Top Ten Things That Should Be In Every Undergraduate Physics Degree Course
I recently graduated with a physics degree from one of the highest ranking universities worldwide, soon to start a PhD in galaxy data cosmology, and I must say, I have accomplished a lot in the past four years. However, I feel that a lot of my developments as a scientist had to be taken into my own hands, as a number of things were missing from my course that would have prepared even the most underachieving students for the world of scientific research. As you meet more and more people in the community of physics, you learn a lot more about the aspects of degree courses from different institutions, and there are always subtle differences that makes your programme better or worse than theirs, but these can drastically influence what one learns from the course and what abilities one develops in the field. So here are some things which would make the perfect degree course, creating the most versatile and advanced skill set that a physicist could gain. Specifically, things that are readily available at some universities but not others, thereby making a huge difference in the quality of learning.The most outrageous aspect of my physics degree was the assessment of coursework, which constituted approximately a third of my total degree mark. The fact is that you have no control over who is assessing your coursework, and they have their own independent ideas about what constitutes a good submission.
This meant there was absolutely no sure-fire way to predict what you'd get back. I, for one, quickly became sick of being swindled and never received a shred of useful feedback to aid my future performance. The lack of consistency with this marking system has been a huge setback for several people, and it really isn't OK.
The solution? A clear set of rules that both the students and the assessors can follow. An honest, beneficial response to everyone based on these rules. A system in which we can be confident that our ardent commitment to the course will lead us to success. Is that really too much to ask?
Many people start a physics degree without any prior experience in computer programming. However, programming is crucial to scientific research and high-profile careers. If there is no introduction to computing in the first year, anyone in the scientific community would seriously question the credibility of the degree course.
I took several computing-based courses, which made me the computational physicist I am today. However, I wouldn't have learned nearly as much if I had only taken the core computing courses, as they barely prepare one for advanced use of programming in the workplace.
The core courses? An introduction to Python in the first year, covering basic calculations, data treatment, and simulations using SciPy and Pandas. In the second year, an introduction to object-oriented methods in Python, doing similar things as in the first year but in a new framework. There was nothing I hadn't already seen, at least to a moderate level of understanding.
The elective courses? They covered the mathematical and logical sequences involved in computer processing, applied to common calculation methods for computing differential equation solutions, data fitting and interpolation, computational Fourier analysis, and random number methodology. These were applied to physics situations such as position-dependent energy spectra of space plasmas. The courses also included experience in C++ and Fortran, providing a different approach to scientific computing.
In some institutions, advanced computing is taught as part of the core program, but it shocked me to learn that the majority of universities in the UK, including Oxford, do not grant students the opportunity to learn scientific computing to what I consider the bare minimum level of aptitude. Unless students take matters into their own hands, I fail to see how they would have the qualifications for the professions they entered the degree program to pursue. This is why I firmly believe that more... more
A new physics student might enroll in a standard physics degree program if they want an all-encompassing grasp of the subject. In most cases, these students make up the majority.
However, some universities also offer degree programs such as Physics with Chemistry, Physics with Astrophysics, and Physics with Theoretical Physics. These programs tailor module selection to the associated discipline while maintaining roughly the same number of hours.
Not only does this make your qualification more specialized, but it also guides students to make academic decisions in their best interest, especially if they intend to pursue a specific field. A large proportion of learning and experience will be weighted in that favor. This is beneficial, as taking one laser-related course does not turn you into a laser scientist.
It can be difficult for students to judge whether a certain course is worth taking for their academic interests. Why not have a set of guided systems put in place by the experts? Unfortunately, this isn't always available to students, either at all or for their particular area of expertise, and this can leave them making ill-informed choices.
The IOP has a list of subjects which, if covered in its entirety in any undergraduate degree course, qualify any graduated student as an accredited physicist. This includes electromagnetic interactions with matter, advanced quantum mechanics applied to atoms and high-energy particles, statistical thermodynamics, and advanced mathematics such as Fourier analysis and vector calculus.
