Is high school physics necessary for college admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the question is: should a non-science/math kid take a class in which it’s a given s/he will get a bad grade? Or should they instead substitute a different science class, one in which they will hopefully get a decent grade? I mean, why insist on taking physics if the kid is not going to do well in it? That’s just setting him up for failure.

Every kid should take Biology, Chemistry and Physics. Just like every kid should take literature, even if it means getting a bad grade. Courses are for learning material, not for getting grades.

Thank you. This is the point. Just because you are not a “writing kid”, should you be excused from civics or history classes simply because you have taken literature? Science is important in today’s society. Every citizen should have basic exposure to chem, physics and bio.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My younger is a 9th grader in a W high school. I am pretty sure this is the first grade for which physics is a graduation requirement.

Aren’t the “wHigh Schools” just parent of MCPS and therefore MD public schools? Why not just say MCPS or MD?

I get that TJ literally has different graduation requirements. But “W schools” don’t, do they?

Said parent here. I thought different high schools in the County can have different offerings. For example, different classes at different high schools are used to satisfy the state technology credit graduation requirement. I may be wrong, but I did not think that the newly state mandated science requirement for graduation stated physics, but rather at my child’s high school, physics is the only offering that satisfies it. Perhaps my understanding of this was wrong, though, so please feel free to explain it better as I would not say that our high school does a great job of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the question is: should a non-science/math kid take a class in which it’s a given s/he will get a bad grade? Or should they instead substitute a different science class, one in which they will hopefully get a decent grade? I mean, why insist on taking physics if the kid is not going to do well in it? That’s just setting him up for failure.

Every kid should take Biology, Chemistry and Physics. Just like every kid should take literature, even if it means getting a bad grade. Courses are for learning material, not for getting grades.

Thank you. This is the point. Just because you are not a “writing kid”, should you be excused from civics or history classes simply because you have taken literature? Science is important in today’s society. Every citizen should have basic exposure to chem, physics and bio.

DP. I see your point, but there should be chemistry and physics options that are not math based - concepts only. You do NOT need to know formulas to understand basic concepts in these classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the question is: should a non-science/math kid take a class in which it’s a given s/he will get a bad grade? Or should they instead substitute a different science class, one in which they will hopefully get a decent grade? I mean, why insist on taking physics if the kid is not going to do well in it? That’s just setting him up for failure.

Every kid should take Biology, Chemistry and Physics. Just like every kid should take literature, even if it means getting a bad grade. Courses are for learning material, not for getting grades.

Thank you. This is the point. Just because you are not a “writing kid”, should you be excused from civics or history classes simply because you have taken literature? Science is important in today’s society. Every citizen should have basic exposure to chem, physics and bio.

DP. I see your point, but there should be chemistry and physics options that are not math based - concepts only. You do NOT need to know formulas to understand basic concepts in these classes.

No. I disagree. We have to show our kids that math is the language of science. It is the only way they will realize that science is built from fundamentals and axioms. The rigor matters. Otherwise, you get people who think of what you term “concepts” like you think of a piece of literature- open to interpretation. We have get it across to kids that scientific “theories” are really nothing like concepts or theories in the humanities. This is not to say that scientific consensus cannot be challenged - but it cannot eve challenged in the same way you might challenge a legal opinion. They are not the same thing. And appreciating the connection between science and math is the only way to get that across. Trying to teach physics without math is like trying to teach history without documents. It just makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the question is: should a non-science/math kid take a class in which it’s a given s/he will get a bad grade? Or should they instead substitute a different science class, one in which they will hopefully get a decent grade? I mean, why insist on taking physics if the kid is not going to do well in it? That’s just setting him up for failure.

Every kid should take Biology, Chemistry and Physics. Just like every kid should take literature, even if it means getting a bad grade. Courses are for learning material, not for getting grades.

Thank you. This is the point. Just because you are not a “writing kid”, should you be excused from civics or history classes simply because you have taken literature? Science is important in today’s society. Every citizen should have basic exposure to chem, physics and bio.

DP. I see your point, but there should be chemistry and physics options that are not math based - concepts only. You do NOT need to know formulas to understand basic concepts in these classes.

No. I disagree. We have to show our kids that math is the language of science. It is the only way they will realize that science is built from fundamentals and axioms. The rigor matters. Otherwise, you get people who think of what you term “concepts” like you think of a piece of literature- open to interpretation. We have get it across to kids that scientific “theories” are really nothing like concepts or theories in the humanities. This is not to say that scientific consensus cannot be challenged - but it cannot eve challenged in the same way you might challenge a legal opinion. They are not the same thing. And appreciating the connection between science and math is the only way to get that across. Trying to teach physics without math is like trying to teach history without documents. It just makes no sense.

