physics w/ algebra vs physics w/calc

[foofighter]

is it a universal axiom that grad/med schools would prefer a B in calc phys than an A in alg phys? i'm guessing they'd rather have a B in alg phys then a C in calc phys though...or would they even prefer a C in calc to a B in alg phys?

 

also, if you have learned calc 1 and 2, then is physics with calc gonna be that much harder than algebra physics? in other words, is it the calc that makes calc physics hard, or the physics (and therefore even algebra physics is tough)? thx

[PhDP]

They still teach algebra based physics at the university ?

 

Anyway, once you understand calculus, it's much easier to understand "calculus based" physics, as you don't need to memorize many formula, you can derive them with a little logic.

[ajb]

They still teach algebra based physics at the university ?

 

Both algebra (modern abstract and linear) and calculus are fundamental in physics. If you want to understand physics knowing a bit about both is needed.

[PhDP]

Well, we're probably not talking about the same thing then.

 

I learned "algebra-based" physics in high school, and by "algebra-based" what they meant was "diluted physics". So I had to learn the formula for the path of a projectile and all sorts of equations. IMO, this method can't lead to any real understanding of physics, and it's boring.

 

Then at the university, I learned "calculus-based" physics, they taugh us how to use calculus to derive the basic equations we learned in "algebra-based" physics. As long as you have a good math intuition, it's much easier to do this kind of physics.

[Klaynos]

I've never heard of physics split up like this, but I know what you mean about teaching.

 

The lower level 'algebra-based' physics, is not really physics, and is a massive simplification, but it's hard to teach physics at a low level without a fuller understanding of calculus so there is little choice.

[PhDP]

What about 'not teaching classical physics before calculus' ?

[5614]

Like Klaynos, I've not heard of physics being split up like this, that's not how it's done in the UK. But I do think that unis will (and rightly should) be happier with a student who knows calculus than one who knows algebra. I'm not saying algebra isn't important, but calculus is fundemental and comes up in everything.

 

What about 'not teaching classical physics before calculus' ?

You're suggesting that we should not teach classical physics until students are competent with calculus (which in the UK is not until 16/17 years old)? And what physics should they be taught when they're younger? Quantum!?

 

What you're seeming to suggest is that we should not be taught something until we have the capabilites to fully understand it. But that is a near-impossible method of learning.

 

I learned how to integrate a polynomial before I really understood what I was doing, and I could invert a matrix long before I could see any use or applications of the things. Yet without my flawed and simplistic prior knowledge, a deeper understanding would have been a lot harder to obtain.

 

There are many flaws in our education system, but teaching physics students that F=ma and v=u+at before they know calculus is not one of the significant ones, IMHO.

[PhDP]

What you're seeming to suggest is that we should not be taught something until we have the capabilites to fully understand it. But that is a near-impossible method of learning.

 

It's an extrapolation, I never said that. But in the case of physics, I think much of classical physics doesn't make sense before calculus. Beside, they teach us F=ma just 1 year before they teach calculus, they could wait a little and teach it right...

[5614]

It's an extrapolation, I never said that.

Correct, that is why I said it is what you are "seeming to suggest", rather than what you actually said.

 

If they waited a year before teaching F=ma then what could they teach during that year? I think that being taught such a fundemental formula (even if just for general knowledge), alongside growing accostomed to what F=ma actually implies, in addition to everything you can teach that stems from it, I think being taught it early on is quite important.

 

Also I don't know how it works for you, but in the UK the calculus that comes in later years is optional (it only gets taught to those doing maths or physics A Levels). If what you said went ahead, then only a limited number of the population would have ever heard of F=ma.

[Royston]

You're suggesting that we should not teach classical physics until students are competent with calculus (which in the UK is not until 16/17 years old)? And what physics should they be taught when they're younger? Quantum!?

 

You certainly don't need calculus in a whole range of problems with CM, but I agree with Phil's sentiment, that calculus (as mentioned before) is fundamental, and I certainly don't see any harm in learning the basics, which aren't difficult to follow at all.

 

However, I prefer techniques introduced when they're necessary, the last three courses I've taken / taking have had calculus, the first covering the basics, the second which was an app math course covered the proofs, and the current being vector calculus, and using basic rules. But without understanding e.g the fundamental theorem of calculus, it's hard to appreciate precisely what you're doing with the numbers, and how they relate (if that makes sense.)

 

Just to add, anybody who says calculus is easy, is talking crap, it's utterly dependant on the application, and can get incredibly fiddly, if the system is complicated, then so to is the math. Understanding a proof won't help you in a lot of situations, so the level of math somebody learns should agree with the level (complexity) of the system you're trying to learn.

[Klaynos]

Maybe the solution is to teach kids more maths sooner?

 

How many years did we spend learning about sums, and multiplication?

 

I recall learning algebra when I was in year 6 (about age 10) but when I went to high school (year 8 for me, odd system we had here, about age 12) we redid everything I'd done previously. It wasn't part of the national curriculum because I was at a private school for a few years, but it wasn't above any of us.

 

So I say differentiation should be taught before A-level, therefore you can teach people Lagrangian mechanics which is far nicer, I might be a bit biased though...

