Basic Science is Duller than Basic Humanities

[Marat]

A great problem for creative, imaginative, and energetic students just starting to learn science is that they can't do anything creative with their knowledge until they have endured many years of just trying to learn what others tell them has already been established as 'right.' Labs which would be fascinating if you were a scientist designing an experiment to discover something new are deadly dull when you're a student just trying to get the 'right' result. At Harvard, every student in every subject has to submit a thesis for an honors B.A. except for physics, since the Physics Department long ago decided that students at that stage in that field would have nothing worth saying in an undergraduate thesis.

 

But in contrast, from day one of studying Sophocles' plays or Melville's novels, you are, as a junior high school student, not only invited to develop your own theory and present your own creative insights, but you are even required to do so if you want to do well. So if you are really creative and enjoy not just absorbing knowledge but also developing it with your own ideas mixed in, how do you tolerate waiting until you're 22 to do this in physics when everyone in the humanities or social sciences gets to do that at 12?

[hypervalent_iodine]

In science, you spend your undergraduate training and developing the skills you need to be able adapt and apply them. There are basic and fundamental laws and theory that you need to have a firm grasp on before you can extend them or even challenge them. Designing an experiment or testing your theories without these skills has an obvious safety issue, since most science courses you do also incorporate laboratory contact hours. Yes, they are prescriptive and yes, they can be boring, but they are absolutely necessary. I tutor first years myself and I can promise you that I wouldn't want 99% of them anywhere near the lab I work in - they simply don't have the technical skills. Even some second and third years scare me with how unfamiliar they are with basic practical expertise.

 

Asides from that, I think you are wrong to assume that undergraduate students do not get given opportunities to discover things and exercise their ingenuity. When I was in undergrad I was accepted into an advanced study program. In second and third year this program allowed me to take on projects within proper scientific laboratories, where I was given a project by whoever my supervisor was and asked to work towards certain goals. In my last year of undergrad I was allowed to develop my own synthetic protocol and act it out under the supervision of PhD and post doctoral students in the lab. Excluding that program, there are also countless subjects whose laboratory contact hours require that students use their skill sets to design their own ways towards a common goal (under supervision, of course). Usually these are found in 3rd year courses, but there are also 1st and 2nd year courses that do a similar job.

 

Thirdly, comparing science degrees to a BA is like comparing apples to oranges. Creative insights aren't something that falls under the category of a fundamental theory - it's not something you teach or need to be taught to be able to do. As well, there is no safety issue to speak of in developing and investigating your own theories in the arts.

[Mr Skeptic]

So if you are really creative and enjoy not just absorbing knowledge but also developing it with your own ideas mixed in, how do you tolerate waiting until you're 22 to do this in physics when everyone in the humanities or social sciences gets to do that at 12?

 

That's what you have to do to learn physics. It's not easy to comprehend it, and if you're just trying to memorize equations you are going to fail. See for example the paradoxes of relativity. There are no paradoxes in relativity. There's no paradoxes in quantum mechanics either.

[Genecks]

This issue may be more field related.

 

As a biologist and a person whose done work with psychologists and sociologist, I find you can get out there and do research. Some of it may be physical labor, but it's still data collection, which can either help prove or disprove a particular theory/hypothesis.

 

I'm not a hardcore physicists, but I could see how you would want to learn everything that has been tried so that you do not re-invent the wheel. However, they may be times when you can do physical labor that involves data collection to a particular research theory/hypothesis; and that will often allow a person to get involved with research.

 

I'm in a research project at the moment where I would gladly grab about 20 kids fresh out of high school who can think about neuroscience, cell biology, and have patience to sit down for at least 8 hours in front of a computer screen. I'm not team leader, so I can't do that.

 

I'm not even expecting them to understand cell-to-cell signalling or genetics. There's only a handful of things that need to be understood, and once that's done, most people could do the project.

 

Even some juniors in high school would be good enough. Just need some people with intelligence who are good at understanding biology.

 

There are definitely aspects of research that could use more people. That would severely cut down on the amount of time particular people have to use in order to accomplish certain projects. I'm talking about the economics of reaching maximum efficiency.

