Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Education Science

Physicists Work on Physics' Uncool Image 362

WindowsTroll writes "Since it seems that science doesn't appeal to the youth of today, physicists are trying to make physics kid friendly. From the article, 'Bicycle stunts, rap music and modern dance -- all in the name of Einstein.' I am particularly interested in the modern dance, thinking that this is probably a better approach of studying oscillations than the springs that I used when I was in college."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Physicists Work on Physics' Uncool Image

Comments Filter:
  • Too Late! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 13, 2005 @07:44PM (#11354061)
    I believe one Bill Nye The Science Guy has already accomplished making Physics (and science in general) "cool".
  • Absolute Zero (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @07:45PM (#11354079) Homepage Journal
    The flipside of that double-edged sword is that physics will be infiltrated by people who want to be "cool", rather than just smart. Physics is already cool, because it *creates* coolness. Most "cool" kids aren't cool at all; they're just smart at looking cool, copying the people who other people say are cool. Truly cool physics is asymptotically low entropy; that won't be making the cover of the _Rolling Stone_ anytime soon.
  • Kid friendly? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by StevenHenderson ( 806391 ) <[stevehenderson] [at] [gmail.com]> on Thursday January 13, 2005 @07:45PM (#11354082)
    Why does physics have to be kid-friendly?

    The shit is hard.

    Like computers/programming, kids will pick it up if they have the interest...

  • by Spyffe ( 32976 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @07:51PM (#11354132) Homepage
    Absolutely. Dressing up subject material in "bling" doesn't make it any more palatable. The way to make science more accessible is to teach an enjoyment for learning how the world works at an early age.

    Kids know that science is not entertainment, and trying to dress it up as such tells them that you don't think science itself is worthwhile. Enthusiasm for the subject on the part of the teacher is worth more than a world of interpretive dances and rap tunes.

  • by 01dbs ( 696498 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @07:57PM (#11354183)
    My graduate fellowship (in physics) [nsf.gov] requires me to spend two days a week working with the science classes at a local high school, and I can say from experience that gimmicky pedagogical tricks like those mentioned in the article aren't the way to get kids (except maybe very young children) interested in science. The stuff just comes off as incredibly lame, and physicists end up looking like bigger geeks than they already are.

    The way to engage kids is simply to show them the physics at work. I've got kids making plasma in a microwave, measuring the temperature of the sun with a cup of water, studying paper airplane trajectories, making stereo speakers. Physics is interesting and it's ubiquitous, so there's always something kind of cool that the kids can relate to. The secret is to let them see what's happening, get their hands dirty, and most importantly, let them ask the questions.

    Find interesting (but safe) project, put them in charge, and they're hooked.
  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @08:02PM (#11354232)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mobby_6kl ( 668092 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @08:03PM (#11354240)
    >Real physicists like Stephen Hawking, and fictional ones like Quinn Mallory, are very cool!

    The problem is, we think they're cool, while most kids think the opposite.
  • by Elwood P Dowd ( 16933 ) <judgmentalist@gmail.com> on Thursday January 13, 2005 @08:17PM (#11354391) Journal
    Whatever. Smart kids aren't unpopular at school. Geeks are, maybe, but that's a subset of the smart people.
  • Re:Kid friendly? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bcrowell ( 177657 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @08:18PM (#11354398) Homepage
    Are "fun" and "cool" two different things?

    When I was a kid, I had fun reading science fiction, and that was not considered a cool way to have fun. But science fiction got me interested in math and science, and now I'm a physics teacher.

    Lots of kids are interested in things that are not at all easy: playing music, riding their bike off the roof of their house, etc. Why should we try to make a difficult thing seem easy in order to make more kids do it? And what makes us adults think we have any influence over what kids see as fun and cool?

