If you could design your own physics curriculum...
If you could design your own physics curriculum...
Here is a topic to get everyone's mind off of admissions:
If you could make up the ideal undergradute physics curriculum, what would it look like? To get everyone started, here is how I think it should be:
Core classes:
Introductory Mechanics
Introductory Electricity and Magnetism
Mathematical Methods I (basic topics, vector calculus, fourier series, linear algebra methods)
Mathematical Methods II (advanced topics like special functions, hilbert space, tensor analysis, fourier transform, Green's functions...)
Vibrations and Waves
Modern Physics
Quantum Mechanics I and II
Electrodynamics I and II
Particle and Nuclear physics
Fluid mechanics
Thermodynamics and introductory statistical mechanics
Experimental physics (electronics, instrumentation, design, setup, execution, etc.)
Introductory solid state physics
Introductory astronomy/astrophysics
Molecular physics/spectroscopy
Optics
Analytical Mechanics
Special relativity (Lorentz transformations, four-vectors, relativistic invariants, tensors, dynamics of relativistic particle collisions, Poincare groups, Dirac equation)
Physics research experience guided by a professor
Supplementary classes/Natural sciences:
General chemistry I & II
Organic chemistry
Supplementary classes/EE & CS:
Introduction to programming
Data structures
Circuit analysis
Signal analysis
Computer algorithms
Supplementary classes/Math:
Calculus I, II, and III
Differential Equations
Linear algebra
Statistics
Probability theory
Complex analysis
Numerial analysis
Abstract algebra
Topology
Differential geometry
Partial differential equations
I think the person who completes this program will have the best preparation for graduate school.
N.B. When I posted this to the other forum it didn't show up on the main page. I don't know why, but obviously no one was going to reply to it if they didn't know it existed. This is a re-post so just ignore the other and reply to this one.
If you could make up the ideal undergradute physics curriculum, what would it look like? To get everyone started, here is how I think it should be:
Core classes:
Introductory Mechanics
Introductory Electricity and Magnetism
Mathematical Methods I (basic topics, vector calculus, fourier series, linear algebra methods)
Mathematical Methods II (advanced topics like special functions, hilbert space, tensor analysis, fourier transform, Green's functions...)
Vibrations and Waves
Modern Physics
Quantum Mechanics I and II
Electrodynamics I and II
Particle and Nuclear physics
Fluid mechanics
Thermodynamics and introductory statistical mechanics
Experimental physics (electronics, instrumentation, design, setup, execution, etc.)
Introductory solid state physics
Introductory astronomy/astrophysics
Molecular physics/spectroscopy
Optics
Analytical Mechanics
Special relativity (Lorentz transformations, four-vectors, relativistic invariants, tensors, dynamics of relativistic particle collisions, Poincare groups, Dirac equation)
Physics research experience guided by a professor
Supplementary classes/Natural sciences:
General chemistry I & II
Organic chemistry
Supplementary classes/EE & CS:
Introduction to programming
Data structures
Circuit analysis
Signal analysis
Computer algorithms
Supplementary classes/Math:
Calculus I, II, and III
Differential Equations
Linear algebra
Statistics
Probability theory
Complex analysis
Numerial analysis
Abstract algebra
Topology
Differential geometry
Partial differential equations
I think the person who completes this program will have the best preparation for graduate school.
N.B. When I posted this to the other forum it didn't show up on the main page. I don't know why, but obviously no one was going to reply to it if they didn't know it existed. This is a re-post so just ignore the other and reply to this one.
-
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:09 am
I counted 42 courses in that list which doesn't include the gen ed stuff we need to take. So it'd be impossible to complete such a curriculum unless we took 6+ courses every semester or stayed 5 years.
Even if you wanted to take 6 classes every semester (I did a few times), if your school is anywhere nearly as disorganized and careless as mine, you could never fit courses from all of those different departments in without scheduling conflicts.
Though I've still taken most of those things.
