematics, electricity and magnetism, thermodynamics, fluid science, waves/sound/optics, and quantum/atomic/nuclear physics in 1 year. Several kids struggled in our class, and our teacher had to end up curving tests 20% because it was difficult for many to keep up. So I'm in favor of this split.
What are your overall impressions of this move?</p>
<p>My opinion is that this is a bad move. I think it makes little sense to spend a full two years studying physics before you’ve had calculus. If you’re serious about physics, you should do it with calculus, at least by the second year. And if you’re not, you shouldn’t be spending 2 years on it. Many kids struggle to fit even a single year of physics into their high school program. The kids who have only one year for physics are going to get half a class. This new course structure just doesn’t seem designed to serve anyone well. </p>
<p>I’ll hold out judgement until I see how colleges grant credit for this. I agree with @mathyone , though. If you’re serious about physics, take Physics C concurrent with calculus. If you’re not serious, find 2 other classes that you are passionate about to fill the hole left by Physics 1/2</p>
<p>The algebra based physics class which Physics 1 and 2 are meant to be equivalent to is premed physics. But I’m not sure that med schools would accept these classes in place. Premed physics is generally a terminal physics course. It’s not rigorous enough for people who need to go on to learn more physics. So this AP in the high school doesn’t seem to serve any purpose.</p>
<p>Some med schools accept AP classes from HS as their requirements; some do not. However, since the prospective applicant has no idea which med school will accept the in 4/5 years time, they should assume that they will need to take all their med school requirements in college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or are they afraid of physics, compared to biology and chemistry? (Some high school students posting here have schedules with more than one year of biology and/or chemistry, but no physics.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Biology majors and pre-meds would take a theoretically similar course as physics B over one year, so the split makes the course less rigorous if high schools take a year for each part. In practice, many colleges do not accept physics B for subject credit anyway, as their physics courses for biology majors and pre-meds are more difficult.</p>
<p>In other words, the College Board is taking what is already a somewhat light AP course and making it lighter.</p>
<p>Some high schools use physics B as their honors physics course.</p>
<p>“I have to agree with College Board in their reasoning of splitting up Physics B: it was simply too much of a time crunch to teach kids kinematics, electricity and magnetism, thermodynamics, fluid science, waves/sound/optics, and quantum/atomic/nuclear physics in 1 year.” My daughter is in Physics B now and she wishes that she’d had the opportunity to study it exactly this way. Her school requires a year of physics prior to physics B and it has been way too slow-moving for her. Changing to a sequence of 1 and 2 is better than a sequence of Physics honors and then Physics B, but simply offering Physics B as a first course, at least for the better honor students is the best plan and I expect that in schools which have been doing this, it will be sorely missed.</p>
<p>@ucbalumnus, there are many bad physics teachers out there. Perhaps the kids who aren’t taking physics have been warned off of it. There are also some high schools with kids jockeying for exact position in the class (which information the schools unhelpfully are telling them) and creating a frenzy of cutthroat competition. Students trying to “win” this game may get a higher GPA boost from an AP bio or AP chem class than from a first physics class, this catapulting them “ahead” of the poor schmucks who took physics.</p>
<p>Perhaps high school counselors should have the public policy that one of the necessary conditions to mark the “most demanding” option on a counselor recommendation question for student’s curriculum choice is that all three of biology, chemistry, and physics need to be included.</p>
<p>They can also offer AP physics B as a first physics course (or perhaps call it honors) in order to neutralize the rank gaming effect of choosing physics versus AP biology or AP chemistry.</p>
<p>Regarding bad physics teachers, there are bad teachers in any subject, so why would a student necessarily avoid physics but not biology or chemistry because there is a bad teacher?</p>
<p>I think there are fewer well-qualified physics teachers than, say, biology. So much so that there is actually a specialty at the University level of the teaching of physics. eg. <a href=“http://depts.washington.edu/uwpeg/”>http://depts.washington.edu/uwpeg/</a> If you look at the people in this program, you will notice that these are largely physicists. They are not “education school”.
I’ve not heard of a comparable specialty in biology or chemistry. </p>