[ydoaPs]

Maybe the solution is to teach kids more maths sooner?

 

How many years did we spend learning about sums, and multiplication?

 

I recall learning algebra when I was in year 6 (about age 10) but when I went to high school (year 8 for me, odd system we had here, about age 12) we redid everything I'd done previously. It wasn't part of the national curriculum because I was at a private school for a few years, but it wasn't above any of us.

We did a lot of repeating as well here. You could definitely teach basic calculus at age 10 or 11. I remember doing arithmetic problems in 3rd grade that I later found out was algebra.

 

So I say differentiation should be taught before A-level, therefore you can teach people Lagrangian mechanics which is far nicer, I might be a bit biased though...

From what I've seen so far, I agree with you.

[5614]

Maybe the solution is to teach kids more maths sooner?

 

So I say differentiation should be taught before A-level

I'd agree with that.

 

Every time a new syllabus has come out over the past 20 years there has been less and less hardcore content, especially in scientific areas. Most 1st year uni students can't follow old A Level textbooks... it is a bit sad really.

 

A Levels should be significantly harder and fewer people should want/need to go to uni... but now we have reached the stage that we are at it would be very hard to turn around and go back the old ways, I think, regrettably.

[PhDP]

Also I don't know how it works for you, but in the UK the calculus that comes in later years is optional (it only gets taught to those doing maths or physics A Levels). If what you said went ahead, then only a limited number of the population would have ever heard of F=ma.

 

Quebec is 5th in the world in mathematics (according to PISA, right after Taiwan, Hong-Kong, Korea et Finland), and yet calculus is taught very late (and it's also optinal)...

 

It's only my opinion, and I'm not an expert in science education, but it seems to me that classical physics should be taught in the same semester as calculus, and calculus should be taugh much sooner. After all, you only need 3 things to understand calculus; basic algebra, how to find a slope, and some basic notions about limits.

 

Every time a new syllabus has come out over the past 20 years there has been less and less hardcore content, especially in scientific areas.

 

Actually, it's the opposite here (at least, in math). We have a very influential math teacher (R. Lyons), he thinks that math is so slow, it's confusing for children, and I tend to agree with that.

[5614]

it seems to me that classical physics should be taught in the same semester as calculus, and calculus should be taugh much sooner. After all, you only need 3 things to understand calculus; basic algebra, how to find a slope, and some basic notions about limits.

Aye, true, calculus should be taught earlier, then it could be in-line with classical physics. But alas, I fear it will never happen, though it should.

 

math teacher (R. Lyons), he thinks that math is so slow, it's confusing for children, and I tend to agree with that.

That's an interesting perspective that I've never thought of before. I do agree that all the maths we are taught (in high school) is too slow. I think it makes maths seem boring, as well as possibly making it harder to get a proper grasp of the subject.

 

There are some countries where high school academic life is more, well, more academic. They work harder, for longer hours, and at more advanced topics. It's a shame it's not like that in the UK.

[ydoaPs]

We should start an SFN distance learning homeschool!

[foofighter]

and what do med schools or biology grad schools want - would they rather have a B in calc physics or an A in alg physics?

[5614]

This is an American system, so I have no idea, but if no one here can answer you then I'm sure you can find it out on a med school website. If not then get a contact email address at where you're thinking of studying and send them an email asking which they prefer, they're all friendly people!

[abateNth]

is it a universal axiom that grad/med schools would prefer a B in calc phys than an A in alg phys? i'm guessing they'd rather have a B in alg phys then a C in calc phys though...or would they even prefer a C in calc to a B in alg phys?

 

also, if you have learned calc 1 and 2, then is physics with calc gonna be that much harder than algebra physics? in other words, is it the calc that makes calc physics hard, or the physics (and therefore even algebra physics is tough)? thx

 

Many take both, as theoretical is calc based, application what with its data is best suited to alg. Most I went to school with that went on into science fields expressed interest in algebraic solutions; because them computers can handle tricks thrown at it to emulate formulas, better than expecting it to solve, say, differential equations at the infinitessimal range.

The tricks you learn to manipulate with in the algebraic studies of physics are invaluable, because they are much quicker, and believe it or not, often end in more accurate results. Theoretical, though, needs the encompassing affect of as many variables as you can include.

Both are viable, and it depends on your course of study.

[DJBruce]

I live in what I would call a average normal American public school. I am a sophomore and have taken the most advanced classes my school offers and I can not even take calculus til my senior year. Here is a brief description of our math system. (We use a course of books designed by the University of Chicago.

 

7th grade-introduction to algebra

8th grade-Algebra 1

9th grade-Geometry

Now here's where it gets a little weird

10th grade- We do a lab class where you cover Algebra 2 and the first half of a book called Functions, Statistics and Trigonometry.

11th grade- we finish Functions, Statistics and Trigonometry We then finish a book call PreCalculus desreate mathematics. (this is a mostly self taught lab class)

12th grade-We take AP Statistics and a Calculus course that allows students to take the AP test (sorry I don't know which one).

 

And nothing beyond Algebra one which can be taken as a three year class if you can not pass the normal class.

 

Maybe I'm confused or is Americas education system just that bad and slow.