And I disagree with you. Kids who simply are not good with math get nothing (except incredible stress and anxiety) out of science classes that could be interesting, but instead are heavy on higher math and formulas. I had a wonderful physics teacher in high school who engaged the class in the principles of physics without turning it into another math class. It can be done. And it should be an option for kids who have no plans or desire to pursue college level science or math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the question is: should a non-science/math kid take a class in which it’s a given s/he will get a bad grade? Or should they instead substitute a different science class, one in which they will hopefully get a decent grade? I mean, why insist on taking physics if the kid is not going to do well in it? That’s just setting him up for failure.

Every kid should take Biology, Chemistry and Physics. Just like every kid should take literature, even if it means getting a bad grade. Courses are for learning material, not for getting grades.

Thank you. This is the point. Just because you are not a “writing kid”, should you be excused from civics or history classes simply because you have taken literature? Science is important in today’s society. Every citizen should have basic exposure to chem, physics and bio.

DP. I see your point, but there should be chemistry and physics options that are not math based - concepts only. You do NOT need to know formulas to understand basic concepts in these classes.

No. I disagree. We have to show our kids that math is the language of science. It is the only way they will realize that science is built from fundamentals and axioms. The rigor matters. Otherwise, you get people who think of what you term “concepts” like you think of a piece of literature- open to interpretation. We have get it across to kids that scientific “theories” are really nothing like concepts or theories in the humanities. This is not to say that scientific consensus cannot be challenged - but it cannot eve challenged in the same way you might challenge a legal opinion. They are not the same thing. And appreciating the connection between science and math is the only way to get that across. Trying to teach physics without math is like trying to teach history without documents. It just makes no sense.

And I disagree with you. Kids who simply are not good with math get nothing (except incredible stress and anxiety) out of science classes that could be interesting, but instead are heavy on higher math and formulas. I had a wonderful physics teacher in high school who engaged the class in the principles of physics without turning it into another math class. It can be done. And it should be an option for kids who have no plans or desire to pursue college level science or math.

I agree with this. A person can respect that science involves much math, but not understand all the math and still enjoy science.

I am not an expert but I have read a biography about Charles Darwin. I don't remember it describing his work as terribly math based at all but yet he (and others) are credited with developing one of the most important scientific theories to date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the question is: should a non-science/math kid take a class in which it’s a given s/he will get a bad grade? Or should they instead substitute a different science class, one in which they will hopefully get a decent grade? I mean, why insist on taking physics if the kid is not going to do well in it? That’s just setting him up for failure.

Every kid should take Biology, Chemistry and Physics. Just like every kid should take literature, even if it means getting a bad grade. Courses are for learning material, not for getting grades.

Thank you. This is the point. Just because you are not a “writing kid”, should you be excused from civics or history classes simply because you have taken literature? Science is important in today’s society. Every citizen should have basic exposure to chem, physics and bio.

DP. I see your point, but there should be chemistry and physics options that are not math based - concepts only. You do NOT need to know formulas to understand basic concepts in these classes.

No. I disagree. We have to show our kids that math is the language of science. It is the only way they will realize that science is built from fundamentals and axioms. The rigor matters. Otherwise, you get people who think of what you term “concepts” like you think of a piece of literature- open to interpretation. We have get it across to kids that scientific “theories” are really nothing like concepts or theories in the humanities. This is not to say that scientific consensus cannot be challenged - but it cannot eve challenged in the same way you might challenge a legal opinion. They are not the same thing. And appreciating the connection between science and math is the only way to get that across. Trying to teach physics without math is like trying to teach history without documents. It just makes no sense.

And I disagree with you. Kids who simply are not good with math get nothing (except incredible stress and anxiety) out of science classes that could be interesting, but instead are heavy on higher math and formulas. I had a wonderful physics teacher in high school who engaged the class in the principles of physics without turning it into another math class. It can be done. And it should be an option for kids who have no plans or desire to pursue college level science or math.

My kid hates writing. I still expect him to take classes where they will judge him on his writing. At least through high school. The same should be true of math. Honestly math evolved to explain questions we had about the universe. How do you teach the relationship between acceleration, velocity and distance without invoking calculus (even if you don’t call it calculus)? Without math, these things looks like arbitrary equations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the question is: should a non-science/math kid take a class in which it’s a given s/he will get a bad grade? Or should they instead substitute a different science class, one in which they will hopefully get a decent grade? I mean, why insist on taking physics if the kid is not going to do well in it? That’s just setting him up for failure.

Every kid should take Biology, Chemistry and Physics. Just like every kid should take literature, even if it means getting a bad grade. Courses are for learning material, not for getting grades.

Thank you. This is the point. Just because you are not a “writing kid”, should you be excused from civics or history classes simply because you have taken literature? Science is important in today’s society. Every citizen should have basic exposure to chem, physics and bio.