    A lot of these efforts also stem from a misconception that a lot of people have, which is that there's somehow a shortage of scientists. Sorry, just not true. There is no need to encourage more kids to go into science. In fact, as a science teacher, I see a lot of the opposite phenomenon: kids who really care about jazz, or photography, but whose parents are pushing them to do science or computers, because they think it'll be more likely to lead to a good job. Well, actually, a really talented, dedicated jazz musician probably has much better job prospects than someone fresh out of college with a biology degree and a 1.7 GPA.

  • by albn ( 835144 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @08:19PM (#11354414) Journal
    I have to agree. Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Electromagnetic theory, Relativistic Thermodynamics etc. requires some serious study and discipline to master and to gain the "coolness" of what it means and what it can accomplish.

    On an elementary level, making the axioms of Special Relativity into a rap song and silly dance moves will not make somebody understand it better but make the student yawn or be uninterested even more.

    Perhaps some published results that are "visible" would be more interesting such as "What happens when you fall in a black hole" , The so-called twin/clock paradox, and other things that made Relativity famous?

    Lastly, no need to end it there... why not show some other cool things in ultra-advanced physics? Atom smashing, neutrinos, detecting gravity waves? There is still a lot more to learn and discover, because in the end, we are all students.
  • by Coryoth ( 254751 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @08:25PM (#11354480) Homepage Journal
    Enthusiasm for the subject on the part of the teacher is worth more than a world of interpretive dances and rap tunes.

    Absolutely!

    I'm a professional mathematician. I've had to help a lot of people with their math, and there seems to be a pretty common problem: A bad teacher. Oddly, if you ask most people, they actually enjoyed math for a while, then had a bad teacher and they fell behind or were otherwise discouraged, found it hard, and stopped enjoying it. More often than not the "bad teacher" occurs in early primary school. Ask a few questions about why the teacher was bad and it can be easily tracked to a complete lack of enthusiasm and interest in the subject. They teach it in the most rote, boring way possible, because they (the teacher!) doesn't really want to be doing it. The reason is easy enough: The majority of people who have an interest in primary education are the sort of people who hated math at school. They then help instill this attitude in all the impressionable young kids. Attitude is infectious, especially to young minds, and someone who doesn't care about math will teach the kids not to care either.

    The fact is, kids are taught that mathematics is hard and that mathematics is boring from a very young age. Tell people that it is easy, and that they can do it, and present it with a little enthusiasm and interest, and people do get interested in mathematics again. I've had little difficulty in getting people interested in mathematics no matter how old they are - all you have to do is break through the instilled "it's hard and it's boring" attitude, there are no gimmicks required.

    Jedidiah.
  • by jd ( 1658 ) <imipak@ y a hoo.com> on Thursday January 13, 2005 @09:01PM (#11354861) Homepage Journal
    ...is to figure out how to get all the really boring teachers onto Mars. (I had one who, no kidding, handed out photocopies of the course textbook as lecture notes. The lectures involved a painful reading from said notes, with nothing added. Oh, and to add to the torture, he wore a really hideous polka-dot bow-tie.)
  • by Magickcat ( 768797 ) * on Thursday January 13, 2005 @09:59PM (#11355390)
    Any chance Western culture had of retaining it's thousand of years legacy of science and the arts went out the door with television and the rise of post-modernism and consumer culture.

    Is it really any surprise that the sciences and arts are all going out the window. After all, most of Western culture nowadays is anti-intellectual anyhow. Society rewards degenerate rappers on the television who can't speak coherent English and actors extolled as role models. Reality television actually gets watched! Who of these people will become a physicist despite the fact that we're on the brink of physics' new golden age?