 

I just believe the deal is that some professors are straight-up snobs and have a severe pessimistic look on the capability of some students.

 

There are surely times when you have too many researchers in a lab and not enough equipment. When something reaches that point, then it's just too cramped and you can't really get anything done.

 

I've been inside many labs of professors, and I don't really believe them anymore when they tell me they don't have anymore room for researchers. If I don't see someone sitting down at the table using equipment, at least one person, then apparently they need another person.

 

In other words, having enough people means all persons' schedules are in accordance so that lab work is constantly being conducted. If that's not the case, I don't believe the professor. Otherwise, I think the professor is an inefficient manager and might want to look into how to get more people in the lab in a more orderly and scheduled manner.

 

In reference to the work world, there are often a lot of ignorant, stupid people out there. However, after enough time working somewhere and showing their potential, they are given more skills and knowledge to complete newer tasks. In a lab, I don't think it's necessary to indoctrinate a person with all the knowledge necessary to understand something so that he/she can do her part of the research to help the entire research ground. People simply need to be trained (specialized) in a particular task and do it. They need to be asked to not ask too many questions and simply do their job well.

 

The major issue and complaint I've heard from professors is that people will work for about a year or so and then leave.

 

Well, there is some truth to that. That same thing often happens in the work world, too. And it's a major problem.

 

However, in academia, I think the situation can be a little different. If a student is a freshman and asking to be in research and can adequately describe why he/she wants to be in that group and be in their field, then professors are missing a great opportunity to enlist that person to keep them around. The student may a little naive and may find eventual fun and interest in the research to want to stay on the team for a Ph.D or something like that.

 

Personally, I'm still a little annoyed with professors I've asked if I could join their research teams. That's time wasted that I could have been there, gained skills, and maybe gained enough interest to stick around as part of their research. I've found major interests in many of the labs at my university, but I am satisfied with where I am now, as I'm actually doing something rather than hustling professors.

 

Perhaps part of the issue is the pre-meds who just want enough credentials to get into medical school, and surely, they are a pain and need to be segregated. I suspect many professors are skeptical of students, believing that many of them are pre-meds rather than die-hard scientists.

 

Despite what lines of thinking professors may have, they could still be wrong about their choice in researchers. I find it humorous when people get their Ph.D in a professor's lab and then go on to medical school and do little to nothing with the skills and knowledge they just obtained. Pathetic.

 

To summarize, I don't often believe professors when they tell me they don't have room. I believe this is code for them not trusting students or calling them stupid.

 

My advice: Do your best in the mind-numbing B.S. that you have to deal with. Try not to hustle the professors too much, as that can become time consuming. Try asking professors for redirections to others who made need researchers. But I wouldn't suggest spending too much time. Focus more on your school work. When you get into higher-level classes, sometimes professors talk about their research, teach aspects of it, and are even desiring assistants who make As in these classes. So, I think you'll find a point where hard work and doing your best will pan out.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Genecks

[hypervalent_iodine]

This issue may be more field relevant.

 

As a biologist and a person whose done work with psychologists and sociologist, I find you can get out there and do research. Some of it may be physical labor, but it's still data collection, which can either help prove or disprove a particular theory/hypothesis.

 

I'm not a hardcore physicists, but I could see how you would want to learn everything that has been tried so that you do not re-invent the wheel. However, they may be times when you can do physical labor that involves data collection to a particular research theory/hypothesis; and that will often allow a person to get involved with research.

 

This is definitely true. They key is to get out there and talk to people - a lot of people in their undergrad seem to have a perpetual fear of actually going up and talking to their professors or other researchers about getting involved.

 

I'm in a research project at the moment where I would gladly grab about 20 kids fresh out of high school who can think about neuroscience, cell biology, and have patience to sit down for at least 8 hours in front of a computer screen. I'm not team leader, so I can't do that.

 

I'm not even expecting them to understand cell-to-cell signalling or genetics. There's only a handful of things that need to be understood, and once that's done, most people could do the project.

 

Even some juniors in high school would be good enough. Just need some people with intelligence who are good at understanding biology.