I would omit organic chemistry since I'd imagine it to be just a tedious brute force memorization of molecules that would chew up lots of time and not really teach us much that's applicable to physics. General chemistry can be useful, however. I would try to combine all the engineering topics into one course called "engineering for physics" and the same thing with the computing courses.
Another thing that's important when designing a program is to make sure each course picks up where the previous courses left off and doesn't assume background the students don't have. The specific topics covered in each course would need to take this into consideration, but this rarely happens as far as I know. Many departments simply pick out a prof and say "teach solid state physics next semester" and the prof just teaches whatever he wants without careful consideration of what students would know coming in. This can both catch students off guard and lead to unnecessary repetition of material.
Even if you wanted to take 6 classes every semester (I did a few times), if your school is anywhere nearly as disorganized and careless as mine, you could never fit courses from all of those different departments in without scheduling conflicts.
Though I've still taken most of those things.
I would omit organic chemistry since I'd imagine it to be just a tedious brute force memorization of molecules that would chew up lots of time and not really teach us much that's applicable to physics. General chemistry can be useful, however. I would try to combine all the engineering topics into one course called "engineering for physics" and the same thing with the computing courses.
Another thing that's important when designing a program is to make sure each course picks up where the previous courses left off and doesn't assume background the students don't have. The specific topics covered in each course would need to take this into consideration, but this rarely happens as far as I know. Many departments simply pick out a prof and say "teach solid state physics next semester" and the prof just teaches whatever he wants without careful consideration of what students would know coming in. This can both catch students off guard and lead to unnecessary repetition of material.
So you're saying major in physics, take every course in the physics department, pick up minors in chemistry, EE, and computer science, and then top it off with another major in math.
Yeah, you would be prepared for grad school. You would also be 40 years old.
Hey, why not throw in like 6 biology courses as well?
Yeah, you would be prepared for grad school. You would also be 40 years old.
Hey, why not throw in like 6 biology courses as well?
Last edited by fermiboy on Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
As a physics and chemistry double major, I can say that organic chemistry is definitely A LOT more than some tedious memorization. I would say that about 20 to 25% is memorization, the rest is some of the most beautiful and interesting subject matter I've had as an undergraduate in ANY subject. It is also extremely useful for anyone who would do experimental condensed matter. My O-Chem knowledge comes in handy frequently, especially with things involving nanofabrication.
Twistor, you're taking some flak on this thread, but I feel where you're coming from. IMO this wasn't meant to be a practical suggestion, but more of a whimsical thing. There is so much out there that is *interesting* and would be *nice* to know. Forget about how long it would take, and ask yourself what you wish you could know with an eye towards your grad school career.
Heck, part of the reason I got a double major is because I couldn't settle on one thing. If I could freeze time and learn about everything I was interested in, I'd have physics, math, computer science, chemistry, EE, AE, and philosophy degrees!
Twistor, you're taking some flak on this thread, but I feel where you're coming from. IMO this wasn't meant to be a practical suggestion, but more of a whimsical thing. There is so much out there that is *interesting* and would be *nice* to know. Forget about how long it would take, and ask yourself what you wish you could know with an eye towards your grad school career.
Heck, part of the reason I got a double major is because I couldn't settle on one thing. If I could freeze time and learn about everything I was interested in, I'd have physics, math, computer science, chemistry, EE, AE, and philosophy degrees!
I'm not disagreeing with twistor's scheme, but I just think it's too extensive and idealistic. The content is good, but for the subjects "peripheral" to physics, I think grouping related topics into single classes could reduce the list to a manageable number of courses...
Oh and by the way:
CONGRATS ON REACHING THE 200 CLUB TWISTOR
Oh and by the way:
CONGRATS ON REACHING THE 200 CLUB TWISTOR
There is a simple answer to this. My idealized curriculum would not include gen ed classes. See my posts on liberal arts education.I counted 42 courses in that list which doesn't include the gen ed stuff we need to take. So it'd be impossible to complete such a curriculum unless we took 6+ courses every semester or stayed 5 years.
grae313 has the right idea, which was supposed to be that if you throw out the garbage you had to take that was unnecessary (maybe the introductory psych class or that course on Chinese foreign policy, etc.) and replace it with things that are useful for your career, what would they be? I figured people would just have fun with this. Apparently you guys like it the way it is....IMO this wasn't meant to be a practical suggestion, but more of a whimsical thing. There is so much out there that is *interesting* and would be *nice* to know. Forget about how long it would take, and ask yourself what you wish you could know with an eye towards your grad school career.
