> Both fields embrace a sort of masochism and active desire to keep knowledge impenetrable b/c it acts as a mechanism to feed out the dummies.
Did you go to a top university? And did you study physics in grad school? I find this statement amusing given how easy the undergrad curriculum was compared to grad school physics.
In my undergrad, physics was challenging only in that you needed a good command of the mathematics. If you had that, the actual instruction (and textbooks) were of average difficulty.
But again, experience may vary from university to university. Certainly I can see professors who could have made it much tougher if they wanted to.
As for the rest of your comments in this thread: Sorry, but to me this is another HN thread where people insist it can be taught better, and teachers are being irresponsible in not finding such approaches, but with very little actual proof that it can be as good as imagined. It's not like you have concrete examples of better pedagogy to pointed out.
Did you go to a top university? And did you study physics in grad school? I find this statement amusing given how easy the undergrad curriculum was compared to grad school physics.
In my undergrad, physics was challenging only in that you needed a good command of the mathematics. If you had that, the actual instruction (and textbooks) were of average difficulty.
But again, experience may vary from university to university. Certainly I can see professors who could have made it much tougher if they wanted to.
As for the rest of your comments in this thread: Sorry, but to me this is another HN thread where people insist it can be taught better, and teachers are being irresponsible in not finding such approaches, but with very little actual proof that it can be as good as imagined. It's not like you have concrete examples of better pedagogy to pointed out.