 

This very much depends on what kind of labs they're looking at. I wouldn't, for instance, let someone out of high school or in their first year near a chemistry or PC2 lab. Computer based projects are harmless and often require little foundational knowledge. My point from before was that many projects do require more background understanding (practical or theoretical).

 

There are definitely aspects of research that could use more people. That would severely cut down on the amount of time particular people have to use in order to accomplish certain projects. I'm talking about the economics of reaching maximum efficiency.

 

I just believe the deal is that some professors are straight-up snobs and have a severe pessimistic look on the capability of some students.

 

There are surely times when you have too many researchers in a lab and not enough equipment. When something reaches that point, then it's just too cramped and you can't really get anything done.

 

I've been inside many labs of professors, and I don't really believe them anymore when they tell me they don't have anymore room for researchers. If I don't see someone sitting down at the table using equipment, at least one person, then apparently they need another person.

 

In other words, having enough people means all persons' schedules are in accordance so that lab work is constantly being conducted. If that's not the case, I don't believe the professor. Otherwise, I think the professor is an inefficient manager and might want to look into how to get more people in the lab in a more orderly and scheduled manner.

 

I have read some of your posts before, Genecks, and I am of the opinion that you are quite an embittered person when it comes to working in labs - perhaps rightfully so, I do not know. There are sometimes reasons other than 'there is not enough space' for a professor or other research group leader to not want to take on other students. For instance, I know of professors who are only part time and do not have the time to give extra students their full attention. I actually think that people who take on too many students, even if not at 'maximal efficiency', are not doing the right thing. If they have too many students they cannot direct the correct time that each person is due and often times, students can fall because of a lack of proper supervision. Especially people doing honours. There are of course the labs that use their post docs and RA's to do the supervising. This is generally not a correct way to manage things as RA's and post docs do not have the understanding of the course work and criteria that a student must make to meet university requirements for what they are doing - i.e. they do not (usually) understand the system well enough to actually be able to supervise properly.

 

In reference to the work world, there are often a lot of ignorant, stupid people out there. However, after enough time working somewhere and showing their potential, they are given more skills and knowledge to complete newer tasks. In a lab, I don't think it's necessary to indoctrinate a person with all the knowledge necessary to understand something so that he/she can do her part of the research to help the entire research ground. People simply need to be trained (specialized) in a particular task and do it. They need to be asked to not ask too many questions and simply do their job well.

 

This is true, but the OP is saying that people aren't allowed to explore their 'creativity' in undergraduate science. Getting a placement in a lab as you have described it really only requires basic practical techniques. Exploring one's creativity and testing theories requires more in depth and expansive foundations to be set within their theoretical knowledge as well as their practical expertise.

 

The major issue and complaint I've heard from professors is that people will work for about a year or so and then leave.

 

Well, there is some truth to that. That same thing often happens in the work world, too. And it's a major problem.

 

However, in academia, I think the situation can be a little different. If a student is a freshman and asking to be in research and can adequately describe why he/she wants to be in that group and be in their field, then professors are missing a great opportunity to enlist that person to keep them around. The student may a little naive and may find eventual fun and interest in the research to want to stay on the team for a Ph.D or something like that.

 

The problem that professors have with first year students is that they are a safety hazard - they have no proper lab experience. It is true that you can train them, but it is far easier and far safer to train them in an environment where they are strictly supervised and taught how to use equipment and various chemicals/biological specimens. I personally would take on people at the end of first year, if they were interested and showed commitment (as with you though, I can't as I am only in my PhD). Some people won't, and it is within their right to if they don't feel that a student will be able to operate safely within their lab - especially if that lab works with dangerous chemicals or biological specimens.

 

 

 

 

[Genecks]

To the OP:

I don't think much creativity will be found until graduate school. Personally, right now, I could think of a variety of neuroscience projects that I could work on if I had an army of researchers and enough funds. I've been particularly interested in the anatomical and physiological rebuilding of the nervous system of Rana sylvatica after cryogenic hibernation. I asked a researcher who works on cryogenics about this. He emailed saying he wasn't sure about anyone working on the rebuilding of the involuntary nervous system.