DP. I see your point, but there should be chemistry and physics options that are not math based - concepts only. You do NOT need to know formulas to understand basic concepts in these classes.

No. I disagree. We have to show our kids that math is the language of science. It is the only way they will realize that science is built from fundamentals and axioms. The rigor matters. Otherwise, you get people who think of what you term “concepts” like you think of a piece of literature- open to interpretation. We have get it across to kids that scientific “theories” are really nothing like concepts or theories in the humanities. This is not to say that scientific consensus cannot be challenged - but it cannot eve challenged in the same way you might challenge a legal opinion. They are not the same thing. And appreciating the connection between science and math is the only way to get that across. Trying to teach physics without math is like trying to teach history without documents. It just makes no sense.

And I disagree with you. Kids who simply are not good with math get nothing (except incredible stress and anxiety) out of science classes that could be interesting, but instead are heavy on higher math and formulas. I had a wonderful physics teacher in high school who engaged the class in the principles of physics without turning it into another math class. It can be done. And it should be an option for kids who have no plans or desire to pursue college level science or math.

My kid hates writing. I still expect him to take classes where they will judge him on his writing. At least through high school. The same should be true of math. Honestly math evolved to explain questions we had about the universe. How do you teach the relationship between acceleration, velocity and distance without invoking calculus (even if you don’t call it calculus)? Without math, these things looks like arbitrary equations.

In fact, physics is really the science of using math the explain the world around us. It would not be possible to do that without math. Now, the amount of math can vary. It is possible to teach basic Newtonian mechanics, optics and electromagnetism with nothing more complicated than algebra.

Math is the language in which God has written the universe- Galileo

[Anonymous]

I hate science and math. I am terrible at it. Albert Einstein said something like waste of time to memorize something you can find in a book.

I am a big thinker type of guy and I barely passed math classes as first I am bad and second math and science teachers are the worst. They latch on to the one or two bright kids and ignore the read.

I also terrible at foreign languages, finance, accounting, statistics.

Where did it leave me? VP and C level jobs where I do big picture things, presentations, public speaking, sales type jobs, board meetings. Building depts, IPO type events. All soft skills type A, outgoing skills

Guess what we are too many computer and math geeks at work not enough of leaders and motivators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate science and math. I am terrible at it. Albert Einstein said something like waste of time to memorize something you can find in a book.

I am a big thinker type of guy and I barely passed math classes as first I am bad and second math and science teachers are the worst. They latch on to the one or two bright kids and ignore the read.

I also terrible at foreign languages, finance, accounting, statistics.

Where did it leave me? VP and C level jobs where I do big picture things, presentations, public speaking, sales type jobs, board meetings. Building depts, IPO type events. All soft skills type A, outgoing skills

Guess what we are too many computer and math geeks at work not enough of leaders and motivators.

Maybe. Or maybe some folks prefer to follow people that have a good grasp or at least a lot of respect for math and science.

Soft skills are great but they are soft. Some decisions are best made with some cold hard scientific facts.

[Anonymous]

Not all professions require math, certainly not advanced math. Not sure of any that don’t require writing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate science and math. I am terrible at it. Albert Einstein said something like waste of time to memorize something you can find in a book.

I am a big thinker type of guy and I barely passed math classes as first I am bad and second math and science teachers are the worst. They latch on to the one or two bright kids and ignore the read.

I also terrible at foreign languages, finance, accounting, statistics.

Where did it leave me? VP and C level jobs where I do big picture things, presentations, public speaking, sales type jobs, board meetings. Building depts, IPO type events. All soft skills type A, outgoing skills

Guess what we are too many computer and math geeks at work not enough of leaders and motivators.

As a techie I agree wholeheartedly. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the folks who represent the company and get the contracts signed. I dislike and am horrible at that stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not all professions require math, certainly not advanced math. Not sure of any that don’t require writing.

Advanced math and science are not for everyone. Imo, I am going to encourage my kids to get a basic exposure to some basic and math disciplines to go through life with this information. Not necessarily advanced knowledge unless they choose to pursue it further.

Mine really hated and resisted physics initially but with some hard work and determination has grown to like it. She would have bailed I think without my insistance that should be part of her basic HS education. That is my philosophy and I realize other feel differently.

But know that no one escapes the basic laws of physics and it is useful to appreciate that. The car will behave differently on a dry road vs a wet road vs an icy road. That is just basic physics. Understand that and drive accordingly or risk having your car wrapped around a tree or be somewhere else you don't want it to be.

[Anonymous]

Students in high school have learned some physics, even if it's not a formal class. Perhaps not much, but some.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not all professions require math, certainly not advanced math. Not sure of any that don’t require writing.

Bingo.