    With Hollywood churning out so many vacuous and innanely stupid movies, along with the mindless slop music industry, is it any wonder that kids would rather not go into jobs that afford them no respect or decent pay. Most of them wouldn't get the chance at a sufficient education to become a physicist anyhow even if they wanted it.
  • Pay them money (Score:2, Insightful)

    by esanbock ( 513790 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @10:39PM (#11355747)
    In America money is always cool. If we needed more physicists, they would commend high salaries and everyone would want to be a physicist. It's the American way.
  • I dunno, but it seems more likely the fact that genetics and pharmacology are getting funded up the yin-yang at the moment, while physics research isn't, might have something more to do with the declining enrolments than "coolness" factors.
  • by Presence1 ( 524732 ) on Thursday January 13, 2005 @10:55PM (#11355891) Homepage
    ... and that was the bicycle flip designed by the physicist. The rest of the stuff is sensless drivel that will only repel kids, who will see it as putting lipstick on a pig (this concept well described in other comments).

    The good part is DOING SOMETHING and GETTING KIDS INVOLVED. I once saw an article on a math program where kids were presented with a problem and asked to solve it. Any method they wanted was fine, e.g, formulas, iteration, successive approximation, etc. Then they discussed the advantages and disadvantages of each method, i.e., whether it produced a good answer, was understandible, quick to use, etc. This was started out in grade school at the earliest levels, when they only had the most basic of tools.

    I thought this was wonderful, as it is exactly the way math is done at the edges of research. No one tells the researcher to solve the problem with method X, (s)he just has a goal, a toolbox, and a blank sheet of paper.

    Unfortunately, this was years ago, and I've seen nothing of it since. Yet, every successful math or science program I've seen involves the kids in the real experience of measuring, quantifying and predicting stuff they liked, i.e., real science, not some rote memorization process. If they have a goal, then they have the motivation to overcome the obstacles.

    Without direct involvement, it is just some dumb teacher handing out meaningless tedious assignments. Of course the teachers' union will never acknowledge that some teachers will utterly ruin their students' chances of learning. but that is a topic for another day.

  • Re:Kid friendly? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CharlesEGrant ( 465919 ) on Friday January 14, 2005 @01:18AM (#11357720)
    I truly wonder why you think it is a misconception. It's not some urban legend or "rumors on the internets." The National Science Board is worried about it (NYTimes article here). It's a serious problem that a lot of people (e.g., the US government) are working on.

    Because similar reports have been issued in the past about impending shortages of scientists and have mostly come to naught except for producing a bunch of Ph.D.'s bitter about their limited job prospects. Take a look at the employment outlook for Ph.D. mathematicians http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos043.htm/ [bls.gov].
    Much as in pro-sports there is a huge demand for scientists of exceptional talent, but not much demand for those of modest talent.

    Don't get me wrong, it is a privilige to study for a Ph.D. in the sciences. Students who love and show talent in a field should be encouraged to consider graduate study. It should never be suggested though that a graduate degree in science is a guarantee of stable employment (as it would be if there were a genuine shortage).
  • Re:What? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Foobar of Borg ( 690622 ) on Friday January 14, 2005 @01:32AM (#11357875)
    >Real physicists like Stephen Hawking, and fictional ones like Quinn Mallory, are very cool!

    The problem is, we think they're cool, while most kids think the opposite.

    Actually, I think the main problem is that most people in America only care about making lots of money and screwing as many people (girls and/or boys depending upon sex and personal preference) as they can. Very few people can get above their base animal nature and actually do something that is not related to material wealth or pleasure. This is partly why pure sciences, like physics, are studied by so few Americans. I remember when I was studying for my engineering bachelor's degree and mentioned (when it was an appropriate part of the conversation, of course) that I was about to go to graduate school in physics. Most people laughed and thought that this was a ridiculous waste of time. They didn't see that actually learning something is good in and of itself. It doesn't have to get you a better job or a higher salary.

    The other problem, of course, is that physics requires a great deal of work and sitting down and solving problem after problem. Since most Americans have the attention span of a rock, this is not generally going to happen. It is a waste of time to try to make physics "cool". The reason why kids don't go into physics is a basic societal problem and that has to change before anything else can be done.

    Just my 2 cents.

Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein

Working...