 

I find I was able to develop this idea after learning enough material. This came about from reading, learning, and spending time learning the basics. If I didn't keep learning more and more material, I wouldn't be able to know the basics to understand the parts of things I want to study and investigate. Furthermore I wouldn't know if what I wanted to investigate is particularly cutting edge.

 

A person needs a foundation in order to build upon. I believe there is eventually a level where a person develops creative, unique ideas.

 

Because I some knowledge of neuroethology, I know that there is also some bug species I could investigate instead. I could also, if I could figure it out, perhaps investigate tardigrades and the nervous system under severely cold conditions.

 

To hypervalent:

 

I agree with many of your points, hypervalent_iodine.

 

I'm not bitter about lab work. I am bitter about many things, but in particular I dislike being mislead, jacked around, and having my time wasted. I felt like a lot of that occurred while I was first looking for research. I try to balance my pessimism and optimism these days.

 

I agree that it's difficult to find ways to get people to start up on a project and start doing things for themselves. There are many increases in technological advancement to help with this issue, and these advances, I believe, greatly help. Get a group set-up with Skype, webcam technology, email, etc... and you can have people digitally supervising the work of others. Many professionals are dumbfounded when using such technologies and may even be skeptical of such technologies and their efficiency. I don't blame them, as I at times am skeptical of the effiency of particular web collaborations. I've worked on web collaborations since I was about 14. The first one was a video game design collaboration with people from different parts of the U.S.. This wasn't a school project. It was just something a bunch of us gamers did in order to make a cool server with gameplay and awesome maps. This was maybe in year 2000.

 

I guess you could see people as a security concern if you want. That just needs more control needs to be implemented. It's not simple. Not many people know how to use particular types of equipment. But I often wonder if a person did make a really great recorded tutorial, then it would be easier to not have to supervise people. I often question if there is a way to get around hands-on training. I think extremely effective communication is required. But surely, that means a longer video to watch or more interactive flash programs to make... or something like that....

 

As a funny point, though, I still see Ph.D students, graduate students, and research assistants failing to prevent chemical contamination or biological contamination when working with particular supplies. Even though people get training, sometimes they forget even the most essential things. I have yet to figure out if that's because many universities are competition-based and so emphasis on particular topics are easily dismissed because people are always rushing to get things done and get a good grade.

 

Me: "So, why did you take the pipette and suck up the solution from the batch rather than pouring the batch into a clean beaker?"

 

I see that wayyyyy too many times.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Genecks

[hypervalent_iodine]

That is unfortunate. I have always been lucky enough to have become friends with many of my professors before I decided to work with them. I guess that comes from having a small cohort - pretty common for chemistry where I am.

 

Some professors certainly are dumbfounded with new technology, though I tend to believe that it's more a case of skepticism. As you say, you can't really blame them. I've been to conferences where Skype has been used and it's always gone well, though I am not sure how it would work with lab supervision. Hands on tutoring has always worked best for myself as well as the kids that I tutor - in my experience, anyway.

 

Security issue - definitely. Especially in chemistry and labs working with highly contagious specimens. At my uni we had to massively increase the security of the chemistry building because people would just walk in and take stuff like iodine and various other things for making all manner of drugs. And I certainly wouldn't say that all students are honest, so giving them access to fully equipped labs would definitely be a problem in terms of security. You could argue the same for anyone in a lab really, I think it's a case of picking the ones who really want to do science that you'd be after. That's kind of a hard thing to say if they're fresh in uni/college.

 

In reference to your last point, I have come to learn never to underestimate how stupid some people can be. If you do much tutoring or you've ever worked in retail or hospitality, you'll know what I'm talking about.

[D H]

A great problem for creative, imaginative, and energetic students just starting to learn science is that they can't do anything creative with their knowledge until they have endured many years of just trying to learn what others tell them has already been established as 'right.' Labs which would be fascinating if you were a scientist designing an experiment to discover something new are deadly dull when you're a student just trying to get the 'right' result.

