sci.research.careers

DK wrote:
> In article < @ >, Russell < @ > wrote:
>> On Jul 29, 7:26 am, morrisjc...@ wrote:
>>> No big surprise here. Maybe explains why so many HS kids these days
>>> can do basic calculus while being poor at algebra at the same time.
>>>
>>> /home/news_and_events/releases/science_0726...
>
> Rather obvious. Other things being equal, the best indication of
> one's "smartness" is the ability to excel at math.

Actually, it's only one. Remember, the GREs test one's verbal capabilities
as well.

IQ tests and its
> correlations make this abundantly clear. In that regards, I recall
> one paper reporting that physics major had highest IQ, followed
> by math majors (because too many of them sucked at verbal part),
> followed by a broad field of engineering/chemistry/biology/etc
> science, and later - perfectly expectedly - humanitarians, with, IIRC,
> sociologists taking last place of those surveyed.
>
>> I guess I've heard of the physics first movement but hadn't
>> paid any attention. Despite my background in physics, I think
>> that's a silly idea for high school curriculum. One can't
>> understand cellular level processes with the level of physics
>> one learns in high school. One doesn't master quantum mechanics
>> in high school physics and even if one did, high school chemistry
>> doesn't use it (much beyond the idea of electon shells defining
>> the relationships in the periodic table). I don't know why
>> anyone who has been through these subjects in high school and
>> college would even come up with the idea of taking high school
>> physics before biology or chemistry in order to help learn those
>> subjects.
>
> Having gone with all of these with my kid's HS "learning", one
> of the most obvious answers is "total morons write HS textbooks".

It isn't so much morons that are writing them but people who adhere to
specific educational ideologies. I encountered all that nonsense while I
taught at a tech school.

>
> I'll never forget her very first Chemistry class. The textbook
> *started* from atom composition and electron orbitals - complete
> with *names* of the bands of hydrogen spectrum in UV and
> infrared!
>
> The very idea of progression from simple to complex and
> over-simplifying and neglecting complex matters in order to
> enable general *understanding* is alien to most HS textbooks
> that I've seen. It did not help that the teacher evidently couldn't
> understand most of it either.

It comes from the educational philosophy that students must have a total
comprehension of everything that's being taught.

Often, I got students from pre-requisite courses to the ones I taught who
never knew many of the fundamental concepts. The instructors in those
courses, rather than covering all the material, deliberately slowed things
down so that the students, apparently, understood everything that was
presented to them. Unfortunately, that often meant that important topics
were skipped, pushing the burden of teaching them onto me. Often, I spent
up to about a quarter of my time teaching material that the students should
have known before they started my courses.

>
> DK
>
>