I don't expect any school to actually implement such a curriculum. And I fear a "Computer's for physicists" class would be watered down crap by physicists who don't really know what they're doing. Taking CS classes with professionals is really the way to go.
And to understand most modern theories of physics, much of that math really is necessary. You can't understand modern physics without group theory or differential geometry (for QFT, GR and many others). Complex analysis is a practical necessity. Statistics and Numerical analysis are aimed more at experimentalists but every physicist should still understand them. Partial differential equations come up in every branch of physics. Probability theory is useful for QM and Stat mech. The only one I would really drop from my list is topology, but I think if you want to be well prepared for advanced topics you should take it anyway. But remember, this curriculum is ideal, as in "just for fun."
And based on Maxwells_Demon's post, maybe it is possible. He says he has taken most of those courses.
And to quizivex:
Now that I'm in the 200 club, when do I get my membership pack with GRE answer decoder ring?
-
- Posts: 482
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:30 pm
-
- Posts: 482
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:30 pm
-
- Posts: 482
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:30 pm
I'll answer the question, then go back to the topic: RG - by this time last year I had heard from all the graduate schools I was going to hear from, but I didn't apply to many. Based on trends in the board, and from my peers back in the day, it seemed more towards Feb/March, I suppose.
Twistor, if it were my ideal situation, I would've taken most classes I took, but I think at my school, programming wasn't stressed enough. I think a computational physics course, maybe 2 semesters, would've been of great benefit.
I think if it were up to me, I'd rather fix the situation in the K-12 system, because times are changing, and the education system isn't changing with the time. Physics needs to be taught sooner in the process, and math needs to be highly encouraged.
There's my two cents in that regard.
Twistor, if it were my ideal situation, I would've taken most classes I took, but I think at my school, programming wasn't stressed enough. I think a computational physics course, maybe 2 semesters, would've been of great benefit.
I think if it were up to me, I'd rather fix the situation in the K-12 system, because times are changing, and the education system isn't changing with the time. Physics needs to be taught sooner in the process, and math needs to be highly encouraged.
There's my two cents in that regard.
tnoviell:
I agree with you about revising the k-12 system. In America education moves at the pace of the slowest kids in the class. Furthermore, it's very repetitive. I'm not suprised half the country is reverting back to creationism (under the guise of so-called "Intelligent Design"). Science and logic are not stressed enough.
But I really also think that k-12 is the time where you should be exploring your interests, especially in high-school. Maybe you can take a few more math and science classes if that is what you're interested in, but I think college should really be about specialization. Your history class isn't really going to change much from high-school to college, but math and engineering and physics are going to be on a whole different level. Leave liberal arts to the high-schools, I say.
I agree with you about revising the k-12 system. In America education moves at the pace of the slowest kids in the class. Furthermore, it's very repetitive. I'm not suprised half the country is reverting back to creationism (under the guise of so-called "Intelligent Design"). Science and logic are not stressed enough.
But I really also think that k-12 is the time where you should be exploring your interests, especially in high-school. Maybe you can take a few more math and science classes if that is what you're interested in, but I think college should really be about specialization. Your history class isn't really going to change much from high-school to college, but math and engineering and physics are going to be on a whole different level. Leave liberal arts to the high-schools, I say.
Grae - don't worry about it. You're in a very good position, trust me, all of you people are. I think a lot of you put too much pressure on yourselves when none should exist - you're all very strong candidates.