Yes, undergrads in the sciences and engineering most likely are not going to contribute something new to their field, at least on their own. That doesn't mean they can't do anything creative. Problem solving requires and instills creativity. Nor does that doesn't mean they cannot participate in research. There are plenty of opportunities for undergraduates to participate in research in the sciences and engineering.

 

Personally, I found those basic humanities courses to be the most boring, the dullest, and the easiest, of all my college classes.

 

 

 

 

At Harvard, every student in every subject has to submit a thesis for an honors B.A. except for physics, since the Physics Department long ago decided that students at that stage in that field would have nothing worth saying in an undergraduate thesis.

First off, what does this statement have to do with your thesis that basic science is duller than basic humanities?

 

Secondly, it is a false statement. A student at Harvard can graduate with honors, and even high honors, without submitting a thesis in biology, chemistry, engineering, just to name a few. Had you said "highest honors", your statement would have been closer to the mark, but still incorrect. An undergrad physics student can write a thesis, and getting an A will knock out a lower grade. It is just that the physics department at Harvard that does not absolutely require a thesis to obtain "highest honors". It is not the only one.

[TonyMcC]

Perhaps there is too much analysis going on here. If a student genuinely finds physics and science boring and the arts and humanities interesting then perhaps they should study the arts and humanities. Whatever "floats your boat".

[D H]

Perhaps there is too much analysis going on here. If a student genuinely finds physics and science boring and the arts and humanities interesting then perhaps they should study the arts and humanities. Whatever "floats your boat".

Perhaps. Then again, if Marat had said it in those words my response would have been different. As is, the opening post is an attack on the sciences -- and this is a science forum.

[John Cuthber]

"But in contrast, from day one of studying Sophocles' plays or Melville's novels, you are, as a junior high school student, not only invited to develop your own theory and present your own creative insights, but you are even required to do so if you want to do well. So if you are really creative and enjoy not just absorbing knowledge but also developing it with your own ideas mixed in, how do you tolerate waiting until you're 22 to do this in physics when everyone in the humanities or social sciences gets to do that at 12? "

 

It's true that (some) 12 year olds can come up with their own ideas about a play or novel.

The thing is that that's the whole problem. Even a 12 year old can do it.

 

Nothing has really been created by this year's 12 year olds that wasn't created by last year's 12 year olds.

Since there's no right or wrong answer it doesn't tell you anything.

 

The merit of science is that, once you have sorted out what is already known, you can genuinely find new things that might actually matter.

Having an original thought about the humanities is like deciding which chocolates you like best. It's creative, in that it produces an answer that you hadn't produced before, but it has no consequence.

[mississippichem]

Science is extremely complicated. We're attempting to figure out the universe here. It takes a while for a student to become versed enough in the math and the languauge to be able to work side by side with the pros. As has been said in this thread, there are plenty of opportunities for undergraduate research.

Science is for the patient. It takes a while to accomplish something in science. However, when one does accomplish something the reward can be enormously intellectually rewarding and sometimes even financially rewarding.

[Marat]

I was thinking more of younger students, such as those in junior high school. How are you going to get energetic, creative, original-thinkers at that stage to accept years of didactic instruction in natural science when the humanities and social sciences offer the immedate opportunity for creative engagement right away? If you promise the average seventh grader that if he absorbs the scientific material quietly for the next 15 years he will be in a position after getting his Ph.D. in physics to do much more interesting and creative work in black holes, dark matter, and the origin of the universe than someone in the humanities or social sciences may ever do, will he have the patience to accept your offer?

 

DH: I'm sorry I compressed all the details about Harvard honors degrees, but I thought the audience might not be interested in learning the differences between a general cum laude degree based on grade point average and the final exams and the option of magna or summa cum laude degrees 'in your department' if you write a thesis in addition. Back in the day, physics was the only department I knew where the students were not even allowed the option of submitting a thesis because, as a physics major explained it to me, 'you can't write anything worth reading in that field at that stage.'

[D H]

I was thinking more of younger students, such as those in junior high school. How are you going to get energetic, creative, original-thinkers at that stage to accept years of didactic instruction in natural science when the humanities and social sciences offer the immedate opportunity for creative engagement right away?

