I think you have the perspective of somehow who's succeeded in Physics. In your typical introductory physics class less than half the students will walk away with a very solid understanding of classical mechanics.
To my mind, if the textbook was actually excellent then that would be 80%+. We're nowhere near there. I think there is LOT of room for improvement
But sure.. Thermodynamics.. things could be worse :)
Sometimes things are just hard because they're complicated and you need to buckle down and learn your multiplication tables. But at least in my own life experience, the vast majority of the time things are a problem because their poorly explained - often by people that poorly understand it themselves.
Once you truly understand something inside and out - and look back on it - it all generally looks relatively simple. But it takes a special talent to be able to go back and reexplain it from the naiive perspective
> In your typical introductory physics class less than half the students will walk away with a very solid understanding of classical mechanics.
That's probably true.
> To my mind, if the textbook was actually excellent then that would be 80%+. We're nowhere near there. I think there is LOT of room for improvement
In my view, that's probably false. I don't think the problem is masochism, gatekeeping, and people holding on to old textbooks. I think the problem is that classical mechanics is actually hard, at least for most people. If you come in to beginning classical mechanics wanting to have learned it, rather than wanting to learn it, no textbook can save you. And I think that many people come in that way. They want it out of the way as a prerequisite for something else, rather than really wanting to know it for itself.
> To my mind, if the textbook was actually excellent then that would be 80%+. We're nowhere near there. I think there is LOT of room for improvement
I think you overestimate the capabilities of students entering university (even 20 years ago), and underestimate how poor high schools can be in preparing said students.
I went to a mediocre university. A 50-80% drop out rate was there for both physics and EE - I don't know how it compares to the other engineering. And I did not even consider it challenging. Almost all the classes were a breeze for someone like me who was well prepared going in. At least in that EE department, the teachers were very dedicated to teaching. They would allocate 3-9 hours a week for office hours, and the pace they taught as was slow (probably only covered 70-80% of the material that is covered in a top university).
Students were given lots of chances.
The reasons they drop out are:
- Poor preparation at the high school level
- Poor discipline. A lot of students didn't transition well to independence, and didn't have an authority figure (e.g. parent) controlling their schedule.
- Realizing too late what it means when courses are built on top of other courses. Thus you'd have people getting an A in Calculus I, but almost failing Calculus III because they didn't realize they needed Calculus I beyond the course.
- In high school you can get far with a cursory understanding of the material. At university, you could get a B, or even an A, with that approach for introductory courses, but that approach will start trending towards an F in junior/senior level courses.
Sure, I agree with you that pedagogy can be improved, but I expect that 80% would at best become 60% if all you focus on is pedagogy.
I almost wrote above that, to my knowledge and IMVHO, no one has succeeded at writing a book on Thermodynamics yet. I self-censored because that would be too flippant, wouldn't it? Lmao
I took thermodynamics over 30 years ago. I remember having the feeling of learning a different language using a text book whose explanations also needed translation. I remember the book explained Entropy using chaos theory or randomness and talked about popular philosophy during the 19th century. After a bit of mental torture, I realized by Entropy they really mean Thermodynamic Stability. It is just that heat usually dissipates when materials touch, they were using words like chaos or randomness to describe the process. But their description was vague and poorly conceived.
I think Thermo can only be taught if you have a solid foundation in statistics. And stats... is not really taught in the US? I tried to selfstudy a bit, but the textbook situation with stats make math look amazing. For very intro practical things, there are stuff like John Taylor's book... but past that anything rigorous - I actually have no idea how people learn anything
To my mind, if the textbook was actually excellent then that would be 80%+. We're nowhere near there. I think there is LOT of room for improvement
But sure.. Thermodynamics.. things could be worse :)
Sometimes things are just hard because they're complicated and you need to buckle down and learn your multiplication tables. But at least in my own life experience, the vast majority of the time things are a problem because their poorly explained - often by people that poorly understand it themselves.
Once you truly understand something inside and out - and look back on it - it all generally looks relatively simple. But it takes a special talent to be able to go back and reexplain it from the naiive perspective