In any good university, one will eventually cover all of this before graduation. At my university, however, all of it was covered and examined in the first two years, including a comprehensive exam on all previously covered material. This left the remaining years for far more advanced and specialized topics. This approach also enables students to take on prestigious research placements before they graduate, an invaluable asset to their academic record.
For those who do not have the same experience, they may be learning crucial core science very late in their course. This can compromise their understanding of such subjects and their aptitude for using what they've learned in the real world. It would simply be better for them to cover the basics early on, and evidence has shown that it can be done.
Regarding teaching the crucial aspects of modern physics, some topics aren't necessarily covered by every institution. Frankly, I am astounded that the IOP's list doesn't include the action principle, calculus of variations, and other concepts that underpin Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics, and their links to dynamical systems.
These topics are incredibly important, fundamental, and versatile. Whether or not one will use a Hamiltonian system directly in research, understanding this form of mathematics is a cornerstone of quantum mechanics and statistical physics. It is often completely glossed over if it is taught at all.
In combination with tensor algebra, Hamiltonian mechanics is a vital part of general relativity and quantum field theory. Although this information is optionally available in most cases, I honestly think everyone should be learning this.
LaTeX is an esteemed scientist's go-to document typesetting program, with countless advantages for implementing equations, tables, and figures into scientific writing. Yet, this is barely covered in a typical physics degree. Some places actively teach it, but many physics students go far through the course either not knowing anything about it or being completely daunted by the prospect of using it.
I believe a comprehensive introduction to LaTeX, similar to programming, should be given to every physics student at an early stage. It should be encouraged for submission of assignments such as lab reports, and students should be given advice on which LaTeX distribution to install based on their requirements. LaTeX is so commonplace in the world of science that every physics student should graduate with confidence in their abilities to use it.
A lot of scientific nomenclature is, to begin with, very difficult to understand. In a typical physics course, one is given very little, often inadequate, time to mull it over. The impact of this is very clear when one gets on to general relativity courses in one's final year. Half of the student feedback is complaining that they don't understand the notation used in lectures and exercises, which is quite frankly pathetic.
This complicated form of writing is absolutely necessary to generalize huge sets of equations with countless solutions or an extended integral across dozens of dimensions. A physicist may take it for granted, but that may be why it is overlooked. It should be taught early to take the pressure off later on and prepare one for understanding very useful mathematics at an early stage.
Object-oriented programming redefines the programming method. It allows you to organize every variable and every aspect of your calculations according to their class. However, aside from a few courses and modules that utilize it, it isn't really encouraged.
A lot of people instantly forget about it once they've crammed in what they needed to know for one assignment. Perhaps the way around this is to set more tasks that logically make use of it, or better still, to teach it in an object-oriented syntax such as C++.
The thing that bored me the most throughout my time as a physics student was the amount of material that was repeated months or years after it was introduced. The intent is often to touch up on things that people may have forgotten, which are important for the forthcoming topic.
That should be one lecture MAX. But no, even half the course can be devoted to retelling what we've been told already, which is incredibly frustrating when you just want to get on with the new topic. The nature of the physics course means that we work extensively on the topic in our own time, so by the time the new term takes place, we already understand the prerequisite material well enough.
The time we lose because of these cover-ups could be devoted to subjects that require more thorough explanation and practice. This compromises the efficiency of learning throughout the course.
A physics degree means you'll be covering some very advanced mathematical techniques in lectures and doing some mathematics by hand. However, in practice, when doing research and working with big data, some of which will have been acquired in the lab, you will be doing it computationally. That is an entirely different game. You may be familiarizing yourself with the functionality of a module or designing one yourself.
The amount of practice I had to do just to implement a Fourier Transform to a CMB data subset was absurd. It would have been nice to have had some preparation from the physics course. Many students have trouble putting theoretically simple concepts into computational practice. While SciPy introductions can be useful, more rigorous training is often needed.
Teaching it all at once would be unrealistic, so doing lab and computing work that applies these concepts as they are covered in lectures would constitute a much better and simpler development of one's scientific versatility.
It shortens all of one's matrix equations to one simple, compact expression and is so widely used that one might as well get some ironclad instruction in it.