You are looking at it wrong. First off, I dispute your contention that someone in junior high can add anything of value to the humanities and social sciences. You can teach someone in junior high to appreciate a Picasso painting, a Rodin sculpture, a Mann novel. There is beauty in math and science, too. Some can see that beauty, some apparently cannot. To those who can see that beauty, just learning can suffice. It isn't a struggle or boring. It's beautiful.

 

 

 

 

[swansont]

But in contrast, from day one of studying Sophocles' plays or Melville's novels, you are, as a junior high school student, not only invited to develop your own theory and present your own creative insights, but you are even required to do so if you want to do well.

 

They are not required to be unique insights. If someone has made them before, how valuable are they (to the literature community)? How is this different from doing a science lab?

[TonyMcC]

I am having difficulty with the general idea that if a young person cannot immediately invent something new then he/she will be bored. When I was very young I wondered how things worked and took delight in building working models from "Meccano" and found things like chemistry sets, magnifying glasses and toy parachutes made from string and handkerchiefs all very interesting. Unfortunately I had to leave school at 16 and so never got to university. I am sure that given the chance I would have been satisfied with learning more and more of "what is" before going on to wonder about "what might be". I would think this kind of enquiring mind is common among young students that go on to study physics and science. Patience (imo) is not a necessary requirement where a genuine interest is present.

[D H]

I am having difficulty with the general idea that if a young person cannot immediately invent something new then he/she will be bored. When I was very young I wondered how things worked and took delight in building working models from "Meccano" and found things like chemistry sets, magnifying glasses and toy parachutes made from string and handkerchiefs all very interesting.

 

That is exactly what I was talking about in post #14. Some can see the beauty in math and science, and if you can see that beauty learning about math and science is anything but boring.

 

[CharonY]

This is an important aspect of undergrad teaching. It is (or should not) only be about gaining the knowledge in order to be able to contribute to actual research later in grad school and maybe even further on. One basic element is simply to appreciate nature, and figuring out the inner workings and how little we actually know about it. If one does not acknowledge that, actual science can be perceived as incredibly dull.

[hypervalent_iodine]

I was thinking more of younger students, such as those in junior high school. How are you going to get energetic, creative, original-thinkers at that stage to accept years of didactic instruction in natural science when the humanities and social sciences offer the immedate opportunity for creative engagement right away? If you promise the average seventh grader that if he absorbs the scientific material quietly for the next 15 years he will be in a position after getting his Ph.D. in physics to do much more interesting and creative work in black holes, dark matter, and the origin of the universe than someone in the humanities or social sciences may ever do, will he have the patience to accept your offer?

 

I think your opinion of what is 'interesting' and what is not might me a touch on the bias side. I loved chemistry in high school and I found it incredibly interesting. Physics on the other hand, I found completely dull (no offence to the physicists in here - you'll take pleasure in knowing that I have since seen my folly).

[Marat]

While you can appreciate the beauty of a painting by Picasso, that experience is quite different from being able to fulfill the desire to criticize it our do your own painting. Because the humanities and social sciences require less acquisition of formal knowledge to get started, people who have an interventionist intellect and want to start right away with their own theoretical development of what they are given can get going right away. But people who in seventh grade want to start questioning Galilean relativity as a useful perspective on physics and would like to argue creatively that Aristotle offered a more useful approach are just plain wrong and are simply shut down by the experts. In contrast, someone could argue already in seventh grade that Melville's novels are coded discussionsof homosexuality or that Rilke's poetry is better than Goethe's and no one could simply shut him down in the same way.

[A Tripolation]

I was utterly bored during my social science courses. They were mind-numbingly easy. I never studied for a sociology test. It was all common sense, with the exception of some foreign terminology.

 

I am a Physics and English dual major. I see the beauty in both. However, I accept that it would be immensely hard for me to become a good research physicist or engineer without sitting through all the maths required.

 

I can go out right now and probably contribute some useful analysis on Waiting for Godot or some other piece of literature. I'm even in the process of writing three different novels. But I can't go and make contributions to the theories of electricity and magnetism, or construct an efficient heating system without a great deal more training and education.