Twistor - the high school situation is a product of privatization in this country, this is what happens when you decrease the role of your government in your country. I think college needs a few english and history courses, because these classes help you further develop your reading and writing skills. The lessons you learn may not be much different, but the techniques picked up are essential. I know there's a world of difference between my high school and college papers...plus, sometimes throughout the course of the day, I really want to see something other than physics & math presented to me.
Twistor - the high school situation is a product of privatization in this country, this is what happens when you decrease the role of your government in your country. I think college needs a few english and history courses, because these classes help you further develop your reading and writing skills. The lessons you learn may not be much different, but the techniques picked up are essential. I know there's a world of difference between my high school and college papers...plus, sometimes throughout the course of the day, I really want to see something other than physics & math presented to me.
tnoviell:
Those are all very important skills, but I don't think they should be as emphasized as they are today.
Don't get me wrong, history, anthropology, philosophy, etc. are all important disciplines and the truly educated should have a grasp of at least the basic tenets of all of them. But this should not come at the exclusion to expertise in one's chosen field. When US companies hire candidates they look for advanced knowledge of a particular field. They don't care if US candidates took a year of ancient history along with their discipline if Chinese and Indian or any other foreign candidates are better prepared.
So don't misunderstand me. I don't think those subjects aren't important. I think to remain competetive in the modern world they must be demphasized. This is just the price we have to pay if we want to stay up to par with our friends abroad.
Those are all very important skills, but I don't think they should be as emphasized as they are today.
Don't get me wrong, history, anthropology, philosophy, etc. are all important disciplines and the truly educated should have a grasp of at least the basic tenets of all of them. But this should not come at the exclusion to expertise in one's chosen field. When US companies hire candidates they look for advanced knowledge of a particular field. They don't care if US candidates took a year of ancient history along with their discipline if Chinese and Indian or any other foreign candidates are better prepared.
So don't misunderstand me. I don't think those subjects aren't important. I think to remain competetive in the modern world they must be demphasized. This is just the price we have to pay if we want to stay up to par with our friends abroad.
-
- Posts: 482
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:30 pm
twistor:
I am sorry, but let us all just talk about admissions only! I cannot think of anything but the admissions decisions, letters, emails and such!
I have stopped reading QFT in my directed studies, coz I cannot concentrate anymore. I do not even know where I am gonna be after 4 months from now which is pretty scary!
WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE SO SLOW?????? people let us all quit Physics and do Biology instead!
Why the hell do they take such a long time? Do they think they are going to win Nobel Prize just by reading our applications? ( Msg to admissions committees: Hello Profs let us in first, then u will win whateva u want to win!)
this is freaking crazy, insane, stupid!
I am sorry, but let us all just talk about admissions only! I cannot think of anything but the admissions decisions, letters, emails and such!
I have stopped reading QFT in my directed studies, coz I cannot concentrate anymore. I do not even know where I am gonna be after 4 months from now which is pretty scary!
WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE SO SLOW?????? people let us all quit Physics and do Biology instead!
Why the hell do they take such a long time? Do they think they are going to win Nobel Prize just by reading our applications? ( Msg to admissions committees: Hello Profs let us in first, then u will win whateva u want to win!)
this is freaking crazy, insane, stupid!
-
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:14 pm
I'm not the president of this club... grae313 is since she got there first... you'll have to ask her.Now that I'm in the 200 club, when do I get my membership pack with GRE answer decoder ring?
Yeah I'm with you here for the most part but I'll save my detailed explanation and arguments for a later time...There is a simple answer to this. My idealized curriculum would not include gen ed classes. See my posts on liberal arts education.
Yeah... One of my plans for this easy semester was to catch up on some of things I've forgotten and try to learn a few advanced things... since I'll really need to know it going into grad school... but I haven't done anything yet since I want to make sure I get admitted somewhere first.I have stopped reading QFT in my directed studies, coz I cannot concentrate anymore. I do not even know where I am gonna be after 4 months from now which is pretty scary!
Oh yea and if you're backpacking through Amsterdam, the rape wouldn't even be illegal... hehe.
As for admissions, I've always wanted to fill out a fake application with all kinds of sarcastic answers... just to mess with the people.