 

So yes, it may be duller to be an undergrad physics student, but I would argue that it's entertaining to be a liberal arts major because it is so easy. You can start contributing immediately. Only a mastery of words and some critical thinking is required. Almost anyone can do it. The same is not true of physics, engineering, or mathematics.

Edited January 17, 2011 by A Tripolation

[D H]

A snarky way to look at it: The liberal arts haven't made any advances in teaching techniques in the last 2000+ years. We on the other side of the great divide between the two cultures have.

 

A less snarky way to look at it: One consequence of the scientific revolution was that it forced the technical side of the two cultures to reevaluate the techniques used to train future mathematicians, scientists, and engineers. The well-honed and well-honored techniques used to train future leaders of industry, diplomats, lawyers, etc. simply did not work all that well for the burgeoning world of science.

 

One of the key techniques that has worked for 2000+ years in the liberal arts world is the concept of a reading list. Students are given reading lists (lists that grow ever more voluminous as one progresses up the academic food chain) of writings of the great minds. This concept simply does not work for technical education, at least not at the introductory levels.

 

The reading list concept is employed to some extent in technical education, but only in a modified form and only for highest level undergraduate courses and higher. We don't read the great masters for one thing. We instead read very recently published technical papers, most of which are written by great bumblers rather than great masters. Another difference is the size of the reading list. Ours is downright tiny compared to what graduate students in the liberal arts are expected to read. You guys are expected to read thousands of pages a week. We struggle to get through a very small number of five to ten page technical papers in that time.

 

There's a dirty little secret that underlies much of the technical education at the elementary, high school, and lower undergraduate levels. The scientific knowledge presented as so beautifully consistent, so nicely compact, and so very well thought out was not always that way. The initial developments of almost any technical body of knowledge were overly verbose and more than a bit bumbling. Teaching that verbosity and bumbling around just gets in the way of the primary goal of technical education, which is to teach the underlying concepts. It is that pretty picture that technical educators want students to understand, and thus those underlying concepts are presented in the form of a pretty picture. Developing that pretty picture takes quite a long time. The main reason educators in technical fields use the reading list technique at the graduate level is because the pretty picture has not yet been developed.

Edited January 17, 2011 by D H

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

First off, what does this statement have to do with your thesis that basic science is duller than basic humanities?

 

Secondly, it is a false statement. A student at Harvard can graduate with honors, and even high honors, without submitting a thesis in biology, chemistry, engineering, just to name a few. Had you said "highest honors", your statement would have been closer to the mark, but still incorrect. An undergrad physics student can write a thesis, and getting an A will knock out a lower grade. It is just that the physics department at Harvard that does not absolutely require a thesis to obtain "highest honors". It is not the only one.

I am an undergraduate physics student (not at Harvard) who is required to perform novel research and write a thesis for my honors degree. So far, I haven't heard any complaints about "there's just nothing I can write about" -- in fact, the TA for my electromagnetism course had published papers on relativity while still an undergraduate.

[mississippichem]

I am an undergraduate physics student (not at Harvard) who is required to perform novel research and write a thesis for my honors degree. So far, I haven't heard any complaints about "there's just nothing I can write about" -- in fact, the TA for my electromagnetism course had published papers on relativity while still an undergraduate.

 

It's also quite easy, in the chemistry world at least, to get listed as a coauthor in a journal published paper. I assume there is a similar situation in physics. My degree also requires original research with a thesis by the way.

[D H]

I did a senior thesis in college as well. I expressed in interest in computational physics. My advisor wrote on the board

 

[math]x_{n+1} = 4 \lambda x_n (1-x_n),\qquad x_n, \lambda\in(0,1)[/math]

 

and asked me said to tell him as much as I could figure out about this by the end of the semester. This was back in 1977; that factor of four is typically omitted from the logistics equation (with lambda varying from 0 to 4 instead of from 0 to 1). He didn't tell me that this seemingly simple equation had a name nor did he tell me that this seemingly simple equation was all the rage in computational physics. In fact, he asked me not to do a literature search. He wanted me to find out what I could on my own.

Edited January 17, 2011 by D H